1969-11-20

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, let me try a
motion again in respect of airport ground transportation. If the House gives unanimous consent I should like to recommend the following order:
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be directed to examine the subject matter of ground transportation at airports in Canada,
And that during its consideration of the aforementioned matter the committee be empowered to meet in Toronto and Montreal.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the changes that have been made the motion is more acceptable to us. One hon. member of this party wishes to make a comment. I recognize that this is out of order but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think comments should be made or that a debate should take place until there is either unanimous consent or some other disposition.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We do not want to withhold unanimous consent to this motion because we realize it is important. At the same time, I want to point out to Your Honour and the House that the committee has already been given a reference but has not yet had the opportunity of considering it. This reference was put forward by the Acting House Leader on November 3.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that this is a matter of debate which might be considered when the motion is put to the House. There is a very simple matter to be considered now, whether or not there is unanimous consent. If there is no
unanimous consent, the motion will not be put. If there is, I will put the motion and then the hon. member for St. John's East and all other members of the House, if they wish, can take part in the debate and present arguments such as those the hon. member is now trying to make by way of a point of order, which is entirely irregular. Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be directed to examine the subject matter of ground transportation at airports in Canada,
And that during its consideration of the aforementioned matter the committee be empowered to meet in Toronto and Montreal.


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to ask, at the time the Government House Leader was seeking unanimous consent, for an assurance before I gave consent. I wanted him to agree that the committee would in fact take under consideration the reference it now has as set out in Hansard for November 3 at page 398.
This reference has to do with a study by the committee of the subject matters referred to it at the last session in relation to the Great Slave Lake Railway line and transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces. It also is to consider the evidence presented to the committee last session. Let me point out to the House that the committee has not yet considered this reference. I should like to extract from the Government House Leader an assurance that before the committee considers the new reference it will give priority to the reference now before it as set out on page 398 of Hansard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to follow the hon. member's suggestion that I should give instructions to any committee. I am sure his remarks have reached the ears of the members of the subcommittee on procedure and organization of
November 20, 1969

Airport Ground Transportation that committee and that they will make a decision in this regard.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on this motion. I agree completely with the hon. member for St. John's East in respect of his reservations about giving unanimous consent. We have now given unanimous consent that this subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
In the past month this committee has had ample opportunity to sit. It has not sat to consider the matters that were put before it and has not brought down a report on its trip to Labrador and northern Quebec. Since that trip there has been an airplane crash at Labrador City which could well indicate that there is a great need for the Department of Transport to provide better services at that airport. During last year's sittings of the committee evidence was heard with regard to the Great Slave Lake Railway claims. I think these two matters particularly should be dealt with first.
I do not in any way wish to suggest that the complaints of many citizens of Montreal against the Murray Hill taxi operation from Dorval airport to downtown Montreal should be set aside for any length of time. I do suggest, however, that there are other important matters before the, committee. It is a question of priority with us on this side of the House. We believe that those matters which came up first should be dealt with first. Perhaps the Government House Leader and the committee chairman will see that these matters are dealt with in that order. If they do, we will do our best to facilitate the work of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the discussion on this point should not proceed further. It seems to me hon. members are attempting to debate the order of business of a committee. If I recollect correctly what occurred yesterday, it seems to me the argument put forward for consideration by the Chair was that these matters ought to be left to the committee to decide. If hon. members were correct yesterday, as I thought they were, they are equally correct today. I believe these matters should be considered by the committee and not by the House at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-156, to implement a supplementary income tax agreement between Canada and Sweden.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I saw the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the House a moment ago. Now that he has returned I should like to ask him, in view of certain remarks he made yesterday in Winnipeg, whether it is his position and the position of the government that the hospital plans operated by the provinces are generally inefficient in terms of operation and particularly in terms of cost control?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Naiional Health and Welfare):: I did not say they were generally inefficient.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not say the minister said that.


Mr. Woolliams:: Another misquote.


John Carr Munro: No, I do not think it was even stated in the press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Perhaps the hon. member cannot read the press very accurately, but I did say-and I think it is acknowledged by many in the field including many representatives of the provinces-that there are very sizeable areas within the whole hospital structure in the provinces where substantial waste could be eliminated, and it is one of the purposes of the meeting next week between myself and the provincial Ministers of Health to study the reports we have and try to isolate these areas to see what can be done about them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question. As I interpret the minister's answer, he
November 20, 1969	COMMONS
is in effect saying yes, but in his own way. I should like to ask him whether, for example, in lieu of suggesting to the doctors how they should conduct their practices, the minister would consider increasing the federal government funds available to assist and encourage the construction of institutions which can be operated at a lower cost than active treatment hospitals?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the items that will undoubtedly be raised for consideration at the conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure it will be. I asked the minister whether he and the government are considering increasing the funds available, not whether the subject will be raised at the conference.


John Carr Munro: As I endeavoured to indicate, we have just received these reports. The various provincial governments and ourselves have had them for about three or four weeks, and until we make a joint analysis of them and determine what are the appropriate remedies that can be applied the federal government can make no decision, nor can the provincial governments, with reference to the matter which the Leader of the Opposition has just raised or with reference to any other matters.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can he indicate what the government's plans are for the introduction of medicare in the northern territories?


John Carr Munro: I cannot give a definite decision on that matter at the moment.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister elucidate whether he implied in his remarks that he intends to establish some sort of system of policing what type of patients should be admitted to hospitals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must intervene at this point and apologize to the House, particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, for the fact that I allowed his question in the first instance. It is well known to hon. members that normally questions cannot be asked directly about statements outside the House except for questions asked of the Prime Minister inviting him to indicate whether a statement represents government policy. However, I was not quite prepared when the question period started and that is why the question 21362-66
DEBATES	1029
Inquiries of the Ministry was allowed. But I do not think the supplementary question should be allowed, certainly not in the way it was asked.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I may say with respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you should apologize for making any error in allowing the question because the question I asked was directly related to what is in fact the attitude and the policy of the government. It is true I did not succeed in getting an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I feel much better now that I know I was in order.



EXPORT OF ARMS TO UNITED STATES- INQUIRY AS TO SELECTIVE EMBARGO

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister arises out of the annual report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which indicates that Canada's exports of arms to the United States last year amounted to $320 million, bringing to a total of over $2 billion our exports of arms to the United States over the last ten years. Having in mind the growing disenchantment both in the United States and in Canada with the Viet Nam war, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to following the example of Sweden and imposing a selective embargo upon exports of arms to the United States for the duration of the present hostilities in Viet Nam?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if his answer indicates the logical fulfilment of the principle which he enunciated last year with reference to Canada's complicity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question being asked by the hon. member is surely couched in an argumentative form. Perhaps it might be asked more directly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister if his statement today means that the government's' policy is summed up in his own phrase, that Canada's complicity in Viet Nam must be measured in terms that we have to choose between dirty hands or empty bellies?
November 20. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, on November 6, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether officials of his department have been in touch with the governments of Quebec and Ontario regarding the diversion of the waters of the James bay basin called the Grand Canal project. I also asked him whether the federal government was carrying on the studies conducted on the subject.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, during these past two or three years, some officials of my department have had discussions on several occasions with representatives of the governments of Ontario and Quebec about various questions regarding water resources but not about the diversion project called "Grand Canal" nor any other such project.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer and I wish to ask him a supplementary question.
I would like to know whether it is a fact that the government of Canada is sharing in the cost of the studies made by the Ontario government and whether, according to the announcement made by the Minister of Natural Resources of Quebec, the government of that province can expect to receive the same assistance that was granted to Ontario?
Could the minister tell us whether the government is giving financial assistance to Ontario and Quebec concerning the diversion of waters from James bay?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the supplementary question could be put on the order paper or debated at the time of adjournment.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the epochal judgment rendered today by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of an


Indian, Joseph Drybones, of the Northwest Territories, in which that court upheld the authority of the Canadian Bill of Rights in providing and assuring that all Canadians shall have equal rights and that Indians shall not be placed in a lower category because of the provisions of the Indian Act. If he is not in a position at the moment to deal with this momentous decision upholding the Bill of Rights in its entirety so far as discrimination is concerned, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions in a day or so?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the right hon. gentleman that this is a very important decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. I happen to have followed the course of that decision since it was first rendered by Mr. Justice Morrow of the Northwest Territories Court. I would like to read the judgment and consider the right hon. gentleman's suggestion.



JUDGMENT IN CASE OF HUNTING INFRACTION BY ESKIMO

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is so closely related as to be supplementary, dealing with a judgment of the same Mr. Justice Morrow of the Northwest Territories which held that an Eskimo was guilty of a hunting infraction under the Territorial Ordinance Act despite the fact that the offence took place on an ice floe more than three miles from the shoreline. Would the minister indicate if instructions were given to counsel to prosecute and secure conviction in spite of that fact?


John Napier Turner: had better take that one as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider the possibility of facilitating any appeal on this issue and, if such appeal is taken, is it the intention of the minister to continue to instruct counsel for the Crown to press for maintenance of the conviction despite the fact that the alleged offence took place more than three miles from the shoreline on an ice floe? It is time this government substituted some backbone instead of the wishbone it has shown on this issue.
November 20, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1031
Inquiries of the Ministry
SPORTS	the minister taking any special steps to
assistance to Canadian ski PATHOL improve our export performance in this area?


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the rapid approach of winter, may I ask if reconsideration will be given to assisting the Canadian Ski Patrol financially? This organization has won acclaim all over the world and will now have to cut back on its work if it cannot get assistance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not heard of any request made to the government by the Canadian Ski Patrol, Mr. Speaker.



RECOMMENDATIONS TO U.S. CONGRESS REGARDING TARIFF REDUCTIONS

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received from the United States government a detailed list of the recommendations made to Congress by the late President Kennedy in regard to tariff reductions, removal of non-tariff areas and other related matters which have a considerable effect on Canadian trade?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it came from the United States government or the Canadian Embassy in Washington, but I have the list of presidential suggestions here. Generally speaking we consider that they are favourable in the sense that they would lead the United States toward freer trade with the world.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After the minister and his officials have studied these proposals, would he make a statement on motions indicating to the House what is likely to be the effect on Canadian trade?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I shall consider that, Mr. Speaker.



DECLINE IN EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that up to last August Canadian exports to Britain had declined by $35 million from a year earlier, is 21362-661


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is inviting the minister to make a statement which should be made on motions. The minister said he would consider doing so and I assume he will include the point raised by the hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is prompted by the recent and most welcome intimation that the government is studying a report on the establishment of a free trade area with Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean. Can the minister advise if any consideration is being given, even in a preliminary way, to exploring the possibility of closer relationships, even political union, with any of the smaller Commonwealth Caribbean islands?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: To the final part of that question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether his department is investigating the charge made by the Canadian director of the United Auto Workers that the Ford Maverick car produced at St. Thomas and exported to the United States is sold there for $380 less than in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This point has been raised on a number of occasions recently, Mr. Speaker. These things happen. It is quite possible that a company's general marketing policies give rise to this situation. It arises in other Canadian industries also.


David Orlikow: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the charge is true, will the government reconsider its position under the United States-Canada auto pact?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. meim ber's question is hypothetical.
COMMONS DEBATES	November 20. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


ACCEPTANCE OF PAYMENT IN SOFT CURRENCIES
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In light of the serious lag in Canadian wheat sales and the resulting economic plight of western farmers, would the minister give consideration to taking so-called soft currencies in payment for wheat and other cereal grains and oilseeds?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I shall pass this question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, of course the question of sales of grain is in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board, as the hon. member knows. Sales have in the past been made for currencies other than dollars and will be so made in the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of complaints being made about the growing cost of marketing grain, would the minister recommend to the appropriate committee that it take a look at the Canadian Wheat Board and the question of marketing costs at this time in order to find out what it actually costs to market a bushel of wheat? I ask that because we are in competition with the rest of the world.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give consideration to that representation.


FLAX-REPORTED LACK OF SUPPLIES FOR EXPORT
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Speaker. Further to the question I asked on November 7 in regard to adequate supplies of flax at the Lakehead, and in view of the fact that at present there are approximately only 1.4 million bushels of flax in position for export there, can the minister tell the House what steps have been taken to ensure that additional supplies of flax are moved into export position at that point?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my answer to the previous question, the Canadian Wheat Board has been giving top priority

to the movement of flax. Accordingly, any handler or owner of flax in the market can move flax into position. The actual movement of the flax then depends on the decision of that owner or handler.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of how this grain is called forward. I asked the minister what additional steps have been taken to ensure that something happens.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Further to the question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio if he has now completed his investigations and determined if flax sales were lost, as reported? Also, has the government given active consideration to placing flax and other oilseed crops under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my investigations have gone so far as to indicate that a definitive answer to that question is not likely to be possible. With respect to the other issue involving flax and rapeseed, I have indicated previously that this is the sort of question which deserves fundamental examination.


REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE OF WHEAT BOARD BEFORE COMMITTEE
John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I direct another question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. Since the agricultural committee did not complete its studies of the annual report of the Wheat Board, can the minister assure the House at this time that during the fall and winter months the Wheat Board will be called before that committee so that the annual report can be thoroughly studied and so that future actions of the Wheat Board can also be taken into consideration?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Wheat Board will be available for the committee to question. Of course, I should like to leave the question of specific timing for discussion with the committee itself.


SASKATCHEWAN PLAN TO BARTER WHEAT FOR MACHINERY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the Canadian Wheat Board and the Department of Industry, Trade
November 20, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1033
and Commerce worked out any arrangement with the Saskatchewan government whereby they can facilitate its program of exchanging wheat for power generating equipment purchased outside Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask if any request has come from the Saskatchewan government to have such an arrangement facilitated by the government of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between the department and various members of the government and the government of Saskatchewan in connection with the issue of barter wheat. It was indicated to the government of Saskatchewan that no one can, of course, stop the Saskatchewan Power Corporation or any other similar body or company in Canada from buying Canadian wheat and doing whatever they like with it. But we also indicated to the government of Saskatchewan that the question of the barter of wheat was a very delicate one and that barter is not in the interests of the farmer in view of the stability now being developed in regard to the price of wheat in the world.


John George Diefenbaker: Stability indeed!


MOVEMENT FROM NORTHERN ALBERTA- ACCEPTANCE OF INITIAL QUOTA-AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT
Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is well known that in northern Alberta the harvest has been only 20 per cent of what was expected and that the elevators are still filled to capacity, will the minister indicate why grain has not been moving out of northern Alberta? What is he prepared to do about this matter at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, the movement of certain grains, wheat in particular, has been somewhat slower for a part of this year, but it is now picking up with the Chinese deliveries now coming on line. Grains such as barley, rapeseed and flax have been moving more rapidly than in the previous year.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House and country when the Wheat Board will be able to accept the initial quota for this crop season from the farmers?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board is making every effort to have shipment of sufficient grain from every point in order to allow a unit quota to be delivered by all farmers. This is a high priority item and boxcars are being allocated to this end but of course in a manner that is consistent with the demands of the market for particular types of grain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps one last supplementary question might be allowed at this time. If there is time we could return to this subject in a few moments.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister is reported to have stated outside the House that the government intended to bring in certain amendments to the Wheat Board Act which I understand would have the effect of restricting the general ambit of the powers now being exercised by the Wheat Board. Will the minister not say what the nature of the contemplated changes is and when the amendments will be brought before the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I presume that since the right hon. gentleman reads my clippings he will have read the second clipping which indicated exactly what in fact we had in mind. It said that many questions relating to the sale and marketing of wheat would be considered. The answer to which the right hon. gentleman is now referring was an answer to the effect that the Canadian Wheat Board does a very good job indeed, in my opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: And what did the third clipping say?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we go further I think I should caution both the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member that we cannot allow a debate on what was said and what was not said. Perhaps the question might be asked directly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to get this clear, because there was an original version and now there is a revised version.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: And now there is a revised, revised version.
November 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that the hon. member tor Saskatoon-Biggar is anxious to ask a supplementary question. I said a moment ago that perhaps we might return to the subject in a few moments and allow other hon. members to ask questions about other subjects for a few minutes.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Government House Leader, who is in the House but not in his seat. It is a very important and urgent question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Tally-ho! Here he comes.


James Aloysius McGrath: I put it to him with all the sincerity and humility I can muster, Mr. Speaker. Will he bring in appropriate terms of reference as soon as possible so that the Standing Committee on Regional Development can continue its important work of pointing the way to the groping Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the interest being shown by district six of the United Steelworkers of America in the Prices and Incomes Commission, will the "minister of consumer affairs and high prices" inform the House if the commission has been instructed to investigate the inflationary price increases announced by Inco?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot accept the question as asked.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It relates to a matter which has been dhe subject of questions on the Order Paper and also the subject of correspondence. It is of great urgency to quite a few people. Can the minister say when a reciprocal agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany on the question of pensions will be concluded?	.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. member that negotiations are now going on between the West German government and Canada to this end. It is hoped that this agreement can be concluded shortly.


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps he would be kind enough to take it as notice if he does not have an immediate reply. What provision is being made to have immediately available a reserve ship on the Borden-Cape Tormentine run this winter in case of a breakdown of either of the two operating ships, in view of the fact that apparently it is the intention to have the Confederation and the Lucy Maud Montgomery tied up in Halifax for the winter months?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Transport is not required to be in the House on Thursdays, but I will be pleased to bring the matter to his attention and he will provide an answer in the next few days.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell us if he has decided who will be appointed language commissioner and, if so, when can we expect that appointment?


An hon. Member:: Be patient!


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the choice has not yet been made, but I think the hon. member will not have to wait too long.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance and sensitivity of this appointment, does the minister plan to follow the example of the Minister of Justice and consult with the provinces before the appointment is made?
November 20, 1969


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, all necessary consultations will take place; as a matter of fact they are already under way.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
The Canada Council has just increased its grants in aid of publishing and University exchanges from $119,300 to $800,000 and has announced that other grants would be increased later. Would the minister tell us whether such increases are permissible under the austerity program?


Mr. Speaker:: As this question appears controversial, I do not believe it is in order at the present time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Erik Nielsen: My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the House whether it is his intention to make a statement with respect to the constitutional and administrative reform of the administration of justice in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


John Napier Turner: had not anticipated doing so, but I did today issue a release simultaneously in Ottawa, Yellowknife and Whitehorse expressing the willingness of the federal government to negotiate with the territorial governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories toward a gradual transfer of the function of administration of justice, short of the office of the Attorney General, to the territorial governments, based on the premise that the transfer of these functions would also entail negotiation under the general financial agreements between the territories and the federal government.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has made this release and since tomorrow we will have a debate with respect to government policies concerning northern development and constitutional development generally, would the minister please make a statement on motions tomorrow as a kick-off for that debate?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thanks for the leak.


Erik Nielsen: Could the minister say, Mr. Speaker, whether he would be disposed to make such a statement tomorrow morning?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Yukon, whom I am delighted to see here, wants to involve me in a statement on motions. It might well be that the proper place would be in the debate. I want to consult with my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Erik Nielsen: I just wanted to make sure the minister would not high-tail it off to Harrison Hot Springs tomorrow.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I ask the minister to look into the practice followed by Devco of hiring employees from overseas while there are qualified men in Cape Breton who can do the work and have been doing it for years.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I have not looked into that, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of it. Has the hon. member any information to supply to
me?


An hon. Member:: You are the minister; wake up.



INQUIRY AS TO CONTINENTAL POLICY

['The answer to that question is yes. The question we have not decided is whether there will be one or more papers; I expect there will be more than one.']
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Prime Minister with reference to a continental oil policy. I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in the House. Perhaps I could direct the same question to him. Is the Canadian government now suggesting and advocating a continental oil policy and has the United States indicated that they too favour such a policy at this time?


John James Greene: Since the initiative of the Prime Minister on March 24 and 25 in his meeting with the President of the United States, we have been having mutual discussions with our United States counterparts
November 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry with respect to our oil and energy policies. We are pursuing full negotiations with our United States counterparts in that regard. The term "continental oil policy" means different things to different people. I am not quite sure just what it means to my hon. friend, but we have been exploring the fullest possible access for Canadian oil to be exported to the United States market. That is the purpose of our discussions and the Canadian posture in this regard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the minister for his statement and I hope he is successful in this regard. I wish to follow through with the supplementary question I directed to the Prime Minister. I asked whether this is the policy of the government and whether the discussions with the United States with regard to the export of crude petroleum and natural gas involve the export of water from Canadian rivers and other sources?


John James Greene: There have been no discussions with respect to the export of water, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question which was referred to the minister. Therefore I ask the minister this important question. Is the export of natural gas being left entirely to the provinces for decision or is the federal government taking an interest in permits to export natural gas with a view to raising the ceiling on the amount of oil imported from Canada by the United States?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the export of natural gas is under the authority, control and jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. We have not considered in our discussions with the United States, and I do not think it should be done, the question of using gas as a weapon in order to achieve a greater oil market. We have been discussing mutual energy policies in general, which include gas, oil, coal-the full complement of energy. We are quite prepared to discuss with our United States friends all these items in concert for the greatest benefit of the producers in Canada as well as Canadian people generally.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: A supplementary question concerning the pricing of natural gas. In view of the indication that because of the demand from the United States the price of natural gas may rise in

Canada, is the minister considering a two-price policy for natural gas to maintain a preferred price in Canada?


John James Greene: We have not considered such a policy, Mr. Speaker. I doubt very much whether an efficient industry able to compete in the United States market as well as our own could be conceived on a two-price system, but certainly we will take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about automobiles?



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the Speech from the Throne it was stated that white papers would be presented as part of a comprehensive revision of government policy on a number of subjects, including external affairs and defence. Is this comprehensive white paper on external affairs in the course of preparation, and how soon may we expect it in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that question is yes. The question we have not decided is whether there will be one or more papers; I expect there will be more than one.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he aware of the situation that is developing in the plywood industry which will have the consequence of inflating the cost of shelter or housing across Canada, since manufacturers of fir plywood are increasing their prices by 5 to 10 per cent on sheathing and finished grades of plywood? Will the minister have his department investigate this exorbitant increase?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisler of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I have not seen the report to which my hon. friend's question refers. I appreciate his deep concern about the price of plywood, which he has expressed to me on a number of occasions, and I will see that my officials look into the matter.
November 20, 1969


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? There are just two minutes left of the question period, and unless there is unanimous agreement that the hon. member should be allowed-


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Since all the manufacturers of fir plywood have raised their prices within a few days, would the minister investigate the possibility that some association is co-ordinating and controlling these prices?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure what is implied in the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will certainly consider it; I am anxious to consult with my hon. friend on his ideas.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it follows an earlier question on the price of the Maverick, is the minister aware that the Ford Motor Company of Canada has increased the prices of certain 1970 models during the last month. This is in addition to the increases announced on the introduction date.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: My question is for the Minister of Justice. I would ask him whether a selection has yet been made to fill the present vacancy on the county court bench in Prince Edward Island, and how soon we can expect an announcement in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be
placed on the Order Paper. Does the hon. member raise a point of order?


Melvin James McQuaid: Yes, Your Honour. The urgency of the question arises from the fact that I have some personal business to attend to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: On those very valid grounds the question might be allowed.
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



TETRACYCLINE-ALLEGED FRAUD BY U.S. COMPANIES IN OBTAINING PATENT

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: This question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this year I questioned the minister concerning a United States government damage suit for $25 million against American Cyanamid and Charles Pfizer and Company for fraudulently obtaining a patent for the antibiotic drug tetracycline. I asked the minister whether his department was investigating possible similar fraudulence in Canada with respect to the same companies-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
member kindly put her question.


Donald MacInnis: I hope I shall get there soon. The minister assured me that his officials would be getting in touch with United States officials to determine whether there was a basis for investigation in Canada. Now I come to the punch line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: Could he now inform us of the result of this action.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The assurance I gave the hon. member at that time still stands but, as she knows, actions taken under the Combines Investigation Act are not made public until revealed in the director's annual report or until action is instituted in the courts.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, November 17, I asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State was extending government policy beyond the present practice when he reportedly said that French would be used as the working language in units of the Public Service. The right hon. gentleman informed me that he would look at the statement and tell the House what the Secretary of State had said and whether it amounted to an extension of government policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: After the question was put to me I immediately asked the Secretary of State about the

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
matter and he said he could not identity precisely the statement quoted by the hon. member. If the hon. member will try to find the source and help the Secretary of State identify it, we might be able to reply.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State. At the opening of the Public Service Language School a week ago last Wednesday, was the hon. gentleman speaking from notes or from a prepared text when he was reported, in three press reports, to have said that French would be, or could be expected to be, the working language in units of the public service?


Gérard Pelletier: was speaking from a text and I will gladly refer to it to see whether I expressed myself exactly in the form quoted.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not remember receiving the text on this occasion. Could the minister send copies of that address to myself and perhaps to other hon. members, as is customary?


Gérard Pelletier: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John James Greene: that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I feel I must rise and say to Your Honour and to the House that in my submission this question can not properly be put before the House because it is in violation of Standing Order 62 and is also in violation of the British North America Act in that it provides, within the four corners of the bill, for an imposition of taxation and the appropriation of tax moneys

for purposes not covered in the message sent to this House by His Excellency the Governor General.
There has been no previous opportunity to raise this matter because, of course, on first reading we do not really know what are the contents of the bill; this is the first occasion upon which the measure has really been put to the House. I say, too, that unlike the somewhat similar case I raised with regard to Bill S-3 from the Senate, the defect which, I contend, does exist could be cured by an amendment to the recommendation and/or an amendment to the legislation.
So, I preface my argument by pointing out that I do not intend to suggest this debate should not proceed. If Your Honour feels there has been a substantial case made, and decides to give the matter further consideration after subsequent argument, the debate should not be held up. It should proceed, and if Your Honour and the House feels I am right, the government may then consider what amendments should be introduced. My duty is to place suitable restraints on the government when I think it is not complying with our rules.
Just so the record will show this, the pertinent authorities are contained in Section 54 of the B.N.A. Act which states:
It shall not be lawful-
I emphasize those words.
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill-
In my submission, any bill brought before this House which is not properly authorized should be identified as such. This is true not only in respect of the passage of this bill but in respect of the responsibilities that accompany its passage. It is not for Your Honour to consider the constitutionality of this measure. That may be decided as a result of people challenging the law later in the courts. The words are very pertinent. The section reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill is proposed.
In confirmation of that, Standing Order 62 reads:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended
November 20, 1969

to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
There is, in fact, a recommendation from His Excellency, which appears at the appropriate place in the printed form before us, and which provides-I am skipping the formal part:
-has recommended . . . the present measure to provide for the management of the water resources . . . including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources-
The recommendation also indicates that this measure is:
-to provide also that all expenditures for the purposes of the Act including any expenses or allowances of any advisory committee, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor.
I think the common sense meaning of these words is in accordance with their interpretation by the late Auditor General, Watson Sellar, that there must be a vote in respect of the appropriation. It is inadequate to provide that these payments be effected without an annual vote because the recommendation also indicates:
-all expenditures for the purpose of the Act, including any expenses or allowances of any advisory committee shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament.
There cannot be any statutory appropriation, but must be an annual vote.
Let me refer directly to what I consider to be the repugnant parts of clause 16(2)(d) which reads:
The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing with respect to each water quality management area,
(d) the effluent discharge fees, if any, to be paid by any person to the agency incorporated or named in respect thereof for the deposit of waste in the waters comprising such area and the persons by whom such fees are payable and the time or times at which and the manner in which such fees will be paid.
Clause 8 reads:
Except in quantities and under conditions prescribed with respect to waste disposal in the water quality management area in question, including the payment of any effluent discharge fee prescribed therefor, no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of any type in any waters comprising a water quality management designated-
My submission is that these clauses, when read together, suggest that under certain conditions, and on the payment of what is improperly described as a fee-it really constitutes a toll or a tax-individuals or corporations may in fact deposit polluted material,
Water Resources
waste or effluent discharges under the conditions which are laid down. The payments or fees may be prescribed from time to time by the Governor in Council. This is like saying we give you in advance a dispensation for the sin you may be committing. At this time let me give you the closest example I can think of which resembles this situation. In some of our public washrooms, on payment of a specified amount we can make use of the facilities. One might think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), after leading the nation out of the bedrooms, may have deposited us in a rather difficult position in the bathrooms.


John James Greene: Put in your dime.


Gerald William Baldwin: When reading these two clauses of Bill C-144 together, they indicate that permission is given to the Governor in Council to set a tariff of tolls payable by persons designated by the Governor in Council in respect of the deposit of pollution of a stated kind and under conditions which may be set down. We are giving these persons permission to pollute our waters, and forgiving them on the payment of an appropriate toll. You may call it a fee or anything you want, but it is the character of that payment we must consider.
I suggest to you with all the sincerity I can command that these fees, as they are called, are not in fact fees. They are tolls in respect of which there is a right to commit a breach of our regulations. This permits one to legally commit a breach of the prohibition against the discharge of polluted material.
There are technical arguments I could make and I may have an opportunity to do so later. Anyone examining the definition and the use of the word "fee" knows that it simply means you pay money for a specific purpose. If I pay a fee, the State provides me with a service. These charges are not fees or service charges. Let me point out to Your Honour the very close resemblance the regulations for the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence seaway have to the principle of this measure. I am referring to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act of 1951, as subsequently amended. That act provided that those waters could be used for the purposes of navigation for the benefit of the people on the payment of a tariff of tolls, and a tariff of tolls was imposed. If one examines the surrounding document one will find that the recommendation of the Governor General provided that it would be expedient for the government to establish a tariff of tolls.

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
If it was considered essential in 1951 that the use of these waters for one purpose required the payment of a toll and the Governor General should make a recommendation covering this, why should it not be essential that the use of water for the carriage of effluent material requires precisely the same treatment? I suggest that by calling this a fee we cannot cover the situation. The name means nothing; it is the character of the imposition that is important.
The other side of the coin must also be considered. What is going to be done with the money collected? Let me refer Your Honour to clause 16(2) (d) which provides that these fees shall be collected by an agency to be constituted under the provisions of this act. Such an agency would in fact be the agent of Her Majesty, and the fees would then be utilized by that agency or authority for such purposes as it saw fit, including the payment of salaries and other things it deemed essential.
[DOT] (3.10 p.m.)
Here we have a device whereby the government could collect fees from individuals and corporations without any appropriation, without any message from His Excellency and without any authorization to collect such fees. The fees may be then appropriated in such form as the Governor in Council may have authorized the agency to provide through proper by-laws. If that is the case, what is to stop our very genial Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) saying that no person shall dispose of any property, real or personal, without first securing a permit from him, and that he shall not secure that permit until the property has been valued and a fee paid amounting to 50 per cent of the increase in value. Does calling the amount sought to be obtained as a condition precedent to the sale of real or personal property make it any less a tax? It is a tax; it is a toll. We had an example of this type of tax in my province some years ago when we collected an unearned increment tax. It was a tax which provided for a 10 per cent charge on the increased value of real property. That was collected by the land titles office at the same time that office collected a fee in respect of registration. A solicitor would go there on behalf of a client and give one payment to cover both.
There was a clear distinction between paying the unearned increment tax and paying the fee. I suggest the government cannot bring in this bill in this way unless it first secures from the Governor in Council an 
appropriate amendment to the message or amends the Act. If the bill is allowed in this form, then I point out to Your Honour that any private member would be free to bring in a bill which would provide for the imposition of what the private member considered to be a fee, without the appropriate message from His Excellency, and the officials of this House would be obliged to receive it. I ask Your Honour once more to read and reflect upon the limitations in the wording of the message:
-including any expenses or allowances of any advisory committee, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor.
This device to raise money in the way suggested does not comply with the recommendation set out here because it cannot in any sense be considered as moneys appropriated by Parliament. I suggest Your Honour might consider these arguments and hopefully rule as I have requested you to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out, the matters he has raised relate to a technicality which he believes can be cured and which need not stand in the way of the House proceeding today with a debate on second reading. Nevertheless, I support his contention that the technicality is an important one. It may be argued that the requirement of approval from the Governor General is antiquated and is something we should do away with in our procedures because, after all, the Governor General approves whatever the government wants him to approve. But so long as the technicality is there, it seems to me we should observe it.
It strikes me also that Your Honour would have a particular interest in this matter because we who are private members do our best to propose matters which cost money. It is amazing the number of problems which could be solved if we could just get the money for them. Your Honour has repeatedly told members of the House that that right is reserved to those in this House of Commons who can obtain a recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General. Therefore, it seems to me there is an importance about this matter that deserves the attention the hon. member for Peace River has asked you to give it.
As has been pointed out, Section 54 of the British North America Act is quite clear. It reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or
November 20, 1969

Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
Standing Order 62, I believe it is, brings forward the same language. It is on the basis of this section in the British North America Act, and our own rule, that great care is always taken with the resolution to see to it that the Governor General's recommendation does cover all the points in a proposed bill that involve the appropriation of money or the imposition of a tax, fee or what have you. As I say, that is clear. Your Honour has to rely frequently on that provision when you rule out of order amendments or bills proposed by private members.
I believe it is also clear that the Governor General's recommendation attached to Bill C-144 does not include the aspect of the bill to which the hon. member for Peace River has drawn attention. Let me read that recommendation:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources; to provide also that all expenditures for the purposes of the Act, including any expenses or allowances of any advisory committee, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor.
Now, that is very clear. It indicates that the Governor General has approved of a proposition under which all the moneys to be used for the purposes of this Act shall be paid for out of moneys appropriated therefor by Parliament. But the bill provides that in addition to that there is another way in which money can be raised. It can be raised by agencies set up under this bill which have the right to collect a sin licence fee in advance. We must not get too much into the substance of this bill; we can deal with that later. But an interesting question is raised when we say, in effect, that it shall be unlawful to pollute the waters of Canada but if you pay a licence fee in advance you may do so. That is a matter of substance. We can go into that later.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
My professorial friend behind me says it is a matter of syntax. Syntax, or sin tax. I shall be interested in seeing how Hansard spells it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Too much of it will be "sewer side".
Water Resources


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is an "effluence" of bad jokes over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am enjoying it too, and I suspect that no one in the place enjoys these puns more than Your Honour. Some of us who have been with you on social occasions know your predilection for them.
However, to get back to the argument, which after all is more important than the puns, my friend the minister says the argument is not good. It seems to me that it is simple and clear. The constitution and our rules say that the Governor General's recommendation must cover all appropriations provided in the bill, all moneys to be raised under the bill. But the Governor General's recommendation provides that the only way that the money is to be obtained is through appropriating it by parliament. Then, the bill comes along and provides that a fee or a tax can be imposed on people for the right to evade certain clauses of the bill. The clauses that bring this point out into the open are clause 8, which refers to the possibility of the people who are managing our water having the right to require payment of effluent discharge fees provided under this bill; clause 14 which makes certain provisions for the same type of thing, namely fees for putting effluents into our waters; and clause 16 (2) (d) which provides for effluent discharge fees.
It seems to me that these provisions are beyond what has been spelled out in the Governor General's recommendation, and that in that sense the bill is defective. Like the hon. member for Peace River, I do not think that this fact should deter the House from going on with the debate today, but at some point the government should wait upon His Excellency the Governor General to see if he will not approve of this other aspect of the bill or perhaps an amending bill will have to be introduced. Alternatively, perhaps the government will decide that a sin tax is not really a good things to put into our laws.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has been agreed among representatives of the parties that the debate on this bill will go beyond one sitting day. Therefore I agree that, as hon. members have suggested, we should proceed with the debate. I will have the opportunity of consulting counsel on this question and deciding whether or not it would be appropriate for the government to bring in an amended recommendation.

November 20, 1969
Water Resources


Gerald William Baldwin: I will be available tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the advice given me. I may say that at first blush, and even without the benefit of the advice of the President of the Privy Council, I have serious doubts about the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River. It seems to me that there may be a misapprehension as to what is sought by this bill. Without going into the matter in great detail or at length, may I say that a recommendation was obtained from the Governor General, as is indicated in the bill itself. It covers apparently those aspects of the bill where a charge on the treasury is sought. My understanding of both the constitutional requirement and the Standing Orders and proced,ures of the House is that this is required only when a charge is made on the treasury. The particular aspects of the bill to which the hon. member referred do not claim to impose a tax or a charge on the treasury; they seek to indicate another way whereby money can be raised. In this sense, perhaps the prior recommendation of the Governor General was not required at all.
As I said, this is what comes to mind at first blush. It may be that the bill should be understood in this way. I feel that there is more than a technicality involved but, in any event, in view of the fact that there is agreement between hon. members, we should proceed with the debate on this bill. I will have an opportunity to look into the matter later this afternoon and perhaps bring down a ruling later on in the day. For the moment, the discussion on the bill will be allowed to proceed.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, since this is probably the first opportunity I have had to do so, I should like to thank hon. members opposite for their great courtesy and consideration to me, personally, during some portions of the past year which in some ways has been the winter of my personal discontent. I think there is a spirit of consideration, courtesy, and kindness in this House that sometimes is not appreciated by those who are not of this House, irrespective of how often or how completely they may observe its doings. Certainly, the fact that hon. members felt that I was not ready for the fray gave to them an opportunity to show this kindness and consideration. For this I thank them very deeply. I thank in particular the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who is the official opposition spokesman for the particular portfolio which I have the honour to

hold. The hon. member held his guns in some way, having shared some of the same troubles-the only difference being that he displayed much more good sense than I did, because at least he had the good sense only to be kicked by the horse once while I had to have two of the same before I learned any lesson at all.
As all hon. members of this House, I am here because I feel there is some purpose that I want to fulfil in being here. And certainly one of the reasons for which I am very happy to be back, and for which I was anxious to come back,, is that I could play some small part in the fulfilment of the great need that exists in our country to improve the quality of our environment, of our waters, and to enable the passage of this Canada water bill, which I think will be a considerable step in that direction.
I look upon this measure as a great test of the ability of our instruments of government and legislation in Canada to deal with the real problems that affect human beings in this so-called post-industrial era. It was Carlyle who said that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men". In our reading of history to date, Carlyle's cynicism would probably be substantiated. The test of the todays and the tomorrows, I suggest, is whether or not we have moved beyond this stage of human development; whether ordinary men, such as most of us are, can move the instruments of State to meet the human problems which affect the quality of life, and will make this planet a fit, gracious and worthy place for the family of man. The quality of our environment, and our ability to control its use for mankind, is one of the great tests of the times on this issue of the adaptability of our instruments of government to improve the quality of life.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We are far from the first to see the problem, or we are certainly not the first to act upon it, though clearly not enough has been done. As early as 1876 a forward looking Tory government-and there were forward looking Tory governments in those days-by an Act of the government of prime minister Disraeli in the United Kingdom passed the Rivers Pollution Act. So, even that early the problem was seen and action was taken.
As early as 1866, John Ruskin, who has sometimes been hailed as "the most complete human being since Da Vinci"-be that as it may, there is no doubt but that this sensitive
November 20, 1969

and learned critic of the arts, economist, social philosopher and philanthropist-was one of the most perspicacious and articulate observers of the human scene. In his preface to the "Crown of Wild Olives" written in 1866 he wrote the following:
Twenty years ago, there was no lovelier piece of lowland scenery in south England, than that immediately bordering on the sources of the Wandle, and including the lower moors of Addington and the villages of Beddington and Carshalton with all their pools and streams. No clearer or divener waters ever sang with constant lips of the hand which "Giveth Rain from Heaven . . .". I have never seen anything so ghastly as the slow stealing of aspects of reckless, indolent animal neglect over the delicate sweetness of that English scene; nor is any blasphemy or impiety, any frantic saying of godless thought more appalling to me, than the insolent defiling of those springs by the human herds that drink of them. Just where the welling of stainless water, trembling and pure like a body of light enters the pool of Carshalton-just in the very rush and murmur of the first spreading currents, the human wretches of the place cast their street and house foulness, heaps of dust and slime, and broken shreds of old metal, and rags of putrid clothes; they have neither the energy to cart it away, nor the decency to dig it into the ground, thus shed into the stream to diffuse what venom of it will float and melt, far away, in all places where God meant those waters to bring joy and health.
These words were not written about Lake Erie or the Ottawa River or St. Lawrence River last week; as indicated, they were written by Ruskin in 1866. But we, of course, have done an even better job than was accomplished by that "human herd" to which Ruskin refers. With all the advantages of industrial and technological progress we have been able to do a real job on our waters. We have accomplished this more perfect desecration in the name of the twin deities of our times, namely,. "Profits" and "Standard of Living."
Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, has come the time of reckoning. The date has arrived when the debt must be paid, the mortgage must be discharged, or foreclosure is at hand-not only foreclosure with respect to the waters themselves, but even the foreclosure of those very twin deities themselves, of profits and standard of living. Because, of course, there will be little of either profits or standard of living unless we do, in fact, reclaim our environment in general, and our waters in particular.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to move second reading of the Canada water bill, the most extensive piece of water legislation since Confederation. I begin the debate on this bill with a great sense of urgency, and
Water Resources
with the knowledge that what we say and do here over the next few weeks will affect the lives of all Canadians for decades to come. We must act, and we must act today, to rehabilitate, to protect and to develop our priceless national heritage and our most important single natural resource, our water. The Canada water bill is put forth as the basic policy instrument for all federal water programs, and I think hon. members will agree that we must assure ourselves that by our best efforts here in this house, and in committee, we bring forth the best legislation we can conceive in this complex and often highly technical field.

Water is the medium in which life itself was spawned. It is the major constituent of the human body, an essential ingredient of the air we breathe, the principal feature of our weather, the habitat for a myriad varieties of life forms and a major factor in all of man's undertakings.
It is, on the one hand, a source of awesome violence through deluge and flood and, on the other, an object of unparalleled natural beauty and the fount of spiritual rejuvenation for people of all ages.
For millions of years, man, like the more primitive animals before him, has lived along the shoreline of waterways. It is no accident that the great citadels of every civilization are almost without exception located in the vicinity of a major water body. But, as with so many of the bounties of nature we have grown so accustomed to its presence that we fail to give it the attention and respect it deserves.
In time our indulgence, apathy, neglect and abuse have produced a resource that has sunk from being an object of beauty and utility to an unsightly and malodorous witness to the failure of man on his own planet. Far from being a source of inspiration, many of our rivers and lakes are the source of discontent and frustration and at times even a danger to our health and well being.
This is the situation with the once beautiful waterways that surround this very House. Debris, odour, dead fish, and high bacteria count are the normal summertime conditions surrounding many of the country's finest cities and even the very capital of this nation.
The time has come when every government, every industry, and every citizen must act in concert if we are to roll back pollution and thereafter manage our water resources

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
lor the optimum benefit of those who would use this precious heritage today and who will require it in our tomorrows.

Yes, Mr. Speaker:
The tide of public opinion has risen sharply on this issue and we must, as Shakespeare warned us, take it "at the flood" for if we do not do so now we shall indeed, in the words of the Bard, find our lives "bound in shallows and in miseries."
How did all this happen? How has this most urgent of national problems arisen in this, as well as other, lands? At the beginning of the nineteenth century, when all of Canada was sparsely populated and none of her waters congested, there was water enough to drive logs, turn water-wheels and provide fish for our ancestors. But I have mentioned already, Mr. Speaker, our ancestors were then few, and the industries were indeed tiny. Waste, both human and industrial, was swallowed up by our rivers and quickly purified.
But as the population grew, villages expanded into cities and little saw mills became huge pulp and paper factories. However, our attitudes with respect to water and our practices did not change thereby. The new cities assumed that the nearby waterbody could still easily dispose of their waste, and they dumped in their leavings, in new abundance and untreated. Small industries, grown large, assumed that because a river could handle a few tons of sawdust and bark chips a day, it could as easily handle several hundred tons of wood fibres and sulphite effluent. More industries and more cities joined those already there. Hydro plants converted the fast flowing rapids, which rivers once used to cleanse themselves, into stagnant head-ponds, and each time another rapid was castrated bringing more hydro power, we cheered-and called it progress.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The process went on and on with few attempts to alleviate it-and few people really cared. Until one day in the late 1960's, we awoke to find parts of the great lakes choked with the algae grown on the phosphates from millions of automatic washers. Then, we paused and rubbed our eyes and looked at the Ottawa River flowing by the very windows of our own Parliament Buildings. Once the noble and mighty, roaring stream that Champlain saw had now turned into something short of a waste disposal ditch.

I believe we now realize that we have aE erred. We have failed to plan the use of our waters. The time has surely come to pay the piper and redeem the wrong of yesterday.
For our flowing waters have many uses. Most of our rivers and lakes are used for recreation; for drinking water; for fishing; for irrigation; for hydro power generation; and yes, quite properly also for the disposal of waste. Not all of these uses can be reconciled easily. And yet they must be. This is our task. We do not question the use of streams for recreation or drinking or irrigation or hydro power or waste disposal. Yet each one of these uses may conflict with all of the other uses.
Seeing the poUution, many people now consider waste disposal to be an Elegitimate use of water. But waste is an unavoidable factor of our modern way of life. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Whatever we build, whatever we use, must somehow be disposed of, and disposal to most of us means getting our ugly discards out of our sight. We inevitably turn to water to transport this residue to the sea.
Waste disposal is not necessarily an illegitimate use for water and it does not necessarily interfere with other uses for water because our waterways, if not overloaded, can purify themselves. It is only when the natural ability of water to cleanse itself is surpassed that we find this use of water interfering with other uses of that precious resource.
All of this makes one point very clear. Our water must be so used as to ensure the maximum stream of benefits to all of the users for all of the purposes for which water is required. This optimization can only occur if we have comprehensive planning to achieve our goal of multi-purpose use. We must look at each basin as an integrated whole. We must examine all the uses which can be made of each basin. We must plan for the future so as to achieve the greatest long-term net social benefit of our water resources. The Canada water bill will allow us to do this-to plan together with the provinces firstly the optimum utilization of our water resources, taking into account all the uses which can be made of our water; and secondly, the reestablishment of water quality to preserve the best balance among these uses.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are facing a costly problem and we shall not avoid it. It will cost Canadian society some bfilions of dollars over a period of time to deal with its water resources in a rational way, and to undo the
November 20, 1969

damage we have done in the last hundred years. But let us think of the alternate cost, that of doing nothing. To begin with, doing nothing is a threat to our entire way of life, and, yes, perhaps to life itself. Eventually, if we do not act to clean up air and water pollution, if we allow our environment to run down further we may upset the ecological and climatological balances of nature upon which life itself depends.
But even if the problem we face has not yet reached this peak, there are huge social costs involved. It is not hard to imagine the day- nor far off if we do not act-when there will be no place within easy range of our cities where a person can go to swim in a natural river or lake, or any accessible place where fish can still live, or any place to just walk beside a pleasant stream. Our society will have its two cars in every garage but there will be no fit outdoor place to which to drive them. Yes, we will have our superclean, automatically washed clothes, but will there be any place fit to walk in these snow white garments? These are staggering social costs, costs that neither we nor our children will have to pay, if we act now.
Then, too, there are the purely monetary costs. Water despoiled by man must be cleaned again for his own use. The cost of purifying the water we have first made dirty is high. How much better to clean up our effluents before we put them into our rivers. For we then have the double benefit of clean water while it is in the stream, and drastically lowered purification costs when we want to use it again.
There are other monetary costs as well. The salmon run in certain maritime rivers may be dying because of our pollution. With it would die a source of revenue as well as of pleasure. Our other fisheries are also threatened by pollution, and with them would go the livelihood and the way of life of thousands of Canadians. Our tourist industry depends in no small part on the cleanliness of our streams, rivers and lakes, and I need not remind this House of the importance of that industry. I say this, Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford not to plan for the future! For that future, without the use of our most important single resource, water, would be a bleak one indeed!
The problem has arisen from the unwise use of resources that come to us free of charge. The lesson which we can learn from the past is a vital one. It is simply this, that the unplanned and uncontrolled use of our resources, even though they come free, as
Water Resources
does water, can lead us to disaster. The first principle of the Canada water bill, and of the thinking of experts of all persuasions across Canada, is that no longer can we afford the unplanned and uncontrolled use of our water resources. No longer can each individual, each industry, each municipality, use our water resources as each sees fit. In that absolute and laissez-faire freedom lies the mistake of the past, and the disaster of the future. Those who use our waters must pay for that use, either by cleaning up what they discharge into our river basins, or by paying others to clean it up for them. This is the very gist of the Canada Water Act and the essence of its structure, that the user must pay for cleaning the water, for putting it back into the condition in which he found it and for improving it if indeed it requires improvement. The result, it is true, may be higher direct costs for certain goods and services. But as we look at these costs, we must remember that there will be savings to other users of the water who also have a right to expect that the water they receive will be clean and in good condition when it reaches them. We must remember, too, that there is no way we can avoid these costs and still maintain the quality of life. Everyone in society must eventually pay; this is the thing we must remember, and all of society will thereby gain.
How do we plan to proceed to achieve these things to which I have referred in general under the Canada Water Act? We have been engaged for many months in developing a plan of attack on these problems. This plan is encompassed in the Canada Water Act. But before I describe the bill to you in some of its major aspects let me describe for you- because it may be helpful to hon. members of the House-how we approached our problem.
Physically or geographically, Canada represents in some ways a highly unique case in the problems of water resource management. We have a small population, yet we are endowed with huge river basins and enormous water resources. We have exploited these water resources one at a time to further our economic development. Our rivers have been transportation routes for our largest single industry, pulp and paper. They have provided the vast amounts of hydroelectric power necessary to operate the extractive industries which have helped to give us the standard of living we enjoy. Yes, in some ways our waters, and our rivers in particular, have been the very backbone of our economic development.
Water Resources

November 20, 1969
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However, the magnitude of our water resources and the exceptionally heavy use we have made of them have produced problems of proportional magnitude. So, the first factor we must face is that of the enormity of the problem and the historical nature of the background which has led to it.
The second factor we must face is that, by its very nature, water admits of many uses. Not all, as I have said before, are compatible one with the other. This problem is compounded by the fact that our water resources are so large that a single river may be called upon to fulfil many uses in its journey to the sea. It may be used to transport logs, cool a thermal electric plant, generate hydroelectricity, provide water for cities, irrigate farm lands and carry industrial waste. Each of these different uses requires a different standard of quality and different controls of river flow volumes. Moreover, different river basins will have different mixes of these uses.
This suggested to us and to the planners, the key principle that must be incorporated into the act. Obviously, the key principle is that of flexibility. This we tried to build into this legislation. We cannot impose the same formula on all waters in Canada, because our diverse waters have widely divergent uses and pass through widely different areas. It would, for example, be unreasonable and impractical to expect a busy harbour surrounded by a large city to attain the same degree of purity as a mountain trout stream. Its uses are vastly different. Society would be ill served by imposing the level of quality appropriate to Lake Louise on Hamilton Harbour. Nevertheless, because of their great volume, the effluents entering Hamilton Harbour will very likely require more treatment, and to a higher standard, than will the small volume of effluents entering Lake Louise. The Canada water bill, therefore, provides that we undertake comprehensive planning on a basin-by-basin basis.
There is a second key factor in the bill as we have conceived it, Mr. Speaker. It postulates that we first establish the present and future uses of a body of water. Then, in consultation with all interested parties, we plan comprehensively to optimize its use so that we may derive the maximum benefits.
The second problem we were faced with, was a problem that is very unique to Canada. Just as Canada faces a unique physical environment, so too does it face another unique situation. When the British North America 
Act was written, no one could possibly have anticipated the problems we face today over water resources. Indeed, in 1867, water was so plentiful and clean that it would have been difficult to imagine that it could ever require the attention it now does. Consequently, little attention was paid to water as such in the B.N.A. Act. The right hon. gentleman opposite has sometimes suggested that the Prime Minister of that time was not much interested in water, anyway. Perhaps that had something to do with the constitutional deficiency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
probably thought it was not pure.


John James Greene: In some ways, Mr. Speaker, water was a natural resource and as such came within the ambit of provincial responsibility under the B.N.A. Act. The boundary water treaty, and the realities of the situation itself, gave to the federal government many responsibilities concerning our boundary waters with the United States. International waters, in many of their aspects, came under federal jurisdiction by virtue of our constitutional responsibility for international affairs. The B.N.A. Act did, indeed, assign to the federal government specific legislative authority over certain aspects of our waters. In particular, it gave us control over navigation, fisheries, and over waters which cross from one province to another and which are subject at least to federal mediation and, for some purposes, federal control.
Thus, as with many other subject matters, the jurisdictional responsibility for water is divided between the federal and provincial governments. This is the most important single aspect of the constitutional environment within which we must work. This situation suggested another vital principle which had to be incorporated into the Canada water bill, namely, that we in the federal government must approach water problems in a cooperative spirit with the provinces. No one level of government is capable of handling all problems pertaining to a river, especially if they pertain to an inter-jurisdictional river.
The bill, accordingly, has been conceived to take clear recognition of the fact of the split responsibility. Responsibility is split between the provinces and the federal government and we must recognize that if we are really to do the job of re-establishing our waters. The bill establishes the framework for intergovernmental co-operation which is vital to its success and the management of our waters. We have invited the provinces, municipalities, the
November 20, 1969

private sector, and citizens generally to comment upon the bill and suggest changes they feel are necessary. We have had discussions and experienced excellent co-operation with the provinces. I feel very certain that this kind of co-operation will continue because they are as determined as we are to get at the source of this problem and do the job that is required.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, our constitution has been both a stumbling block and whipping post when we talked about questions of water. I am confident, in view of the urgency of the problem, that we can look forward to a sense of dedication and co-operation which will enable us to overcome any constitutional problems in this area. We have found in great measure, as I have said, in our discussions with the provinces this desire to overcome constitutional limitations in order that we can get on with the job. I firmly believe that whereas the constitution in the past may have been a barrier to action, under the aegis of the Canada Water Act it can be a bridge towards co-operative action and the solution of these problems.
We must also accept the fact that there is obsolete legislation, and that there have been obsolete ideas in the realm of government itself, especially with respect to questions concerning water. The obsolete ideas revolve around the concept of non-comprehensive or single use planning as well as the concept that one level of government can take sufficient action to remedy the defects.
Consequently, the Canada Water Act replaces and repeals the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act which was based on single purpose planning and used largely to build small flood control works. For today's pressing need, that act is too rigid and narrow. Its basic concept, that the federal government was excluded from participating, except as a banker, limited the ability of the federal government to tackle the real problem.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is encouraging to note that already we have commenced co-operative joint studies on the Okanagan and Fraser Rivers in British Columbia and that consultation on the Qu'Ap-pelle River in Saskatchewan and the Saint John River in New Brunswick are under way. All around us there is reassuring evidence of the willingness of the provinces to co-operate and of moves in new legislative directions.
Water Resources
The Canada Water Act will enable the federal government to do its share.
How do we envisage that the Canada Water Act will operate? What will be the mechanics of establishing and ensuring federal-provincial co-operation; of determining priorities, of planning and implementing our plans?
We envisage ten federal-provincial joint consultative committees, one for each province. On each of these committees there will be three federal and three provincial members from high official levels. These committees will be charged with determining priorities for research data collection, planning and implementation, and they will report directly to the provincial ministers in charge of water, and to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They will meet frequently enough to decide on what new projects or plans need be undertaken or to hear progress reports on those already under way. We must no longer allow conflicts in objectives and priorities to hinder co-operative action. These must be resolved by continuing discussions and negotiations.
Let us suppose, so that we will understand it better, that a joint consultative committee has decided to assign a high priority to a particular river basin. In all probability a joint planning board would then be established by formal agreement for that particular basin. The members of these boards might come from both the federal and provincial governments, and from the private sector as well if that would be beneficial. It would be the task of each board to draw up a series of detailed plans for the comprehensive management of the resources of that river basin, for the alleviation of problems which may have arisen and for capturing the full potential of each basin. A report from this board would also include recommendations as to cost benefits, an examination of alternatives and a plan for implementation.
The planning report would then be submitted to the appropriate governments for approval of any plans and a detailed agreement for implementation could then be signed by the appropriate governments, federal and provincial. Once such an agreement had been signed, implementation could begin, supervised either by the planning board or by a similar implementing board.
Even though the pervading spirit of the bill is co-operation, the federal government cannot avoid its ultimate responsibility to take decisive firm action when and where

November 20, 1969'
Water Resources
necessary. Two such actions are provided for in the bill.
First, if a recalcitrant individual, firm, or agency persists in depositing wastes in contravention of the prohibition, specifically included in this federal statute, a fine of $5,000 per day for the initial day and each subsequent day can be levied in the courts. Furthermore, the courts are empowered to order compliance and to order cessation of activities if necessary.
Second, if a province steadfastly refuses to co-operate where the federal jurisdiction is clear, and where there is a significant national interest involved, the federal government reserves unto itself the right to move unilaterally on certain aspects of water resource management.
No other position is open to us. We must have the ultimate power to clean up international and boundary waters and major interprovincial rivers. In particular, we must be able to say to our southern neighbours soon "We are cleaning up and managing our portion of these shared waters and we expect you to do the same." I believe that under the aegis of the Canada Water Act we can in fact develop these international waters jointly with the United States and thereby gain a greater net benefit for both countries. We could not allow an unco-operative provincial government to veto such action indefinitely to the detriment of Canada as a whole. But this situation,, we expect, will never occur, as the enthusiasm and co-operation we have to date found in the provinces indicates very clearly that unilateral action is not likely to be required.
These are the general provisions of the Act for comprehensive planning based upon maximizing the utilization of a water basin in the best interests of the people who live along it, and of Canada as a whole. I am sure we all agree, as I have tried to state earlier in general terms, the single gravest water problem we face today is the problem of pollution. To this end, we have included in the bill a number of special provisions for dealing with pollution.
There are only four things man can do with the vast tonnage of waste he produces daily; burn it, bury it, wash it away, or put it into orbit. He is busy doing all four but by far the greatest quantity is washed away into our lakes, rivers and groundwater, each draining eventually into the sea.
The problem before us is to devise a method compatible with our free enterprise system that efficiently and effectively yields

optimal levels of water quality under a wide variety of conditions. We have also sought to leave industry a series of options and yet to distribute the cost of pollution abatement equitably throughout society. We have sought also to allow local views and opinions to be registered without permitting any region to choose the course toward gradual environmental degradation.
The essential elements of this federal model for pollution control, or as we prefer to call it, water quality management, are as follows:
1.	We will designate each water body jointly after consultation with the provinces, and where necessary with the provinces, on a sequential basis so that we can concentrate on the most serious pollution problems first.
2.	We will negotiate agreements establishing joint water quality management agencies for each area or collection of areas using provincial machinery as the basis whenever and wherever it is adequate and adaptable. Local participation, which is essential, will be strongly encouraged.
3.	The senior levels of government will jointly establish guidelines and procedures to be used by these agencies in arriving at water quality objectives, effluent standards, effluent fees and treatment charges. This procedure is provided in lieu of rigid uniform standards, which economists and ecologists both insist are inefficient and impractical in a country as large and varied as Canada.
4.	Each agency will be instructed to develop and to submit water quality management plans for the designated area recommending the optimal level of water quality for a series of target dates and taking into account the full range of future uses for the water body considered. This same plan will project future waste loads along the entire water body, the degree of treatment required, the schedule of fees for the deposit of wastes in the water body, the additional waste treatment facilities required, and charges for the use of these facilities.
5.	These plans will be submitted to the federal government and the provincial government in question for approval. At this point the senior levels of government can insist upon equity, consistency, and avoid the dangers of pollution havens by insisting upon high levels of quality and treatment.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
6.	Once the plan is approved the agency would be instructed to implement it and enforce the standards contained therein.
November 20, 1969

Water Resources
Each agency will be provided with the capability for analyzing and planning its own water quality program for subsequent governmental approval, and thereafter for constructing and operating waste treatment facilities. In most instances existing provincial and municipal pollution control authorities and facilities can be utilized. Then, too, agencies will be required to enforce the regulations including the inspection of plants and the analysis of water quality. Some of these functions can be centralized. Others will be more efficient if decentralized. The precise arrangement can be worked out through negotiations with the provinces under the flexible terms of the Act. To repeat, the *objective is to achieve optimal water quality levels for each water body efficiently and effectively. This new statute is the enabling framework, the vehicle for joint co-operation.
Once a water quality plan is implemented, the producer of goods and services who must dispose of wastes will have four options:
(A)	to treat his wastes to such a high *degree of purity that he would be permitted to discharge them freely into the receiving waters.
(B)	to partially treat his wastes and pay a fee for depositing these wastes into the water body.
(C)	to deliver his wastes to communal treatment facilities and pay the appropriate charges.
(D)	to change the waste producing process so that the waste is eliminated or changed to a harmless form.
With these alternatives, the waste disposer can opt for that scheme or combination of schemes which best suits his own situation. No central authority dictates the selection. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the federal government could make such decisions efficiently for the thousands of waste disposers across Canada.
I think a word of explanation is required here, Mr. Speaker, in respect of these fees. One of the hon. gentlemen opposite has already expressed some fears in this regard. At first glance they may appear to those not familiar with pollution control as a licence to pollute. On the contrary, they are the device which forces the waste disposer to pay the full cost of maintaining water quality, because the fees paid are used by the agency to construct plants or to take other action to provide a better quality of water.
By carefully constructed schedules of fees, depending upon the quantity and kind of waste, and the self-purifying character of the receiving water body, the waste disposer can be forced to pay a fee sufficiently high to permit the water quality management agency either to treat the waste itself or cleanse the entire water body if necessary. We shall not dictate the method to the firm or the municipality but we shall insist, as I said earlier, on the first principle of the bill, which is that the polluter pay the full cost of cleaning up the waste. Indeed, the schedule of fees can be set prohibitively high for certain wastes to ensure that such wastes are totally excluded from water bodies, if necessary.
Because these schedules of fees can be periodically revised upward, a higher degree of treatment of wastes can be induced as needed to achieve the water quality objective even when additional industries and municipalities continue to crowd around a water-body. In this way, the entire process is self-adaptive, an essential feature for a country like Canada that has vast undeveloped areas and yet a rapidly expanding population and a dynamic industry.
Furthermore, this system of fees and charges will permit each agency to become self-supporting after an initial transitional period. In addition, this scheme forces the waste disposer, whether an individual, a firm or a municipality to pay the initial cost of pollution abatement directly. The waste disposer may transfer these costs to the consumer of the goods and services he produces either through consumer prices or local taxes. In this sense, as I said earlier, pollution will become, as it should always have been, a cost of production. The forces of the open market, so essential in a free enterprise system, will be brought to bear to bring efficiency into pollution abatement.
The statute permits regulations to be promulgated from time to time to prevent certain substances from being deposited in designated areas. I would call Your Honour's attention to a specific problem which has been highlighted in recent weeks as a result of the report on the Great Lakes by the Advisory Board to the International Joint Commission. Phosphates from detergents and fertilizers, as well as human and animal wastes, have been identified as the culprit in the aging of lakes and particularly in fostering the growth of algae. Two courses seem open to us: either to call for more extensive treatment of wastes containing phosphates or to

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
restrict the use of phosphates. Either of these courses is possible under the Canada Water Act in areas designated as areas of water quality management. Only in those areas can we restrict or regulate the injection of phosphates. The more general approach of a nation-wide restriction on use is not provided for under the act as it now stands; as I say, we approach this from the water basin standpoint. The committee hearing this bill may well want to explore the possible advantages of a national approach in respect to some general regulatory power. It may wish to suggest additions to the bill to cover phosphates and other chemicals which fall in future into the same category on a national basis rather than on the basis of a water basin approach affecting particular chemicals.
It will be most interesting to hear the views of the committee on this question because we must take remedial action in connection with phosphates in the immediate future.

Clearly, the federal government cannot and should not be involved in every small basin in the country. It must concentrate its human and financial resources on those areas where the federal responsibility is paramount. I think, for example, of the great lakes-St. Lawrence system where navigation, fishery, agricultural, international and interprovincial matters are of great concern.
The problems of pollution and maintenance of water levels are major issues that the province of Ontario cannot be expected to cope with alone. The very size of the problems involved, aside from the federal government's clear jurisdiction over many of these problems in boundary, international and interprovincial waters, dictates the logic of a strong federal role in the comprehensive solution of these problems.
Management of the Ottawa River cannot be divorced from that of the St. Lawrence. Pollution control problems on this river are some of the most difficult to solve in the country, as has been demonstrated by the frustrated pleas of the municipalities along its course seeking leadership from the federal government in bringing the expertise of Quebec and Ontario together with its own, to solve the problems in a comprehensive way. Again, federal jurisdiction and its responsibilities concerning many aspects are very clear.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

The problems of the Fraser River involve major fisheries interests, an enormous hydro power potential, navigation and harbours, river and estuarial pollution, and flood control. These problems are all interrelated and can be dealt with effectively only within a comprehensive regional framework and with joint federal-provincial action. The federal government is, of course, already deeply involved in the Fraser River problem. An agreement signed a year ago with the province of British Columbia is providing some $18 million for a joint program-50 per cent of the cost-for dyking along the lower Fraser River and adjacent areas of the lower mainland.
The Saskatchewan-Nelson River system crosses three prairie provinces and is the major water source for this vast region. The federal government has legislative authority respecting navigation, fisheries, and agricultural uses of the water as well as pollution which derives from or affects these uses. A number of possible water diversion schemes involve more than one province or the Northwest Territories. Federal involvement, therefore, is required, not only because of the possible size and financial implications of the development, but also because federal jurisdictions are involved.
Several important rivers in the Atlantic region, such as the Saint John, have problems that are both national and international in character and for which federal responsibility for fisheries and navigation are important.
Mr. Speaker, we are active in other areas and on other river basins as well. I have mentioned only some of the most important and biggest projects here. It is our intention, under the Act, to concentrate the resources of the federal government on the large multidimensional problems usually found in international, interprovincial and some major intraprovincial river basins. We believe this focus will yield a greater return on the funds that will be available than would any attempt to assist in solving the multitude of minor issues that are of a more local nature and properly the responsibility of the provincial water authorities.
[Translationl
Mr. Speaker, from what I have said here today and from what you all already know, it is clear that the problems we are discussing
November 20, 1969

are grave and urgent. Equally, the solutions we must produce are momentous in their scope. It is impossible to make an exact estimate of what it will cost us to pay for our past sins and establish a sound program for the future, but estimates range to billions of dollars.
Nor can we complete the job overnight. The damage it took us decades to do, will, even with our best efforts, take us years to undo. The 1970's in Canada will have to be dedicated to the eradiction of pollution and the rational and comprehensive management of our resources.
Who will pay the gigantic costs involved? The answer to that is that just as everyone is responsible, so in the end everyone must pay.

Municipalities which deposit human and industrial waste in our waters must do their part. Here very special responsibilities for the clean-up and treatment of domestic and industrial sewage fall upon a level of government that is at the bottom of the fiscal totem pole and often finds itself in difficult financial straits. Through the provinces, which are responsible for the municipalities under our constitution, they will be consulted and must do their part. They must join the national effort, must plan for the future of theirs and our water resources. Yet we realize that the municipalities face a grave financial situation. Consequently, we are taking steps through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a large and expanding fund available from which municipalities may borrow under favourable circumstances in order to finance the construction of sewage treatment facilities. The present shortage of loan funds, which some have pointed to as a result of the present financial difficulties and the determination of the government to fight the war on inflation, is temporary and will be rectified.
And what of the individual citizen? What does he contribute to this program and to his challenge of the times? First, we must remember that it is he who makes up the totality of our body politic, and so the quality of our environment must depend ultimately upon him. Each of us has exploited our environment for too long and the cost has become evident. Dying lakes and rivers surround us and the smell of pollution is everywhere. The cost of phosphate-filled detergents is algae choked lakes. The cost of the sixty-page coloured advertising supplement in our daily paper is sulphite liquor and wood fibres in once clean rivers. The eventual cost of our
Water Resources
way of life may be its extinction unless the individual citizen is willing to pay the price of cleaning up our environment. It is ultimately a matter of the attitude of the private citizen that will control the whole success of this venture. Public opinion must remain strong on this issue. We must all demand that the job be done and the price be paid if we are to win the struggle.
Having spoken of the responsibility of municipalities and of the individual himself in this struggle, may I now concern myself with industry, so often a whipping boy when we talk of questions of pollution. How often in recent months have I seen the ire of citizens directed at polluters in everything from letters to the editors, to the learned articles and academic publications, and inevitably industry is the villain, industry is the sinner and industry must pay, then all our troubles will be over. How easy and happy the solution would be. Yes, industry must pay its burden of the costs. We must recall that industry in fact is all of us as employers, employees and consumers of industrial products. It is all of us as recipients of the vast sums and taxes paid by industry.
Millions of Canadians work in industry and hundreds of thousands, at least, are owners of industry within the framework of the capitalistic system. Each and every one of us consume the products of industry. To indict industry as the sole culprit, is little more than indicting ourselves, as industry does little more or little less than public opinion demands. More than this, industry has surely not behaved much differently than have we, as individual citizens.
Yes, industry is bigger and will have to be cleaner, and accordingly its clean-up costs will be greater than that of individuals. This is not to defend industry but rather to point out that the corporate citizen has done little different but is only bigger than the individual citizen and must bear the cost in proportion.
Yes, industry must in fact indicate its willingness to co-operate in this great effort to improve the quality of our environment. The private enterprise system, with its inherent freedom, giving the maximum choice to the individual, rewarding initiative and industry-that very freedom and incentive which the capitalistic system has given-has provided a real reward in the highest standard of living that any system known to man up to the time of this system has given.
Water Resources

November 20, 1969
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The system unquestionably has faults. There are those who claim the private enterprise system has lost its sense of purpose and morality. Hence, to some degree the disaffection of youth who refuse to subscribe to its purposes, and the unrest on the street and on the campus. Dissenters from Eugene Debs to the current disciple of dissent, Paul Goodman, have railed at its deficiencies; but perhaps Galbraith has put dissent in more useful terms in pointing to the deficiencies by refusing to tear down the house merely that we might repair the plumbing. He has, as I understand it, suggested reform rather than demolition. He has urged that the great corporations of the private sector who play a paramount part in the direction and purposes of our economy and society must devote a far greater proportion of their leadership, drive and productivity to the public sector as well as to private profit and the benefits to be derived from insiders of the system if the system is to survive in the tomorrows.
This surely is the great test of our times. Those of us who believe in the freedom and the individuality and the productivity of that system know full well that it must divert some of the great energies and production it unleashes to the quality of our life and our environment, as well as to the corporate profit motivation and to the financial wellbeing of its own. If it does not do so, the alternative will clearly be a greater control by government, more state-ism, and possibly an ultimate state control of the instruments of production which has nowhere, to my knowledge, proved either conducive to freedom or productivity. But if the system fails in these measures and in these directions to play a more useful part in the public sector then it will pass from the scene of history as did the systems of Egypt, the Byzantine empire, Rome or Greece when they failed to serve the people they purported to serve.
I suggest that here, in the Canada Water Act, we have one of the public documents which will help to determine in our time whether industry or the great corporations can in fact play their part in the public sector in helping to bring to our society a quality of life and an environment which is worthy of a great people. I believe they can and will do so. I believe that under the aegis of this bill we will find the co-operation of the corporations and the private sector and that they will play their part in this area of public demand to make this a better land and create an 
environment worthy of our tomorrows. I think hon. members will agree that this problem is too urgent and too important to become the playground of partisan bickering. I look for no politics in this and I doubt if anyone will derive any great political advantage from a bill as large as this and as costly as this to all Canadians. For this reason I welcome with an open mind suggestions from everyone, and particularly hon. members of this House, on how this Act may be improved and upon what further steps we can take to solve our problems.
We have no clear pattern to present. I do not think any country in the world on either side of the iron curtain has a clear, definite and perfect plan in respect of questions of environment and water control in particular. So, we have created a framework which we think is a valid one and have taken an approach after a very considerable study which we think is best for Canada, but we know we do not have all the answers. I have been in close touch with the provinces. I have received valuable suggestions from them and I expect to receive more. Indeed, it is only appropriate that the provinces have much to contribute to this bill for many of them have already taken great steps in the fight to preserve our priceless water resources. They recognize the problem as we do. Their work in the past has been vital and in the future, in co-operation with the federal government, their work will become invaluable.
I am sure hon. members of this House will also have a great contribution and input to make to the problem and to the ultimate detail of the bill. The fundamental significance of this bill precludes any dogmatic partisanship and I intend to consider all suggestions carefully. I will welcome them all. Oliver Goldsmith, two centuries ago, in bemoaning the loss of spirit and vitality of man in the face of industrialization, said:
111 fares the land, to hastening Ills a prey,
When wealth accumulates and men decay.
It may well be that in Canada we do have decay in our purposes and in our spirit, with our high standard of living, in respect of things as important as protecting our environment and our water. But I do believe we in Canada have the will to act, and to act in time, if our spirits have decayed and if we have permitted the despoliation of our waters. I believe the will exists and, in fact, that the Canadian people demand that we act and act now to restore and preserve our waters and the quality of our environment.
November 20, 1969



We are no longer willing to sacrifice the health and beauty of our surroundings on the altar of economic growth or so-called standard of living which serves self but takes little care of the environment and replacing things for those who come after. Here in Canada we have continued for so long to search for that elusive Canadian identity. May I have the temerity to suggest that no identifying characteristic of Canadians would be more worthy than our observable commitment to a recognizable Canadian ethic which proclaimed that henceforth we will include the quality of our environment in our calculus of progress. This, Mr. Speaker, is the essential spirit of the Canada Water Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks may I ask the minister a question. I hesitate to ask him such a crass question at this time. I wonder whether he could enlighten the House concerning the sum of money the government has in mind as the federal cost of this program in its first year of operation.


John James Greene: The Act quite clearly provides a framework. The very gist of it is that polluters will pay for the cleaning of the water. As they dirty it, they clean it up again or pay for the cost of cleaning it up. As I said earlier we do not have all the answers. It may be that public bodies-and I am thinking in particular of municipalities-may require financial help by way of long-term loans or otherwise. I think it should be borne very clearly in mind, however, that the whole basis of the bill is that polluters must pay for the cleaning of the water and the cost they would pay is the cost of production which would be in the future.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with everything the minister has said concerning the common objective of everyone in this House to maintain the best environment in which Canadians can live. The minister has given us an idea of what he sees in the Canada Water Act and an idea of what he thinks may develop as a result of this legislation. Certainly, no one in this House and no one in Canada will question the objective and the need of keeping our environment clean and our waters from becoming polluted. But whether or not this objective is being achieved in the bill before us is what we are here to discuss and what the committee, to
Water Resources
which I assume this bill will be sent, has to determine.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In my view, the bill which we are discussing, the future Canada Water Act, does not fulfill the objectives that the minister has set for it. I believe that the Canada Water Act is a complicated, devious, vague and ineffective piece of legislation. It is complicated because it proposes to set up local water boards which will derive some authority from the federal government, some authority from the provincial governments, but no real authority from anyone. It does nothing to unwind or cut through the maze of jurisdictional division, but in fact compounds the present jurisdictional uncertainty by adding to it.
The bill is devious because it pretends to provide a federal initiative and support for pollution control in the water field, but in fact its provisions are so worded that the federal government gives no leadership and provides no effective financing. The bill is vague because the water quality management agencies which it purports to establish are given no authority or guidance. The powers to raise money are not defined, and these agencies will be left to work out for themselves solutions to problems which the federal government itself should settle for them.
The bill is ineffective because it is based in large part upon federal-provincial agreements, and lacking such agreement in any province the whole bill will falter and fail. No effective consultations with the provinces in order to ensure the success of the bill were undertaken prior to announcement of the government's intention, and the success of the bill is now a matter of pure chance. Support of this bill will be forthcoming from the Official Opposition solely because the government has apparently decided that this is the only basis on which they will proceed, and we must have some action, however feeble, in the hope that the committee hearings will convince the government to make major revisions and to take more positive action in the area of pollution control. Having made this initial description of the bill, I now turn to some more general comments.
The problems of our environment and its pollution are generally considered to be one of the major concerns of Canada and in fact of North America in the seventies. In the past we have had other major problems. In the fifties we were concerned with highways and transportation; in the sixties it is and has

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
been education that has drawn the minds of the people; and in the seventies it will be questions of environment and pollution control.
Control of pollution in the waters, both international and national, of the air, and of the soil, were determined at the Niagara conference of the Progressive Conservative Party very recently to be one of the highest priorities of our party, and to be urgent in the maintenance of the quality of our life. Federal involvement in matters of pollution control has been spotty and uncertain in the past. The first positive steps were taken in 1960 by the former Progressive Conservative government when grants and loans to municipalities for installation of sewage disposal facilities were authorized by legislation. There has been a tremendous advance in municipal treatment and disposal facilities since that legislation was introduced. I was pleased to hear the minister say today that this assistance will be continued and enlarged, so that the municipalities may carry on this very urgent work.
During the past few years there has been an increasing demand for the federal government to involve itself in pollution control as a national priority. There has been insistence that the federal government should take firm action toward co-ordination of its efforts to end the jurisdictional maze in which half a dozen federal departments pass the problems back and forth, and that there should be one agency with which provincial and international bodies can deal. Numerous concrete suggestions have been made, beginning with the establishment of the Council of Resource Ministers in the early 1960's and the Resource Ministers Conference on Pollution in 1966, for the exercise of the federal authority, particularly in areas of national standards, co-ordination of efforts among the provinces, research, monitoring standards, enforcement, and the provision of funds as a national priority. Whenever the subject of pollution control has been raised during the past two years, the shortly-to-appear water act has been quoted as the answer to the problem.
As against this background of desirable objectives which I have just given and which the minister himself has so ably stated today, I would like to look at the shortcomings of this bill, as I see them. While it may seem trite to mention it, the bill deals only with water and does not touch on any of the other problems of pollution which many feel are so

inter-related that they cannot be dealt with separately. Even as it concerns water, the bill does nothing to improve the great problems of the Canadian constitution, particularly within the federal area, the jurisdictional maze among the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Transport and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. All these branches of the government have pollution control sections, in many cases working independently of and separately from, the other departments and without knowledge of the exact work that the other departments are doing.
The bill does not make provision for the establishment of national standards for water quality, equipment or monitoring. It does, in fact, still leave it for one province or one area of the country to encourage industry because of lower standards of pollution control. In his opening statement the minister stated that there was no provision for the national elimination of detergents, for example, and this, I feel, is one of the obvious shortcomings in the
bin.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Neither the papers presented this summer on the Canada water bill nor the bill itself indicate that the federal government is going to put up any money for pollution control projects. This impression was greatly confirmed by the minister's answer to my question. I venture to say that what the provinces want, as a quid pro quo for the entry of the federal government into the pollution field, is money. They and the municipalities feel that they are presently overburdened and that they have a need for a broader tax base which will encourage them to say, "Yes, the federal government should be involved."
This may be a very crass statement, it may be very financially oriented, but I believe it to be a fact. I think that the provincial authorities, in some cases if not in all, will be very difficult to deal with unless they find some financial resource is being made available to them. The financial clauses of the bill, clauses 31 and 32, are vague in the extreme. They are meaningless in the absence of a firm commitment of funds by the federal government.
The general problems of water quality control throughout Canada are not covered by this bill. The scope of the bill is limited to
November 20, 1969

those areas in which a water quality management agency is established. Presumably, other parts of the country will have to wait until their waters are in danger of being polluted or have become polluted before they get attention under this bill. I do not see this as a desirable feature in a federal bill.
No fixed cost sharing formula is set out in the bill for the federal-provincial agreements. This leaves implementation of agreements from province to province and from area to area in a state of confusion. The whole question of financing the agencies is completely left up in the air. The federal government has not accepted any responsibility for financing water quality projects. By this I mean that the federal government has undertaken to pay the cost of incorporating these agencies, $100 or $500 at the most. It has agreed to pay their operating expenses, which I assume are the routine ones of personnel and equipment, but it has not undertaken to provide any assistance whatsoever for projects that may be required.
The provincial authorities may or may not have authority or be willing to put up a share of the projects costs. This is another thing which the bill leaves very much up in the air because the provincial contribution is purely a matter of negotiation. The local agencies are authorized to collect fees and charges, as well as effluent discharge fees, but it is not specified whether they can do this by taxation, and certainly they are given no legislative authority to tax. In fact, it would appear that if the agencies are to operate their projects by taxation on real estate such authority would have to come from the provincial legislature. It is not clear whether the cost of water quality projects is to be borne by taxpayers in general within the water quality area, by those bordering upon the waters in question, or by those who are discharging pollutants into the water.
Speaking of the effluent discharge fees, which have been mentioned several times today, under no circumstances could I approve of such fees for new industries or for any situation arising in the future. I could not agree to creating pollution problems by paying effluent discharge fees. They might be justified in some cases where existing industries or municipalities have done everything they can to eliminate pollution, where the agency can effectively undertake treatment, and where there is no other alternative except closing down and creating unemployment. But I repeat that under no circumstances should this legislation permit a new 21362-611
Motions for Papers
industry, a new project, to discharge pollutants into our waters simply by paying an effluent discharge fee. I feel the bill should specifically spell this out. This is certainly one of the amendments that ought to be proposed in committee.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and so I will resume my remarks later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling private members' hour, I might recognize the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker by leave of the House, I would ask to revert to Routine Proceedings in order to present a committee report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in English and French, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motions for Papers.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all notes made at all meetings or conversations between the government

November 20, 1969
Motions for Papers
or any agency or department thereof and any provincial government or agency or department thereof since June 25, 1969 relating to the policy statement on Indian Affairs made in the House of Commons by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 25, 1969.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the motion indicates it has its origin in the policy statement on Indian affairs presented to parliament by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) on June 25. I am sure that a number of government members, in anticipation of this motion being called, have on their desks copies of that policy statement since it now appears to me, in Indian Affairs activities, the gospel according to St. Jean.
In order that there appear some continuity in the context of my remarks, may I be permitted to read the motion again so that it will appear at this particular place? Disregarding the "humble Address" part, what I want laid before the House is:
-a copy of all notes made all meetings or conversations between the government or any agency or department thereof and any provincial government or agency or department thereof since June 25, 1969 relating to the policy statement on Indian Affairs made in the House of Commons by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 25, 1969.
,[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to that motion, said, and I think I should insert his exact words here:
The hon. member is requesting copies of notes or conversations between the federal government and the provincial government. Conversations which have taken place up to now, other than that correspondence which will be tabled in the motion for the production of papers No. 63, are considered privileged information and it would not be in the interest of the governments or indeed the Indian people to table this information at this stage of negotiations. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.
Might I comment in passing that, as indicated in the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, there had been conversations with provincial governments and presumably there are notes as a result of those conversations.
May I reiterate what I said yesterday, and underline the proposition that the government has no right whatsoever, no moral right and no ethical right, to arrogate unto itself the authority to enter into negotiations with provincial governments regarding the affairs of at least a quarter of a million Indian people, plus another quarter million who do not have Indian status as defined in the Indian Act. It 
is typical of the technocratic and arrogant attitude of the government that it wants to conduct negotiations with the provincial government in secret. That is the sense of the answer given yesterday, that they are not going to disclose to the Indian people any conversations the minister or any member of the government has had with the provincial governments. This information is too good, too cherished, to publish but it is something that deals with the fundamental rights of the Indian people, and is information developed as a result of the policy statement made in this House by the minister.
It is the same old story so far as this bunch of Liberals is concerned. As an example, let us look at 1943 when the federal government, a Liberal government at that time, entered into secret negotiations with the provincial government in British Columbia which was a Liberal dominated coalition in those days. These negotiations resulted in the native Indian peoples in British Columbia losing their rights over mineral resources and reserves. Today, we have the same story, another set of closed door discussions and a contradiction between what the Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday and what the minister has said on this matter. I have here a press release from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled "The Government Policy on Indians-What is the Debate About? A Speech by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Saskatchewan Women's Liberal Federation, Regina, Saskatchewan, October 2, 1969."
Now, if the minister was really going to tell the truth about his feelings why tell the Liberal women in Regina-why not tell his own party? I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this speech was so precious that a David A. Munro, who is presumably Dr. Munro, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Indian Consultation and Negotiations Group in the department-there is that word "negotiations" again-saw fit to send the same speech out again under a covering letter of October 30, stating that it was an extremely valuable and important speech which had not been widely reported. I should like to quote from this important speech. Right at the start the minister says:
In June I announced the government's proposals for an Indian policy. I had hoped that a vigorous debate might start over the policy proposals put forward. The debate has appeared, but much of it is not over the proposals advanced by the government. The debate has become clouded because of
November 20, 1969

misunderstandings, misinterpretation, and a lack of knowledge on the part of the Canadian public of the Indian situation.
Today I would like to try to penetrate this cloud and explain to you what was proposed by the government.
This is a speech to clarify the policy statement made on 25 June. The minister then said, "Let me explain", and in a number of short, terse statements tells what is not in the policy. Then, on page 2, there is another series of short, terse and succinct statements, mostly cliches but not beclouded by details, after which the minister asks, "What did the policy say?"
It says that the proposals contained in the policy statement are to be discussed with Indian people, provincial governments and the Canadian public before any of them are implemented.
That is the important part, Mr. Speaker. Then he goes on:
It says that representatives of the Indian people should be involved in discussions with the provinces.
But yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary told the Indian people that it was none of their business what took place during discussions with the provinces, that it was privileged information which it would not be in their interest to disclose. Here are two statements in conflict with each other which reflect on the part of the government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien)-I regret he is not here to listen to my remarks but I would be prepared to say the same thing if he were here-and on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary, a deliberate, conscious and overt effort to mislead the Indian people and a deliberate, conscious attempt to mislead Parliament. I would not go so far as to say that the government or the minister are not telling the truth but the minister either must be very dumb or be deliberately trying to establish a course to mislead us.
At page 4 of this clarifying statement of October 2 to that great group in Regina called the Liberal Women's Federation we find this:
Indian people, because of past experiences, have a deep distrust of governments, both federal and provincial, and tend to regard the proposals with suspicion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in contrast with the minister's statement, the statement issued yesterday is certainly not doing anything to move the native Indian people away from their suspicion and distrust.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Gibson:: Why don't you read the rest of
it?


Frank Howard: My friend asks why I don't read the rest of it-


Colin David Gibson: The next sentence.


Frank Howard: If my friend would not mind containing his enthusiasm I will get to the next sentence, and a few others too. I know my hon. friend is champing at the bit. He wishes to comment about this notice of motion. He can read what he wants from the statement. I say again that the statements emanating from the government are contradictory. We had one from the government to the effect that the native Indian people should be involved in the discussions with the provinces; yet nothing has been done about getting them there. The minister refused to let them come. Then, we had a statement yesterday from the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that these negotiations are not the business of the Indian people, and that the government will not disclose what happened. I simply say that this manner of acting contributes to the deep distrust our native Indian people feel for governments, federal and provincial. In case my hon. friend cannot read for himself, the next sentence reads as follows:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In private meetings with representatives of the Indian people I have explained the policy proposals, and I have listened to their comments and criticisms.
Does the hon. member want me to read the next sentence too? It reads:
These meetings have been helpful and many more will be held.
Those statements do not detract one bit from the minister's twin suggestions. He suggested that the native Indian people should be involved in the discussions with the provinces. Neither can one deny that these negotiations touch on the rights of the Indian people and that the Prime Minister, the minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the whole kit and caboodle of the government and Liberal party have not lifted a single, solitary finger in order to bring one native Indian person into these discussions. Our Indians have been denied that opportunity.

November 20, 1969
Motions for Papers
The minister goes on to say as follows, and I am quoting from the last paragraph:
At the root of the Indian reaction to the proposals is distrust of government and Canadian society as a whole. This must change.
What the House heard yesterday, when added to the statements the minister has made about this matter, will go a long way towards substantiating that distrust and suspicion. Is the minister really concerned about his policy statement? I really believe he wishes to bring it into effect. We must not forget that the native Indian people of Canada have generally rejected that policy statement. They say, "Do not proceed in this direction until, in conscience, you have dealt with our fundamental hereditary, treaty and land rights first." If the minister is sincere and honest in his wish to proceed with his policy on Indian affairs and see the matter come to some conclusion, and if he and the government really, honestly want to do something worth while in the field of Indian affairs so that we can adopt a posture towards the Indian people that will not lead them to distrust and suspect us more, then I ask, how can he square that desire with the declaration made to that great group, the Liberal women of Saskatchewan, yesterday? By making such declarations he is not doing a single, solitary thing to promote his cause or the cause of the Indian people. This is a disastrous situation and reflects what I consider gross dishonesty on the part of the government.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. May I at this time announce what the business will be tonight at the time of adjournment. The questions are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-old age security-inquiry as to amending bill; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch)-federal buildings- Vancouver-new project and "Project 200"; the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)- pollution-regulations respecting automobiles-inquiry as to action.
The House will now continue with private members' hour.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all notes made at all meetings or conversations between the government or any agency or department thereof and any provincial government or agency or department thereof since June 25, 1969 relating to the policy statement on Indian Affairs made in the House of Commons by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 25, 1969.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful in my initial remarks if I were to attempt to deal with what seemed to be the point of the argument of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). As I understand it, he contends that there is a contradiction as between the statement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the statement I made yesterday in this House with respect to the return of his motion. I should like to deal with that. Then, I should like to deal with what I consider is the real subject matter this House must determine with respect to this motion. I might say, in an aside, that I do not think we have to determine whether there is a contradiction, as my hon. friend suggested. That was an interesting point and I shall have no difficulty in demolishing that argument.
What is the narrow point of this motion, Mr. Speaker? Is it whether or not the notes and conversations the hon. member asked for are indeed privileged, or does it turn on whether they should be produced? I shall deal with that matter in the second phase of my remarks.
To illustrate the contradiction, my friend of course went to some lengths in quoting the minister. He also quoted from the report of my remarks in yesterday's Hansard. What the hon. member requests in his motion, Mr. Speaker, and this is a matter of record, is a copy of all notes or conversations between any federal government agency and the agency of any provincial government. This matter, of course, is related to the white paper on Indian policy that was presented to
November 20, 1969



this House by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The hon. member took some time in making the point that the Indians were not a party to these conversations or negotiations. Of course, that is not the case, and my hon. friend knows it. After all, he should know it best because of the experience of the Indian band in his own riding. He knows well that the Nishga tribal council stated publicly that they accepted the general principle of the new Indian policy. That happened after negotiation and after consultation, and I think my hon. friend knows it.
I think my hon. friend also knows that part of the white paper on Indian policy suggested that it would be desirable for us not to have separate sorts of services for Canadians, that we should consider all Canadians equal, that they are in fact equal, and that they should all have the same sorts of services. For reasons set out in the white paper and enunciated by the minister in subsequent speeches, we were told that those services could best be provided by the respective provincial governments and that if the Indian people agree, in consultation with the provincial and federal governments, there must be a three part agreement with respect to these services, so that over a period of time there may be an orderly transfer.
There has never been any suggestion that there would not be a three party negotiation. In fact, it involved three parties. In his motion, my friend asks for all notes made at meetings between officials of the federal and respective provincial governments.
There is no inconsistency in this matter because the white paper and the minister's subsequent statements have made it very clear that the negotiations would be on a three party basis and that any transfer or change of any kind would only take place with the express consent of the Indian peoples. As a matter of interest, I think the first Indian nation to say publicly that there have been consultations with respect to the new policy was the Nishga nation. The tribal council made that announcement, and that nation is located in my hon. friend's riding.
May I now deal with the other aspect of my hon. friend's argument? There have been, of course, conversations and discussions between the two levels of government and the Indian people. He raised the matter of notes and conversations and also, I believe, the question of memoranda and working papers resulting from the discussions. I suppose the hon.
Motions for Papers
member is asking for conversations and memos made during conversations.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The second matter I now want to argue is whether these should be produced. Possibly I should preface my remarks by reading two paragraphs from the white paper presented by the minister. These come under the general heading of "Foreword". I will read these two paragraphs into the record:
The government does not wish to perpetuate policies which carry with them the seeds of disharmony and disunity, policies which prevent Canadians from fulfilling themselves and contributing to their society. It seeks a partnership to achieve a better goal. The partners in this search are the Indian people, the government of the provinces, the Canadian community as a whole and the government of Canada. As all partnerships do, this will require consultation, negotiation, give and take, and co-operation if it is to succeed.
That is the end of the first paragraph I wish to read. I halt for a moment in order to underline the fact that the whole matter of negotiations is predicated on a partnership. It is referred to as a partnership between the two levels of government, federal and provincial, and the Indian people. The white paper sets out in the first page that this partnership must be achieved by consultation between those three groups. I now quote the second paragraph:
Many years will be needed. Some efforts may fail, but learning comes from failure and from what is learned success may follow. All the partners have to learn; all will have to change many attitudes.
The white paper points out it will take some time for this process of negotiation. We all know it will take some time. We cannot change overnight attitudes of 100 years, policies, and conditions which have unfortunately lasted far too long. The white paper sets out, and the minister has said repeatedly, that this is a matter of negotiation between the three partners. During the negociations there will probably be memoranda. When I speak about negotiations between the three parties, I include the ten provincial governments. Negotiations will be carried on with innumerable Indian bands. Therefore the memoranda, working papers, telephone conversations and all the paraphernalia that accompanies modern day negotiations will pile up. The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal government is one of the parties to these negotiations. If we are going to enter into these negotiations with the hope there will be agreement and unity between these three parties at the conclusion of the negotia-

November 20, 1969
Motions for Papers
tions, we must not prejudice or compromise the position of any part at this time.
I know the interest of the hon. member for Skeena in the Indian people. I am aware of the interest of every member in this House. I say this as kindly as I can, and with the greatest respect, that by asking at this point in the negotiations for these documents to be produced the hon. member is not acting in the best interests of the Indian people. This sort of process is necessary in order to reach the objective for which all Canadians hope, including the Indians of Canada.
Possibly I could draw an analogy for a moment, Mr. Speaker. These are the things we do every day in our professions, our dealings between federal and provincial governments, dealings between international governments and between private individuals who may have a cause of action one against the other in a civil law suit. These things which are negotiable must be done without prejudice to the rights of another party. Successful negotiations cannot be carried on when one party runs and tattles to the judge about what another party said or did. Negotiation must be conducted in an atmosphere of good faith and mutual confidence.
Although I do not think the hon. member for Skeena intended to do so, it may be inferred from his remarks that the Indian people are not being involved and are not a part of the negotiations. That, of course, is not the case. They are parties to the negotiations. There has been no agreement to change the services provided to them, their status, ownership or title to land, the rights or privileges that they have enjoyed over the years. These will not be changed.
Discussions are being carried on with the provinces and no changes will be made without the consent of the third party because this is a tri-party arrangement. All parties have to be in agreement before any changes can be made.
The hon. member for Skeena referred to a speech made by the minister in Regina. I think it is helpful. The parts my friend quoted were helpful, but they were more helpful to his case and the argument that he advanced. I wish to quote from the same speech. I want to underline what is said in the white paper, that there would be continuing negotiations and consultation with the Indian people before any change is made or any transfer of services is made from the federal department to a provincial government. It is important that we underline this and subsequent statements made by the minister.
I will not quote the same sections as the hon. member. I made a note of what he quoted. I think we both have copies of that speech. On page 4 of the minister's speech we find this:
What is needed now is a sensible and meaningful discussion about the steps to be taken and to separate the principal components of the problem so they can be dealt with appropriately.
How are we going to do this if, every time a suggestion is made by one party and a counter-suggestion made by another party, or a discussion is held with an Indian band or an Indian band makes a proposal to the federal department, one of the parties, on the basis of proposals which are tentative and subject to ratification and approval by the Indian people, makes them public?


Frank Howard: Will the hon.
member permit a question? I ask this question because the copy of the speech which I have does not coincide with what the hon. member just read. I believe he read:
What is needed now is a sensible and meaningful discussion about the steps to be taken and to separate the principal components of the problem so they can be dealt with sensibly.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The copy I have reads: "So that they can be dealt with one after another, or jointly where possible."


Russell Clayton Honey: Well, Mr. Speaker, my copy is exactly the same as that of the hon. member, except for the last word, which is "appropriately".


Frank Howard: It says "one after another" here. More double talk.


Russell Clayton Honey: Anyway, the point with which I want to close my remarks is this: we all have an interest in seeing there is meaningful discussion between the federal government, the provincial governments and the Indians. We all have an interest in making a sensible, new approach. It may well be that the agreements ultimately reached will vary from band to band, or from province to province. It may be these agreements will turn out to be different from the proposals made in the white paper. But we all have a stake in this and we must try to make it work. We must sit down with each other and work matters out, carry on conversations in confidence, respect each other and try as best we can to find a solution to old problems and improve on the old ways

November 20, 1969

of doing things. I do not believe this is possible unless we are able to negotiate on the basis of respect and mutual confidence, as is the case in all other kinds of negotiation.


Frank Howard: Would the hon.
member mind answering another question before he ends his remarks? It relates to some words I took down; I believe I have them exactly as they were spoken by the hon. member. If he did not use these precise words, he said something very like them. Though he said it kindly, he said I was not acting in the best interests of the Indian people by asking for the notes of the conversations with the provincial governments at this stage of the negotiations, or at this point of time. May I preface my question by saying I spent a fair part of the summer talking with a large number of Indian people in my own constituency and in other areas. I talked to officers of the Nishga tribal council to which the hon. member has referred, and I also spoke to some of the chiefs of the Nass River band which is covered by the Nishga council. It was at the request of a great number of Indian people who wanted to know whether or not they could have this information-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member knows he is not entitled to make a second speech; he has to ask a question.


Frank Howard: Coincidentally, I was just reaching that stage, Mr. Speaker. I ask the hon. member this question: If the native Indian people who are concerned about these negotiations were themselves to request this information, these notes about the conversations, would he provide them?


Russell Clayton Honey: I made the comment to which the hon. member referred respectfully and kindly; I want to make that clear. We do not agree but I know the hon. member is acting in what he feels to be the best interest of the native people. To answer his question specifically, I could give no such undertaking because I feel that in negotiations of this sort it is important that the discussions be privileged.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the treatment of our native people. The white paper purports to look toward a three-party agreement. As far as the hopes of the government for the future are concerned I, like the Indian people, cannot be anything but 21362-68
Motions for Papers
happy about the objectives set out in the white paper. However, I am quite sure that what is bothering the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and a great many of the Indian people is not the objectives of the white paper but the methods by which we hope to achieve them.
The federal government has offered the Indian people full Canadian citizenship and participation. In this context I realize that some of the native people do not think of themselves as Canadian in the sense that we do. The hon. member for Skeena and I are concerned that in our desire to achieve this end we may in fact take steps which will delay the progress we desire to make by approaching the question strictly from the white man's point of view. If we do not enter into negotiations in the spirit of accepting Indians into the Canadian family, or milieu, as complete equals they will be the first to draw the proper conclusions. At the present time they are experiencing a deep feeling of uneasiness; indeed, this feeling has never left them since the white man set foot in this country.
If we take the attitude that this uneasiness arises from the fact that the Indian is a backward man, incapable of accepting our way of life and, therefore, incapable of becoming a fully-fledged Canadian, we shall fail as miserably as we have failed in the past. I am not here to criticize the white paper but to help put a few guidelines along the nebulous path we are treading. I know the Indian people and I have no hesitation in saying that I love them and they love me. The reason is this: from the time of my birth I have never tried to make an Indian into a poor white man. I love and admire the Indian people because they are great individuals on their own ground; they are great citizens in their own right. As displaced persons from Europe, every one of us, we have no right to tell the North American how he must behave in this country unless we can show him something better and finer. So far, our treatment of them has been far from acceptable to these people. No matter how high and mighty we talk, we are not treating them as equals, we never did, and we are not doing so today. Their distrust is, accordingly, well-founded.
We talk about consultation and we talk about co-operation; we talk about meaningful discussion, but this can begin only from one ground-that of mutual trust. I shall not throw any names around but I know certain people in this country adopt the attitude that

November 20. 1969
Motions for Papers
in a great many instances the solemn treaties which most of the Indians recognize as their bill of rights are entirely out-of-date and meaningless. If we enter into discussions with the Indian people with this attitude in mind we might as well have stayed home; it would be better to let them suffer the neglect which they have suffered for hundreds of years. We can no longer talk to them with a forked tongue, leading them along like bad children and suggesting in a condescending manner that we are bringing them up to the standards of the white man in the twentieth century. The leaders of the Indian people know they are equal, but it is very difficult to pass this feeling on to the children who are living under disgraceful conditions, in poor housing and in the most degrading circumstances of any citizens of this country.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Russell Clayton Honey: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be unduly critical or seem to be putting forward a narrow inter-petation in respect of this debate, but with great respect to the hon. member it seems to me he is not addressing himself to the point of the debate. The point is whether in fact the government should be required to produce the documents asked for by the hon. member for Skeena. This is not a general debate on the white paper, and I respectfully suggest that the hon. member confine his remarks to that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I think the hon. member is coming to the point.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not intend to get into a technical argument as to whether I am referring to the specific point of the motion. I am here to present, in my inimitable way, several guidelines in respect of the treatment of Indians. I ask Your Honour's indulgence because this type of quibbling prevents us getting down to the meat of the matter.
I believe the hon. member for Skeena is not only trying to flay this government and put it in an embarrasing position but he is trying to get from all levels of government a complete and frank understanding of the Indians' problems. If anything is going on behind closed doors regarding Indians, you can be sure they know about it. I presume the hon. member for Skeena has been asked by the Indian people to attempt to clarify this matter. I go along with his request. As hon. members of this house well know, I do not always agree with that hon. member but I give him the same

benefit of the doubt that the minister is requesting. The hon. member wants a similar co-operative attitude to be adopted, and a detailed discussion of this matter.
I am not castigating the ministers of the Crown and I am quite willing to overlook discussions behind closed doors among ministers, deputy ministers and officials of provincial governments so long as the discussions benefit the Indian people. Let me warn the government that it must be made abundantly clear to these people-not necessarily clear to me or to the hon. member for Skeena-that discussions behind closed doors or at open assemblies are taking place for the benefit of the Indian people.
I do not think for one minute that the minister intends, as the white paper suggests, that the Indian people should be allowed to remain in their present abject state. Great efforts are being made to provide them with proper housing. Up to now these people have not trusted us because they have not had the opportunity to raise their families in a way worthy of Canadian citizens. If we want them to trust us in the future, we must make every effort to assure them that we respect their treaties. The Indian people believe they have a broken treaty as far as their rights are concerned.


Colin David Gibson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit the hon. member is not addressing himself to the issue before the House.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If in the opinion of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) I have not been addressing myself to the issue before the House, I suggest he must be deaf. There are 21 Indian reservations in the district of Athabasca and I assure hon. members that I have the confidence and respect of the Indian people. I am attempting to give first-hand information in respect of what these people think. They think this government and all the members of the House have little or no interest in their welfare.


Colin David Gibson: The minister has been travelling all over the county speaking to Indians. He has done more in this regard than any other minister.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I know he has been speaking to the Indians and I know what he has said. I have read everything he has said to them. I am just giving the opinion of one of 264 representatives in this House. The minister is not on the right track.
November 20, 1969


Colin David Gibson: That is not an issue of the debate.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You will have an opportunity to speak later. I will be about five minutes concluding my remarks.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: They are just trying to stall you.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I understand and appreciate what they are doing, but my skin is thick. It has been toughened by the western winds and the cold of the western north, but I do not speak with a forked tongue. I do not believe this government recognizes Indian treaties. I intend to soon resume my seat, but if I did not say this the rocks of Canada would cry out in defence of the Indian. We must start with a solemn recognition of their treaties before the Indians will listen to us. I know these people very well. They sit quietly and listen; their manners are better than ours. They will sit and listen to the minister and the deputy minister, but they would listen more intently if the government assured them that their treaties would be honoured. If it is suggested that their treaties, signed by the great white mother in England, have no meaning or validity, we will get nowhere.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Has the hon. member completed his remarks?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Let me
remind the hon. member that the debate at this time refers to the production of papers. The hon. member should confine his remarks to that specific subject.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: There would be no purpose asking for the production of papers unless the hon. member had a specific point in mind. I believe that his purpose is nothing less than an attempt to prove to the Indian people that we are of good faith. The keystone of good faith in this regard is the recognition of Indian treaties. Unless I am sadly mistaken, my words are easily understood. I refer to the rights of the Indian people.
Let me try in my own inimitable fashion to explain this situation. If there is nothing in those papers which goes against the welfare of the Indian people, they should be made public. If there is anything of this kind in them, we should know about it. Many documents which pass between government departments should not be divulged. There
Motions for Papers
are certain delicate matters which if made public might be disadvantageous to the Indian people. They do not trust us now. They do not believe that when two groups of white people get together they should be trusted.
I do not intend to castigate the government for not producing these documents if someone can prove to me there is good reason for not producing them. I am easily convinced, and I would not be unhappy about such a decision because I respect secrecy in certain matters. This debate has given me a wonderful opportunity to suggest why the hon. member for Skeena moved his motion. The Indian people in Canada are alarmed, and no matter how polite they may be to ministers of the federal and provincial governments, I assure the House that they are deeply disturbed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We speak of equality. It is not sufficient to speak of equality to these people. We must firmly and ably demonstrate to them that we believe in equality We speak of improving their status. We do this behind closed doors. Such action suggests only that they are not equal and that their status is not clearly defined. Until we demonstrate to these people that we intend to honour their treaties, they will have every reason to be suspicious of us. The key to this whole problem is the matter of the treaties. I say this after 57 years experience of these people and because I love them. I would not have bothered getting to my feet today were it not for the fact that I want to state the truth and the simple fact.
We must make the Indian people believe we intend to honour the treaties no matter how out-of-date they may be. They have lived up to their obligations under the treaties, and if we do not sit down with them and discuss these questions it will be clear to them that we have broken the treaties. We must sit down with them as our ancestors did and make a solemn agreement with them. If we do not start there, I do not think we will get anywhere.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, the belief in free access to government documents is based on the principle that monopolistic control of information, a policy of secrecy, is in fact truly undemocratic and reactionary. Such a policy breeds distrust and contempt for the civil service and government departments. However, I do not advocate the "open access" theory which makes virtually all government

November 20, 1969
Motions for Papers
files of any description subject to public scrutiny at any time. Such a principle is a denial of the freedom to express thoughts, and inquisitorial attitudes can only spread alarm and a rush to the fireplace with documents. Those who have responsibility for long-term and detailed working papers must be protected from unfair prying and ineffective interference.
Consider, for example, an economist who is preparing a working paper for his department. Suppose he needs the opinion of officials in other departments and in assessing his interim opinion he names certain people as expressing views pro or con on a certain position: then suppose he expresses his interim view and views which are frank but not final. Should those working papers be scrutinized before the official has had an opportunity to fully develop his research material, weigh all considerations and make a decision free from outside, public pressure? I say no, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, such a policy of premature disclosure would inhibit free thought and independent judgment; it would only discourage frankness of expression by civil servants. I respect the right of the expert to work on his projects with that freedom of thought and expression which goes with the nature of his responsibilities.
Surely we have not reached the point where a politically unpopular idea cannot in private be expressed and weighed as to its merits by the officer of a government department. Otherwise all thoughts, ideas and expression of ideas would be weapons to be used in the glare of publicity and in the public, political forum. Government officials are not to be pillaried and spied on. They must be allowed to deliberate in a democratic way as is the case in nearly all businesses and professions. I should like to quote from page 30 of the report of the Task Force on Government Information:
The Report of the Royal Commission on Security (Abridged) acknowledged the fact of the Swedish system of open access but it did not approve of the principle behind the system.
"We would view suggestions for increased publicity with some alarm. We think the knowledge that memoranda might be made public would have a seriously inhibiting effect on the transaction of public business. We believe that the process of policy-making implies a need for wide-ranging and tentative consideration of options, many of which it would be silly or undesirable to expose to the public gaze ..."
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion and suggest it is six o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I wonder
whether the hon. member would mind my not accepting his suggestion that it is six o'clock. If hon. members would bear with me, I should like at this point to deliver words of wisdom which are the result of serious consideration of a point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
When the motion for second reading of Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, was proposed this afternoon, the hon. member for Peace River raised a point of order to the effect that certain financial provisions contained in that bill were outside the terms of the recommendation of the Crown, and that the bill should be set aside or a supplementary royal recommendation should be presented before the bill be finally passed.
The hon. member went on to say that some clauses of the bill provided for certain fees which in his view constituted an imposition of taxation. The hon. member cited Standing Order 62 which is in effect a restatement of section 54 of the British North America Act. That Standing Order reads in part as follows: S.O. 62(1)
This house shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose, that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
November 20, 1969

In effect the hon. member suggests that a taxation provision must be recommended to the House by His Excellency. In that regard I might read an excerpt from a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Anglin as long ago as April 24, 1878. Hon. members may think it curious that I would make use of such an ancient reference, but the matter was so clearly stated by the then Speaker that I have little hesitation in using it at this time:
The whole question occurs to me at the present moment in this light. In the first place, I may say that the 54th Clause of the British North America Act, 1867, has no bearing whatever, in my opinion, on the case. It relates merely to appropriations. Honourable Members in reading it over rather cursorily are led into a mistake owing to the peculiar reading of it as follows: "It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the Public Revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General, in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill is proposed."
This Clause does not bear on the Question of the imposition of taxes at all; it merely relates to appropriations.
The same principle is set forth in citation 263(3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The 54th Clause of the British North America Act, 1867, merely relates to appropriations, and does not bear on the question of the imposition of taxes.
Again I might refer to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition, footnote (b) on page 412, which reads as follows:
In the journals of 1873 the governor-general's recommendation is signified to a resolution relative to customs duties in the North-West, through a misapprehension of the meaning of the section which refers only to the "appropriation of a tax or impost," and not to one "imposition" of the same.
May I now deal with the question as to whether the fees proposed in the bill are, in effect, a method of imposing taxation. If we assume for a moment that the proposed fees are a taxation measure, it is my opinion that proceedings on the bill could continue since the only condition imposed on a taxation measure is that it be introduced by a minister of the Crown. Here I would observe that citation 269 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition states:
No augmentation of a tax or duty asked by the Crown can be proposed to the committee, nor tax imposed, save upon the motion of a Minister of the Crown; nor would an amendment to extend the imposition of a tax to persons enjoying an exemption therefrom be now permitted.
Water Resources
In other words, only the government or a member of the government can introduce a taxing measure and the Governor General's recommendation has no direct bearing on this procedure. On the other hand, I have given very careful consideration to the most important point raised by the hon. member for Peace River in relation to whether the proposed fees do in fact constitute taxation as understood under our practice and procedures. I must say that I am not convinced that they are taxation. May I refer to page 504, Bourinot's Fourth Edition, where it is stated: The correct practice, as in the English Commons, is not to require a previous committee when the bill exacts fees for services performed, and when they are not payable into the treasury or in aid of the public revenue. For instance, the "act to regulate expense and control charges of returning officers at parliamentary elections" contains a schedule of charges and expenses, which was not previously considered in committee.
In conclusion, I may say that the terms of the royal recommendation appear to be wide enough to cover any expenditures that may form a charge on the public revenue, and this is the requirement of our practice of the B.N.A. Act and of our standing orders.
Second, it is my opinion, supported by the several authorities to which I have referred, that a specific recommendation of the Crown is not required for the imposition of a tax or for the charging of fees by an agency of the Crown in relation to services rendered by such an agency. For the reasons stated, I suggest that the financial provisions of the bill have been introduced in accordance with the usages and privileges of the House. The bill, in my opinion, is properly before the House.
I thank hon. members for their forbearance. It being long after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 6.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at five o'clock I was speaking of the difficulties in making the water quality agencies work as intended by the bill. In order for an agency to become operative in any given area there must first be a federal-provincial agreement. Next there must be an application to incorporate the proposed water quality agency, presumably followed by the appointment of
<1066

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
the members to the agency. The agency will then prepare its administrative structure, hire personnel and start holding meetings. It will theh start to prepare plans for water quality Control within its boundaries, and such plans Will require a great deal of consideration, surveys and research. After plans have been promoted they must be submitted to the federal department for approval, and presumably to the provincial government. Both these governments will have to review the plans, which no doubt will require a further feasibility study within the federal and provincial departments.
I could point out many of the other problems that will be faced when getting into the business of pollution control, but the main point I am trying to make is that this bill adds to jurisdictional red tape rather than taking away from it. While the relationship between the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the water control agencies is fairly well spelled out in the bill, there is nothing in it which sets out the relationship Of these agencies with other significant federal departments which have jurisdiction, such as fisheries, transport and health, and with the provincial and municipal agencies. In other words, the water quality management agencies will in a sense be foundlings and will not have very much assistance or support *from anyone else. Their connection with other federal departments and with provincial departments is not defined.
* *1 !I could point out further inadequacies in the bill, but others of my colleagues will be faking part in the debate and the bill will be studied clause by clause in the standing committee. It is fairly clear, from the preliminary reaction, that some provinces will not easily be persuaded of the federal government's good faith in this bill. I can foresee interminable negotiations with the provincial governments over many of the local agencies. There will not be just ten agreements; there will be many more than that-one for each of the local agencies.
The federal government's austerity measures at the present time, and the minister's own words, give no assurance of concrete financial support for this whole concept, without which I believe no province could reasonably be expected to make an agreement. The lack of a cost-sharing formula and the complications of the bill itself must make many provinces suspicious. But nothing effective can be done under this bill within a province except by a negotiated agreement. Where the

agreement fails, the effect of the bill is diminished, and in the meantime pollution problems will mount.
Having made these very broad and severe criticisms one may properly ask whether we have a better solution or a reasonable alternative. I believe that we have. First, we would set up a national department or agency to co-ordinate pollution control efforts in all departments and to deal with water quality as part of this over-all approach. The proposed Canada Water Act is not part of any integrated plan to deal with pollution control; it is just another of the bits and pieces of pollution control legislation that we now have in Canada.
Second, we would deal with water quality ias part of a national priority for pollution control, and commit the necessary funds from federal taxation. Third, there is clear and well defined federal jurisdiction over and responsibility for pollution control and water quality management within the provinces, independent of provincial jurisdiction, as well as in the territories and coastal waters. The federal Parliament should be asked to assume this jurisdiction and to act upon it directly.
To be specific, Mr. Speaker, the federal Parliament has strong powers through its jurisdiction over sea coast and inland fisheries, navigable waters, national health, transportation, agriculture, national research, international and interprovincial works and undertakings, the criminal law and law for the peace, order and good government of Canada.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The scattered and widespread federal powers in regard to pollution control-which it has been so difficult to manage-could be the strength of the federal case, not its weakness. These powers, many already exercised independently by numerous departments could, if welded together, form a strong base for a federal pollution control bill. It could assume powers concurrent with, but not superseding, provincial powers. Where provinces are acting, the federal agency could work with them to prevent duplication. Where provinces are not acting, the federal government could proceed within its own field of jurisdiction, at its own expense and on its own initiative, to deal with pollution control as a matter of federal and national concern. I cannot see any province objecting to the federal government going about its own business within a province.
November 20, 1969

For example, Ontario has an excellent Water Resources Commission which has been dealing with pollution control for about 14 years. At the same time, the federal government has under the aegis of the minister established at Burlington the Canada Centre for Inland Waters and has proceeded with its water quality research and control program without any question or hesitation. The federal government acting within its own jurisdiction set up this centre and there is no objection to it whatever; indeed, the province of Ontario has a centre right beside it. Another example is this: we did not hear the province of Newfoundland objecting when the Department of Fisheries effectively stopped the pollution of Placentia Bay. We have not heard the government of Ontario object when the federal government has taken charge in many of these areas. They recognize that there is a federal responsibility in this area, and I believe they are prepared to accept it.
The federal government is not the natural enemy of the provinces, especially when it is spending money within its own jurisdiction. Neither should the federal Parliament, acting in its own field, be subservient to or dependent upon provincial legislation. That is exactly what we are doing in this bill, because provincial refusal makes the bill useless. At the same time, provinces which are proceeding to combat pollution within their own field should not be limited by federal legislation.
Our alternative to this bill is simply this: we should have a federal pollution control act, or water act, in which the federal power is declared and acted upon. The federal government could then proceed with its own program, at its own expense and in its own way. Provinces willing to act, or which are already acting within their own field, would welcome a partnership with the federal government. A significant example was quoted by the minister himself this afternoon:	there is no
authority under this act to ban the use of detergents or other polluting agencies throughout Canada.
The federal government certainly has the power, and I believe it could and ought to assume that power under any bill passed by Parliament. The government has the authority to do this, and it is not too late to do so. I suggest that such a provision could very well be included in the bill and that it would be welcomed. In provinces not active in their own field, and there are undoubtedly examples, Canadians would have the benefit of the federal work and protection.
Water Resources
Mr. Speaker, with this clear alternative before it-it has been suggested that the authority is there-and in view of the introduction of this complicated, difficult and ineffective bill, we can only assume that the government is not prepared to spend money or to take responsibility for pollution control, but intends to pass the problem as quickly as possible to provincial and local agencies.
A start has been made. The minister has set forth on a difficult course. We hope he will have a different bill to administer when we have finished dealing with it. Whatever program we end up with, I think I can assure him that this House will wish him well and support him in carrying out the best legislation that Parliament can produce.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in the debate now taking place in the House. Before I proceed any further I should like to say a word or two about the preceding speakers. This afternoon we heard from the minister. I must say it is good to see him becoming increasingly active in the House. We all sincerely wish him a full and complete recovery of health. While I intend to be rather critical of several aspects of the legislation which we are discussing this afternoon, I am quite certain that the minister realizes there is nothing personal in my remarks about the draft legislation before us.
In his speech this afternoon the minister was rather poetic in spots but his message came through quite clearly. It seemed to me the message was that this federal Liberal government has no real plan for solving Canada's pollution problem. It has given up any pretext of leading a vigorous fight against pollution. It is to a large extent unloading the problem of pollution and the related costs on to the provinces and the municipalities. If there are no national anti-pollution standards, there can be no enforcement under an amendment to the Criminal Code. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this government has again proven itself ineffective in dealing with one of the major problems facing this nation, that of the pollution of our environment.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The preceding speaker, a spokesman for the official opposition, made a number of interesting points and I agree with most of them. I, too, feel that this bill in its present form will be ineffective in tackling the grave pollution problems our nation faces. It seems to me that the government has almost deliberately passed the pollution problem on to the

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
provinces. Of course, in doing this it escapes an onerous financial burden which it might not wish to assume at this time.
I listened with interest to the speeches made in this debate. I believe in co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities. We have had too little co-operation in the past. I am not opposed to our setting up groups to co-ordinate federal and provincial activities at any level. However, if we read the debates of three or four months ago we find that the government said there was considerable difficulty in establishing groups which could take joint action on pollution problems. As reported at page 10554 of Hansard, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Hum-boldt (Mr. Lang) said:
Two years ago the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, now Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), proposed to the provinces that the senior governments endorse the establishment of a national advisory committee on water pollution, with representation from the federal government, the provinces and the universities. This committee would have included in its functions studies on various aspects of water pollution, such as regional and national water quality objectives, the costs of pollution, and the benefits to be reaped through pollution control. The terms of reference of this committee have recently been expanded to include air and soil pollution as well as water.
He went on to say:
Our proposal included an offer to finance the committee and provide it with a secretariat. Although most provinces seemed to favour the proposal, others did not. This stalemate is much regretted by us since it has blocked one avenue of joint action.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has blocked one avenue wherein the provinces and the federal authority could undertake joint action. This afternoon the minister told us that a committee will be set up with each province; we are to have ten separate committees. This clearly indicates that there will be many major areas of Canada wherein there will not be any pollution control at all.


Mr. Lewis:: Hear, hear.


Randolph Harding: There will not be any action, nor co-operation between federal and provincial authorities.


An hon. Member:: Read the bill.


Randolph Harding: I have read the bill very carefully. It seems to me that many Liberal backbenchers have not taken the time to read the bill or the speeches some of them have made inside the chamber and outside it before the

legislation came down would not have been worded so optimistically.
Before dealing with the bill itself, I wish to say that members on all sides of the House have said on numerous occasions that pollution problems in this nation are growing increasingly grave, as they are in other nations of the world. Warnings are coming from any sources. A very interesting scientific report from the United Nations points out that mankind is in serious trouble as a result of pollution. We are polluting our environment to the point that our destruction is inevitable unless immediate and drastic steps are taken to protect every part of our environment. Speaking on the subject of oceanography yesterday, a Canadian scientist said that unless action is taken very, very quickly, the internal combustion engine could spell the end of mankind. He pointed out that not only Canada but the whole world is in trouble in this respect.
Also, Mr. Speaker, one can readily see that there is a problem resulting from toxic pesticides. This government has given precious little leadership in the control of those pesticides which infect our environment. About ten days ago the Prime Minister said that the use of DDT was to be cut back and that the government would consider the problem of other toxic pesticides. This has long been overdue. We should have been doing research into this subject months and months ago. We have waited for the provinces and other countries to take action on DDT and have followed lamely along in the rear. We follow after irreparable damage has been done to our environment.
It seems to me that we have acted this way in almost every field. Take, for example, the matter of air pollution. What is the government doing about air pollution? One or two committees have been set up and there has been a bit of investigation here and there; but no standards are being set. Because in our country a small portion of the population live in a vast area, we seem to think that these problems may escape, may go away for a period of time. You have only to look around to see what is happening in some areas and realize how much they are affected by air pollution. Take, for example, the United States and the pollution in the Los Angeles area. The motor vehicle, chiefly, has created the smog in that area, as has industrial waste. Air pollution has now reached the point where school children under 21 years of age are afraid to exercise for fear of damaging
November 20, 1969

Water Resources
their lungs. This problem is affecting every urban area of this and other continents. How long do we have to wait for some type of leadership to be given by governments in regard to this problem? This government should be giving leadership.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I shall now deal with the problem of water pollution. This bill is supposed to deal with that problem. The problem of industrial wastes, sewage and phosphates lacks any action by the federal, provincial and municipal authorities. This fact is apparent everywhere we look. For example, action must be taken with regard to phosphates; the problem must be corrected now. The detergent manufacturing companies must be approached. New products must emerge from the research which I hope is being carried on and should be carried on with increasing tempo. Reports received by the various agencies indicate that we do not have much time in which to find a solution to this problem.
I wish to point out one or two examples of what is occurring through stupidity, not only the stupidity of this government but the stupidity of people in general who have ignored the problems of pollution. The Great Lakes system is the greatest body of fresh water in the world, yet we have almost completely destroyed it. We do not have to look very far from Ottawa to be aware of the pollution problems that exist. The problem is apparent in the Rideau River and the Gatineau River. It is disgraceful to have a river in the national capital area in such a condition. Nothing has been done to clear up these problems. In my home province of British Columbia there is the great Fraser River, one of the greatest salmon rivers on the North American continent. The lower reaches of this river are nothing but a running sewer. These are the problems that worry Canadians.
I now wish to deal with the Canada Water Act which is now before us and discuss several of its sections. I wish to point out to hon. members where in my opinion the act is weak, in the hope that amendments will be suggested when it gets to the committee stage. The bill we are now debating deals with only one aspect of pollution, namely, water pollution. This is normal; we do not expect everything to be covered under the one act. It is difficult to disagree with the bill, which in my opinion is scarcely more than a new administrative framework set up by the government in the hope that it will eventually solve the
grave pollution problems of this nation. No doubt it will provide better federal-provincial co-operation, and no one is opposed to this.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is certainly not the tough, no-nonsense, no-deal legislation we expected for solving our water pollution problems. It is not the type of legislation the people of Canada were led to believe they would get in the Canada Water Act. This act must be a bitter disappointment to the Canadian people because it does nothing about pollution; it merely sets up another administrative framework to deal with our water pollution problems. As I said before, the bill sets no uniform Canadian standards, no regional standards and gives absolutely no leadership in this regard.
The bill will allow industry to pay for the right to pollute. I repeat, it will allow industry to pay for the right to pollute. This anaemic approach to our water pollution problems is being abandoned by those governments which have tried it. The bill places most of the onus for pollution control on the provinces and municipalities. There is only a vague, general outline of the federal government's position in dealing with the tremendous financial problem which will be caused by pollution control when it comes into effect. It is crystal clear from the bill and the minister's remarks this afternoon that the bulk of the cost will be borne by the provinces and municipalities. This fact alone is enough to severely restrict any major attack on pollution problems for years to come.
I now wish to go back and cover one or two points which I dealt with rather quickly. I wanted to make these points before my time expired. I indicated that I felt the act would be a bitter disappointment to the Canadian people because it does nothing about the problems of pollution; it merely sets up another administrative body. I now wish to state why we are apprehensive. This government has in the past had a bad record which leads me to believe that permissive and not direct legislation is just another stalling tactic. To date this government has had a poor showing in the pollution battle. As a result, Canadians everywhere are suffering from a reduction in the quality of their lives. I feel this permissive legislation is merely an appearance of action on the part of the government.
Time and again this government has had an opportunity to act on the problems of pollution, but it has failed the Canadian people. A number of acts already on our statute books

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
could have been used for pollution control. Hon. members know they have been almost totally ignored. I wish to give several examples of this: we have the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the National Harbours Board Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the National Health Act and a number of others. Each act has a set of regulations that could and should be taking care of the pollution problems facing this nation. In addition to these acts, there are about 14 government departments directly involved in the problems of pollution. However, action by them has been totally lacking. They have been ineffective because of the lack of government initiative. If we get from the Canada Water Act the same results that we have had from the enforcement of the acts already on our statute books, our pollution problems will remain unchecked. We have the power to check pollution, but that power has seldom been used.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The federal government prefers to pass the buck to the provincial and municipal authorities. The question I should like to leave with the minister is: Where do the government departments now fit into the pollution picture? Has the co-ordinating committee been set up? What about the regulations we already have and the various acts covering a variety of government departments? How do they fit into solving Canada's pollution problems?
A very interesting article appeared in the Globe and Mail of last August, written by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). In his opinion there was virtually no body of water anywhere in Canada under either federal or provincial jurisdiction which did not come within the provisions of the Fisheries Act. He suggested in the article that one or two minor changes might be made, but that the Department of Fisheries was the logical department to deal with water pollution. This suggestion has been ignored. I find myself wondering how the Fisheries Act fits in with the pollution legislation now proposed.
I intend to read one or two excerpts from this article because I think they should be placed on the record. I shall not read the whole of the article because it is too lengthy. I will start with the part dealing with pulp mills, which is as follows:
Canada's No. 1 chemical process industry is busy putting its own house in order. Let us hope that other chemical-type industries will follow suit:

But why focus on pulp and paper? The reason, in quantitative terms, is obvious. We have no less than 170 pulp mills in this country. They use up more than 80 per cent of all the water consumed by industry in Canada. Also they are responsible for dumping well over half of all the decomposable material thrown into our water courses each year. No wonder that we in the Fisheries and Forestry Department in Ottawa are concerned about the pulp and paper industry and the way it is dealing with its pollution problem.
The article continues:
The Fisheries Act, must, of course, be applied uniformly across the country.
The minister is calling for uniform standards across Canada. The article goes on:
New plants should be up against uniform standards wherever they locate. They must be up against the same laws and the same regulations. Otherwise they will be able to seek out the provinces which have poorer standards and exploit their pollution laws.
He is pointing out, with crystal clarity, what we should be doing-the very opposite of what this bill proposes. He goes on to say, as reported in this article:
Pollution abatement, of course, costs money. And in order to escape these costs new industry has a tendency to go to those places where it can use our fish-bearing rivers as a dumping ground. This must be stopped and the uniform application of the Fisheries Act can be very helpful in this regard.
He then makes other points. I shall read a little further on in the article:
Our Fisheries Act can, of course, stand improvement. It should include clauses which are anticipatory in nature. And with these amendments, we will no longer have to find dead fish in order to prove our case. We will no longer have to wait until the damage is done to our waters.
The point the minister is making very clearly is that we must insist on uniform standards Canada-wide. What do we get in this bill? Regional bodies are to be set up in the various river basins and will set their own standards. The result will be a hodgepodge of different standards from one end of Canada to the other.


Colin David Gibson: The water is not the same.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Randolph Harding: This is one of the weaknesses of the present bill.


Colin David Gibson: You will not strengthen it.


An hon. Member:: Look at your own water in Hamilton.


Randolph Harding: Other things have been done by this government. A cabinet decision passed
November 20, 1969

on February 9, 1967, gave the Department of National Health and Welfare primary responsibility for abating water pollution resulting from the operation of federal government facilities. Though we had a different Prime Minister in 1967, a Liberal government was in power. Many hon. members now in the chamber were here in 1967. The decision taken then applied to the departments, the Crown corporations and the Crown agencies.
Since then, reports have been received. Time does not permit me to go into them in detail, but the crown corporations are among the worst offenders in Canada as far as pollution is concerned. There are army camps which run raw sewage into our rivers; yet here we have a cabinet decision giving a government department the right to ensure that things of this kind do not happen. If hon. members wonder why we are critical and apprehensive when we see a new administrative structure being set up, it is because the government has done nothing with the power it already possesses. These are the things that worry our party and which I know concern the general public of Canada.


An hon. Member:: There is a difference.


Randolph Harding: I could deal with a whole series of acts bearing on this question. There is the National Harbours Act. What about the dumping of 150,000 tons of acid into Hamilton Bay? What was done about that? Nothing.


Colin David Gibson: You know nothing about it. We are working on it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Randolph Harding: In 1909 the Boundary Waters Treaty was signed with our neighbour to the south. It provided for the creation of a commission. The treaty states:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
-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.
Consider what we have in the Great Lakes system. The situation in the United States is as bad or worse than it is in Canada. We have a treaty which prohibits the polluting of these waters, but it has never been enforced because we have a weak administration. This point should be made crystal clear to the people of Canada.
One thing that has worried me is that we have not had any uniformity of standards. I should like to deal with this matter before my
Water Resources
time expires. The minister said this afternoon that this measure will lead to the controlling of pollution. That is a little different from my interpretation of the bill. Let me quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of November 4 regarding a meeting held to explain the provisions of the Canada Water Act. I am now more apprehensive about the situation, having read the words of some officials of the department. These people were attending a Great Lakes conference at the education centre in Toronto. While newspaper articles can be misleading, this article states that Dr. Prince, a very fine and capable individual, said:
Dr. Prince, an expert in water resources said industries and municipalities and other sources of waterways pollution would be charged fees for the right to pollute.
The article continues:
He said, too, that pollution would not be defined by the Act, but would be determined instead by regional water quality management boards. These boards would determine how much pollution was acceptable in any of their areas of reference.
The article goes on to state:
"If people are not prepared to put any substance, any part of the gross national product into their environment, then they can wallow in their own juices until kingdom come," he said.
That is not my interpretation of the minister's remarks this afternoon. I understood this money was to be used to clean up the problem of pollution. As I read the act, it is to be left to the regional boards to decide upon the fee to be charged in respect of pollution. The article then states:
His evaluation of the act ... caused shock and disappointment among many at the conference.
The article says, further:
-as Dr. Prince explained it, polluters will be able to continue polluting by paying fees to the regional water board "commensurate with the degree of pollution".
The regional boards-whose composition has not been determined-would decide how much the levy would be and how it would be used.
He anticipated that the money would be used by the boards to fight the pollution caused by the feepayer. He suggested the fees would be high enough to make the polluter look to installing his own control.
The regional boards would also have the right to prosecute offenders-and would have the right to do so with degrees of discrimination. They could not, however, force offenders to install pollution control equipment or get out of the business.
What this means, Dr. Prince admitted, is that one regional board, going on its self-established definition of pollution, could force a firm into major expense or even out of business, while a similar firm could pollute with impunity in another region.

November 20, 19G9
Water Resources
Those are not my words; it is the interpretation of a man in the minister's own department. Let me also refer to what Dr. Lee said. He is in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. He said, according to the article:
-the new Water Resources Act was, among other things, a true attempt at creating participatory democracy.
He said that in regions depending heavily on one major industry for prosperity, residents might have to choose pollution over the possibility that the industry would cease operation rather than control its effluents.
"One has to get the consensus as to what an area is prepared to back", he said. "We must sell the idea to the man in the street, who must put his taxes and behaviour toward a better environment.
Mr. Kelly, a member of a group in Toronto carrying out a pollution probe, is reported in the article as having

-attacked the requirement for control as unequal and asked: "Should anyone have the right to pollute anything?"
Dr. Prince said they did, if they wanted to pay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse the privilege given by hon. members, but there are one or two points I wish to make. As I mentioned earlier, industry knew that a new bill was to be presented. Some people in industry felt that the idea of looking to industry is not the best arrangement of controlling pollution.
There are a number of other quotations I could present to the House this evening. I shall refrain from doing so, on the understanding that I will have an opportunity to read them later on. I should like to point out what I think is a very weak part of this measure. We are allowing effluent to flow into our rivers. Industry is to be given the opportunity to violate the law by paying a fee. The Ontario government has taken some action in pollution problems. Let me read from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of August 28. It is not a direct quotation of the minister's words but I presume he

gave this information to the press. The article states in part:
Ontario companies convicted of pollution offenses should be forced to clean up instead of paying fines and staying dirty, Resources Minister George Kerr said yesterday.
He said his department is considering changes in legislation to force companies to clean up pollution instead of paying up. The changes should be ready for the mid-January session of the Legislature, he said.
I endorse that position. I think it is a very good idea, and that the firms polluting our waterways should be made to clean up rather than continuing to pollute them and merely paying a fee so to do.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Very briefly, I should like to say a word or two about the financial problems, which has probably worried me most. We are passing on to the provinces and municipalities a tremendous bill in respect of pollution. They do not have sufficient money to take adequate steps in respect of pollution problems. Just last summer a number of municipalities made requests for loans to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In the province of Alberta 12 municipalities had their loan applications turned down because the supply of money had run out. The minister indicated today that more money will be made available. But here we have been set back because of the lack of available financing at reasonable interest rates for municipalities. If the action on the part of the government in the inflationary period this current year is to be the same as it has been in the past few months, we will see on the part of municipalities a slowdown in the establishment of facilities for the treatment, primarily, of sewage.
In closing there is one further point I should like to make. We have a committee on national resources. That committee drafted some recommendations which were presented to this House. They were unanimous recommendations. The committee was composed of members from all parties. I shall not read all the recommendations but I should like to refer to the pertinent ones. The committee recommended that the government draft a code of standards for the cleaning up and the future protection of all Canadian waters. These are not my words; they are the words contained in the recommendation of the committee. The committee further recommended that provincial approval of such a code be sought and that the federal government provide an enforcement procedure, if necessary
November 20, 1969

by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code.
I endorse the whole of the committee report. That particular recommendation, however, runs afoul of this bill. Here a multiplicity of regions are to be established, with each setting its own standards. There is to be no national standard, no national enforcement- nothing. This is what we protest and will continue to protest through organizations all over the country which are becoming interested in fighting pollution and are demanding, regardless of jurisdictional difficulties, that the problem be solved. We shall not let the government get out from under this problem by saying it is a constitutional one which it cannot tackle and which it will pass on to the provinces, thus avoiding giving proper leadership.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, we now have before us a bill on water pollution and water resources, etc. There is no doubt that such a bill is necessary.
At the rate we are polluting our rivers, though knowing that the population in Canada and in the United States is bound to increase, we can ask ourselves what we are heading for if we persist in so doing.
I feel that the bill introduced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will not be opposed, although it *cannot by itself settle the complex problem of water pollution, since the federal government has no exclusive jurisdiction in that field. In fact, we should ask ourselves to what extent the provinces are willing to fight water pollution.
In my opinion, the provincial governments are aware of this problem. But the provinces, municipalities and industries do not always have at their disposal the necessary means to fight water pollution nor do they have the engineers or technicians required. It is those who are able to pay, those who do research work and give advice who should take the situation in hand.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I was reading recently that only 3 per cent of all the water in the world is fit to drink, of which 2 per cent is made up of ice at the poles or on high mountains. Therefore, there is very little drinkable water available and if we do not take the necessary steps to protect this element essential to life, we will soon be faced with very serious problems since water pollution already exists.
Water Resources
I live in a rather new and small town of northwestern Quebec through which runs a small river. At the very beginning of colonization, sewage facilities were rather primitive, as can be expected; everything went into the river. Today, if a human being or an animal falls into a river, even if it does not get drowned, it is almost condemned to death, so polluted is the water.
This water at home flows into lake Abitibi which is fairly large. It gets cleaned up there, it evaporates but if several towns were established in this region or if the population increased and kept on acting in this way, within a very short time water from lake Abitibi would no longer be usable.
Similar cases are to be found almost everywhere. What proposals are made? Municipalities are invited to build water treatment plants. The National Housing Act suggests a plan under which loans may be granted to municipalities that wish to benefit from such services. Considering that nearly all municipalities are already deep in debt, that they have to borrow money at prohibitive rates of interest, and that most of them cannot pay for the construction of water treatment plants, they must get better assistance.
According to the information the minister sent us before introducing the bill in the House, industries are requested to arrange for used water treatment. This could be the best solution. It remains that production costs will necessarily increase and finally, the consumer will be the one to pick the tab.
We should therefore invite those who are in a position to do so to contribute to that project, either by levying some new taxes in order to help the municipalities to treat their sewage or by making grants and offering tax exemptions to the industries for that purpose.
The Canadian citizen will be unable, in my opinion, to avoid the cost of treatment in spite of the steps which could be taken. There are some technical methods to treat sewage and clean up the water but such facilities can entail considerable expenses.
In my municipality, a saw-mill was set up only a few months ago and it was necessary to equip it with a garbage incinerator. Knowing that he would shortly be compelled to install an incinerator to avoid polluting the air, the owner took the necessary steps in order to ensure the immediate treatment of smoke and waste.
If the new industries at least did the same, it may be that in a few years, the problem of

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
air pollution would be solved. Any new industry could be prevented from locating anywhere unless it committed itself to taking the means required to avoid polluting the air and the water.
According to a summary of biological culture there are three main causes of water pollution. I quote:
First cause of pollution: degradation of the cultural balance.
Second cause: the use of chemical fertilizers which are all acidic and provoke the introduction of minerals into seepage. These minerals are almost always ammoniacs, potash, lime. Yet drinking water has to have among other things high electrical resistance and few electrolytes. Only then can it be safe to health.
Third cause: the disposal of human waste into rivers (fermented dejections from septic tanks and sewage). This practice is perhaps necessary because of the human concentration in cities.
But it is perhaps possible to avoid this latter cause by purifying the waters.
I go on:
Fourth cause, which is probably the most serious and over which we have absolutely no control at present: pollution by industrial waste.
Big industry uses enormous quantities of water for every kind of production: metal, cement, pulp and paper, leather or plastics. Food industries, be it dairy products, meat or sugar, have similar requirements and every time the plant waste water flows into the river without being treated or sufficiently treated. Industrialists find it more immediately profitable to pay fines rather than change their facilities to meet vital requirements.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
So, in view of those sources of pollution, I feel that the act must be firm enough and strong enough to minimize loopholes. As far as rivers are concerned, for instance, we hear from time to time of ships' masters being fined for polluting rivers with hydrocarbon waste. And still such infractions seem to continue and be quite frequent in spite of the fines. Apparently it is cheaper to pay the fine than not to throw the waste into the river and therefore the ship masters adopt the cheapest way. I feel that the government is not being firm enough, strict enough.
In studying the legislation which is before us tonight, I wonder whether it has been made firm enough. At any rate, we will be able to go thoroughly into it in committee. We will be able then to ask for further information from the minister and the officials
who will be called upon to give us a word of explanation. However, I wish to tell the minister that, as far as offences are concerned, when the act is in force, it will be absolutely necessary for us to take a very firm stand.
We must eradicate completely every cause of water pollution. The Canadian Water Pollution Control Institute moved a resolution that was agreed to on October 26, 1965, and subsequently published in the Canadian Worker in June 1966.
I am convinced that the minister has read that resolution, but I should like to quote it in part tonight for the information of hon. members.
Item (3) particularly, states the following, and I quote:
(3) It Is for industry, regional, provincial and federal governments, individually and collectively, to ensure adequately the treatment and control of sewage in order to prevent pollution;

-and Item (5), on which I spoke earlier, is to the effect that
(5) Pollution control has to be administered firmly, efficiently and equitably;
As to Item (8), it is worded as follows:
(8) As sewage represents an increasing proportion of water resources as a whole and since it could very well be recuperated and re-used through its restauration to a sufficient degree of quality, it is advisable to promote the perfecting of methods for the treatment of sewage and the adoption of standards so that they may be used again.
Of the 14 sections, those struck me particularly even though the others are interesting.
The City of Chicago, for example, was drawing large quantities of water from Lake Michigan to supply its municipal services, but the waters were later discharged into a river flowing south, so they did not come back into Lake Michigan. Some people submitted a project for replacing the water taken out of Lake Michigan by Chicago and other industrial cities.
As the minister said in his speech this afternoon, people are moving towards water bodies, and it has been like that since the beginning of the world. Industrial cities use up tremendous quantities of water which must be replaced.
An engineer from Sudbury, Mr. Kierans- not the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications but an engineer-put forward the so-called "Grand Canal" project. Its purpose would be to draw the water discharged in James Bay by a number of rivers, to pump it as far as Amos and from there to direct it to Lake Nipissing and Georgian Bay

November 20, 1969

in order to feed at least that body of water as well as the St. Lawrence River whose water level dropped considerably for a few years.
The problem of the drop in the water level in the St. Lawrence River and in Montreal harbour seems less acute than it was for the last two or three years, but nothing seems to indicate that it will not come up again.
If we diverted the fresh water that is presently being lost in James Bay and Hudson's Bay to the Great Lakes, that might also help control pollution.
In industry as well as in domestic work, cleaning requires frequent rinsing. The large quantity of recoverable water that discharges in James Bay could, as it were, serve to rinse the waters of lake Ontario and make them at least purer.
This project, I am told, is being studied by the government of Ontario, thanks to federal grants, according at least to a statement by the Quebec minister of Natural Resources.
It seems the study on this project has not progressed as fast at Quebec government level, because the federal government did not grant any subsidies.
In this bill, it is stated that agreements must be reached between the federal government and the provinces.
To my mind, unless there is agreement with all the provinces, the industry no longer cares about the pollution problem.
I am confident that the interest of all Canadian provinces in the fight against pollution and in the conservation of our waters is such that they will not refuse to participate in this fight.
To date, some federal-provincial conferences afforded the ministers of natural resources the opportunity of consulting with each other. Such conferences should be held more frequently so that all the knowledge might be pooled, with a view to checking that serious problem.
The Ralliement creditiste feels that this bill is necessary to complete other imperfect acts; the government can always change it to improve it.
We feel that this bill should be given second reading, and referred to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works for a study in depth. If we feel that it is necessary to amend it, we will not hesitate to do so.
Water Resources
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his excellent and detailed presentation this afternoon on the introduction of this legislation. I am sure all hon. members agree that it is very nice to see one who is genuinely respected in all corners of the House, in this portfolio as well as the one he held previously, and as a backbencher, returned to something like his old form. We certainly wish him well.
Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to Bill C-144, which primarily concerns the conservation of our Canadian water resources, I am naturally very much aware of the mounting anxiety in regard to pollution, which problem I believe brought about this legislation. No doubt I shall be tempted, as will other hon. members, to refer to the larger, over-all field of pollution which of course includes air pollution, soil pollution, water pollution and environmental pollution generally. However, I shall try to resist this temptation.
Water pollution in itself is not merely one of local concern; it is a global problem. The continued concern for this problem, both on a national and a world-wide basis, may well mean the difference between life and death for many. Malthus might have presented his famous revelation to the world in even more startling terms by saying: "The population of the world increases geometrically while the water supply on the earth is constant."
Fresh water is, of course, a very important and precious commodity, not only to us as Canadians but to every citizen and every nation in the world. We in Canada have perhaps been fortunate in this respect, as we have been in so many other ways. It is a fact that all the available fresh water on earth is only 0.325 per cent or one-third of 1 per cent of the earth's entire water supply. The Great Lakes, that important body of water which means so much to us on the North American continent, contains 25 per cent of the total of all fresh water found in all the lakes of the world. That is 25 per cent of all the water, Mr. Speaker, for one-half of 1 per cent of the world's population. This is why the action of the government in introducing this legislation and the provisions of the bill itself are so important, if not for ourselves then for the world at large.
I mentioned that I would try to refrain from diverging from the subject matter of the

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
bill. However, may I make one brief reference. I have been reading a book by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, called "The Population Bomb". This is a challenging publication put out for the American public, and is in some respects rather frightening. By the author's own admission, it perhaps portrays the very worst situation which one might expect on this planet in the not-too-distant future. While the general subject matter is not for this debate, I should like to make one brief reference to this book. On page 66, Professor Ehrlich says:
I have just scratched the surface of the problem of environmental deterioration, but I hope that I have at least convinced you that subtle ecological effects may be much more important than the obvious features of the problem. The casual chain of the deterioration is easily followed to its source. Too many cars, too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticide, multiplying contrails, inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much carbon dioxide-all can be traced easily to too many people.
While this statement, in relation to Canada as a whole, certainly can be questioned, he is perhaps right in one respect. Our present, very serious water pollution problem, which I believe can be generally pinpointed to the Great Lakes basin for the most part, has no doubt been brought about by the presence of too many people in one place. There are, of course, secondary factors which I would like to mention later.
The deteriorating situation in regard to the Great Lakes is of course shared equally with the United States of America. We must halt this degradation. Thirty-five million people live close to the Great Lakes. This is more than half as much again as the total population of this vast country. Over 3.5 million people in the United States, and something like 150,000 in Canada, take their domestic water supply from Lake Erie which is presently the most polluted of the whole Great Lakes system.
I mentioned the population factor because, of course, the recognized primary cause of water pollution is improperly treated domestic sewage or raw sewage, which can only be found where people are. An indication of sewage pollution is expressed by coliform count and biochemical oxygen demand, called BOD; the latter expressing the resulting decrease in the normal dissolved oxygen content of the water by the decomposition of organic matter. A related pollution problem- and possibly the most difficult one to deal with in the Great Lakes-is the one of eutrophication. This is the chemical enrichment of fertilization of the water, providing a
[Mr. Hymmen.l
highly undesirable medium for the promotion of algae growth. In Lake Erie it has been estimated that 72 per cent of these plant nutrients have come from municipal sewage, especially detergents. Detergents have contributed about two-thirds of the phosphates in sewage and nearly one-half of the lake's total input. Another 17 per cent comes from agricultural run-off, 7 per cent from city streets and urban property and only 4 per cent from industrial waste.
The second major source of water pollution has been from industrial operations-industrial chemicals, mine drainage, pulp and paper mill effluent, plating waste, etc. While our steel mills, pulp and paper mills, packing plants and many other industrial operations have been most important to the economy of our nation and to the well-being of our workers, no industrial firm has had a God-given right to pollute our waters; neither has any municipality or any other level of government. Steps must be taken by whatever means at our disposal to bring this action to a halt. This must be done, and can be done if we have the will to do it.
I was interested to learn recently that one of our important Canadian paper mill operations-the Ontario Paper Company in Tho-rold, Ontario, a firm that I happened to be connected with some years ago-recently announced a $5,000,000 program to remove suspended and dissolved solids from their effluent. I should also like to mention that a new, $500,000 waste treatment plant was recently opened at the J. M. Schneider packing plant in Kitchener, one of my valued constituent firms.
These are only two examples, and I am sure there are many more, where industrial initiative and co-operation has indicated acceptance of responsibility for the proper disposal of waste. The public has allowed us to become a little careless over the years. The waste factor and the provision for disposal of waste must be of equal importance to the providing of employment and the marketing of primary and manufactured products. It must not be subservient to the profit factor which is, of course, the essential feature of our industrial economy.
The initiative must be encouraged by provincial legislation for situations beyond the purview of this bill. It no doubt has been assisted by the federal tax regulations providing for accelerated two-year depreciation on industrial waste installations. Consideration can no doubt be given to other methods.
November 20, 1969

However, the important decision which the public is now demanding must be made. No matter who pays for it, the guidelines and the goal must be set. This is, again, a question of priority. However, if we can put men on the moon with our present scientific know-how, we can do anything that we have the will to do.
Without detracting in any way from this scientific achievement and with every good wish to Messrs. Conrad, Bean and Gordon for their safe return to this planet, I am sure there are, in the United States of America, many people who wonder whether a portion of the $24 billion spent on the space program might not have been put to better use in cleaning up some of their water and other pollution problems. There are other forms of pollution, Mr. Speaker, which must continually be examined.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
A progressive step in regard to the use of the latter has, of course, been taken with the recent announcement in regard to the use of DDT. I believe I can remember when DDT was first introduced. It was a great boon to the agriculture industry. However, from the very beginning we have heard warnings from wildlife people to which, in retrospect, too little attention was paid. It has taken at least ten years or longer to realize what we should have known from the beginning, namely, that the benefits from the use of any new commodity must outweigh the adverse effects.
I mentioned agriculture run-off and the problem caused by phosphate fertilizers. With all the problems existing in our agricultural sector, which we heard so much about earlier this week-and I am sympathetic for the most part toward these problems-I do not seriously recommend taking away these fertilizers. However, with tongue in cheek might I suggest doing this as a rather naive way of solving the problem of over-production and the bulging elevators on the western prairies.
If I may get back to the bill before us, it provides the mechanism and framework for a great deal of consultation and co-operation among all levels of government and is, in my opinion, a giant step forward. For the first time penalties are to be imposed in order to make sure that the job can be done. Some will say that the penalties are too high, and others that they are too low. I would hope,
Water Resources
Mr. Speaker, that with interest already growing on the part of the general public, we can set ourselves to the necessary task without the penalties having to be imposed.
While this act will apply primarily to major interjurisdictional waters, to international, interprovincial or boundary waters, the use of which significantly affect waters outside a particular province, I would hope that in time the provisions of this act or similar legislation could with the co-operation of the province be extended to cover all Canadian waters. We are possibly in a grey constitutional area. Nevertheless, contrary to what some believe, I think that until we change or re-write our constitution we should live with the one we have. The provinces have for many years accepted responsibility for water resource management. Most of them have appropriate legislation and have designated ministerial responsibility. Some have done an outstanding job. This bill, when enacted, will complement and assist their efforts.
When a bill such as this is introduced it must, to have any hope of success, anticipate a great deal of co-operation at all levels of government. Now is not the time to poke a finger at any particular area for what has not been done. Rather, we as Canadians should gird ourselves for the important task which lies ahead, in the interest of present and future generations. I am very proud on this occasion to represent a municipality which since 1905, for almost 65 years, has accepted full responsibility for the treatment of its domestic waste. While I admit that the initial efforts may not have been too sucessful, we have progressed as a progressive community should. For some time now we have had complete secondary treatment of domestic waste for our community of over 100,000 people. I should also like to record the objection of His Worship, Mayor McLennan, to the summary omission in this connection of the city of Kitchener from the latest report of the Economic Council.
Bill C-144, when enacted, will repeal another federal statute, the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act. It may be rather unusual to make reference to legislation on the way out. However, in the few minutes left at my disposal I should like to speak about the Grand River basin. This, of course, covers an important area in the heart of central Ontario which has played a significant part in the development of our Canadian industrial economy and has an important continuing role in this respect. We have the Golden, Triangle consisting of the cities of Kitchener,

November 20, 1969
Water Resources
Waterloo, Guelph, Galt, the down-river industrial community of Brantford, plus a very rich agricultural area.
The Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act has been extremely important to us in the past. We in the area had hoped that this could continue to be a medium for the conservation and preservation of our inland water resource, the Grand River. The Grand River Conservation Commission was incorporated under provincial charter in 1935, well in advance of the provincial conservation act and the establishment of other provincial conservation authorities. Over the years three important dams have been constructed on the river, the Shand, the Luther, and the Conestoga. The main purpose of these dams was flood control, but other important ancillary benefits were also derived. A total of over $8 million had been invested, in capital and operating costs, up to the beginning of 1966. Five and a quarter million dollars in capital costs was provided by the two higher levels of government; over $3 million was raised by eight area municipalities for capital and operating costs. Since these dams were initially constructed and the capital funds supplied up to the end of 1965, not one cent had been provided or asked for with respect to operating costs from the two higher levels of government.
Under the existing legislation, the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, work had been in progress for an extended program to provide additional dams on the river. While this program had been approved by the government of the province of Ontario in January, 1967, one of the designated participants under the act, and the submission had been subsequently forwarded to the federal government, neither I nor any of my colleagues representing constituencies on the river have had any success in persuading the ministers responsible, or the government, that federal participation should be approved.
One of the problems of which I have been very much aware in regard to the existing statute and others involving shared programs is a complete lack of awareness or consultation among the three levels of government in the early stages of planning. If Bill C-144 provides for nothing more-and I am sure it will provide for a good deal more-than consultation, co-operation, research and planning at all levels of government and industry, including research establishments, the universities and the private sector, as indicated, in my opinion a great deal will have been accomplished.

The introduction of Bill C-144 and the indicated repeal of the existing statute is not merely a summary abrogation of federal financial responsibility. It indicates a change in thinking which, perhaps, after all may be in the right direction. If the federal government through the new legislation accepts full responsibility, as indicated, for international, interprovincial or boundary waters with or without the co-operation of the provinces- which in itself is a large and expensive undertaking-perhaps the provinces will agree to retain their already accepted responsibility for purely provincial and inland waters.
All is yet not lost in regard to the Grand River valley. The Grand River Conservation Commission has been dissolved and has been replaced by a larger body representing, I believe, some 70 urban and rural municipalities, the Grand River Conservation Authority. The government of the province of Ontario has already offered to increase its share of the proposed program from 371 per cent to 60 per cent, and I believe is presently considering the possibility of filling in the 37 J per cent gap of permissive funds by the federal government under the existing statute.

Mr. Speaker, like the other hon. members who sat on the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, I am looking forward to the second reading of this bill and to its reference to the committee.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order at this time. It is nearly ten o'clock and I understand the government house leader has an announcement on the business for next week. I wonder if it might be called ten o'clock at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I think it was agreed among representatives of the parties that this debate would continue on another day; therefore, I concur in the hope that it might be called ten o'clock.
With regard to the business for the coming week, the first item to be called on Monday will be the Expo Winding-up Act which was reported back to the House today. This will
November 20, 1969

be called on Monday for report and third reading. In the two successive days in that week, perhaps even on Monday as well as on Tuesday and Wednesday, it is the intention to call the three budget bills resulting from the June 3 budget. These will be called in the following order: No. 27, the Customs Act amendment; No. 34, the Excise Tax Act amendment; and No. 26, the Income Tax Act amendment. As I indicated, it is hoped that business will be completed by the adjournment on Wednesday.
On Thursday and Friday of next week we intend to call the motion to refer the white paper on taxation to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in order to permit the House to debate in general terms the tax proposals contained in the white paper. I hope some time during the course of the week to propose to the House the making of a special order on speech time limits to permit the maximum number of members to participate. As I indicated, I concur with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) in calling it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the desire of hon. members, we will now call it ten o'clock and proceed to the adjournment debate. I fear there may be a slight difficulty. On the basis that we would proceed at ten o'clock with the first question on the agenda, the minister who would normally reply to this question is not yet in the House. Normally the minister would be here at ten o'clock. I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants to proceed at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we not just sit for two or three minutes, Mr. Speaker, and wait for the minister to arrive? There is no law against it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder if there is more than one question. We might perhaps juggle the order.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the second question has been withdrawn. With regard to the third question, the same difficulty arises as with the first. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says there is nothing in the rules which states we cannot just sit around and say nothing. It may be legal, but it certainly will be very unusual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe we could sing something.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



OLD AGE SECURITY-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDING BILL

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think we have proven something, namely, that it does not hurt us to sit and meditate for a moment or two. I hope the result will be a favourable answer from the government side. I gather that although we were waiting for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), we will hear from his parliamentary secretary instead. My question this evening arises from a question that I asked on Wednesday, November 12, as recorded in Hansard at pages 738 and 739. The entry in Hansard is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Toward the end of last session there was a list of bills given, many of which were not reached. One of them was a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. In view of the fact that such a bill was not included in the list of bills that the Prime Minister tabled on the first day of this session, may I ask the minister whether there will be such a bill during the course of this session?
The Minister of National Health and Welfare replied as follows:
It is highly unlikely, Mr. Speaker.
The point of my question and my reason for raising it again tonight is surely quite clear. Toward the end of the last session we were given a list of bills that it was hoped would be dealt with before the first session prorogued. That list included a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, but we did not reach it. Whenever I see something of that nature, I hope for the best. I hope it means a substantial increase in the pension paid under that legislation. I must say, however, that I knew that was too much to hope for last session.
I understood the purpose of that proposed bill was to deal with certain anomalies in the Old Age Security Act, and I had hoped those anomalies would have been dealt with during the last session. I was therefore quite surprised when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the first day of this new session in tabling a list of bills for us to deal with did
November 20, 1968
1080	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not include that piece of legislation which was tidying-up in its nature. Accordingly, I had hoped that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have assured me when I asked this question on November 12 that we would at least get this tidying-up business before us in this session.
A number of members have asked questions from time to time which have brought out these anomalies. Of course, the one that hits us the hardest is the fact that there is in the Old Age Security Act a provision to increase the pension each year as the cost of living goes up, but never by more than 2 per cent in any one year even if the cost of living increases by 4 or 5 per cent. That is a major anomaly I wish the government would correct.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
However, I wish to spend these three or four minutes on another anomaly, that is, the provision in the guaranteed income supplement part of the Old Age Security Act which declares that in most cases pensioners get their income supplement based on what their income was last year. There are two exceptions, two instances in which a pensioner can get a supplement for the current year based on his anticipated income for the current year. These are, first, if you retire from employment in the current year, and second, if you change your marital status in the current year. In all other cases it is the income from the previous year that counts.
As a result of this, some serious situations develop. There are people who have allowances of one kind or another-widows who have an allowance from the death of a husband which lasts only four or five years and ends in the middle of the year. The widow finds for that year her income drops because the allowance is stopped, and the next year, when she applies for a full supplement because she has nothing else, she is told it has to be claimed on the basis of her income for the previous year, so she has to wait for a further year before she gets the full amount.
In the same vein there are people who in the course of a year will take a little job and make $40 or $50, in the whole year, just enough to amount to more than should have been made under the terms of the income test. When a person does that, at the end of a year he is penalized twice; he has to make a back payment because he got too much and then, for the next year, he has to apply for a guaranteed income supplement on the basis of the income he got the previous year even if
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
he does not intend to work again. No one denies the double penalty aspect of this. We have had this out on the floor of the House and with the officials of the department. The kindliest answer we have received is that this is one of those anomalies that was not intended and which will have to be straightened out. We have been told several times that some day it would be straightened out.
I was not privy to any secrets in the matter, but I certainly got the impression that this was the kind of thing which would be dealt with in the bill proposed last year to amend the Old Age Security Act. In the meantime, many are suffering because anomalies of this kind have not been straightened out. I hope that even if the government takes longer than it ought in getting around to the larger question of increasing the basic amount of the old age security pension, it will not put off any longer an amending bill to deal with these anomalies which are really quite cruel. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to assure us tonight that these matters will be attended to during the course of this session.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that we all share his concern about matters affecting the welfare of the Canadian people, including our senior citizens.
I have noted his remarks, especially those anomalies which he mentioned. I wish to state that his comments tonight will be brought by myself to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). Although no bill was presented to the house on matters of social welfare at the opening of the present session of Parliament, I am sure the hon. member has noticed in the Speech from the Throne the following paragraph which I shall quote. This can be found at page 2 of Hansard lor October 23, 1969. It states:
Changes in the patterns of need in our society call for a more equitable social policy which will offer assistance and security to people unable to work or to provide for themselves and their families. A white paper on social security will be presented-
This white paper will deal with all matters of welfare including old age security. These measures will be made known through this white paper and, of course, all consequent legislation will be closely related to it. In view of these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I
November 20, 19B9	COMMONS
can only repeat tonight, on behalf of my minister, what he has already stated to the hon. member, that it is highly unlikely a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act will be presented to the House this session.



POLLUTION-REGULATIONS RESPECTING AUTOMOBILES-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked what the government was doing in respect of outlawing car exhausts which produce air pollution. I had in mind the situation in the United States where the federal authority has recently settled out of court an action against a car manufacturing company in respect of this very matter. I also had in mind tougher action by New York state, which at this moment is taking a car manufacturing company to court to enforce the New York anti-pollution car exhaust act.
The question I tried to raise was not acceptable during the question period, so I raise it again this evening. With the few moments I have available I want to remind hon. members in the House that until recent years the North American car industry has had practically a free hand in regard to the design of component parts for its products, so far as safety is concerned. To underline the significance of that fact let me state that there are three main ingredients in car accidents: the first is the car, the second is the driver and the third is the road. For years in Canada we have been killing 100 persons a week, wounding 3,000 a week and losing millions of dollars in economic tolls due to car crashes, a great many of which were avoidable. In the last four years, the period in which many of the present members came into the house, no fewer than 20,000 Canadians have been killed, 600,000 have been wounded and billions of dollars have been lost through car accidents.
Air pollution from car exhausts is part of this general problem. My question was, what is the federal government doing to give leadership and co-ordination to provincial authorities to enforce realistic anti-pollution air exhaust legislation? There are enough cars sold in Canada to have a significant effect on the total North American car market. Cars sold in Canada could be fitted with safety features even though Washington fails to act. It is disturbing to note that our new Canadian car safety standards, recently announced with a flourish of car horns, are simply extensions of the standards set in Washington, where the
DEBATES	1081
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion car industry has for many years dragged its feet in respect of public safety.
In the United States the industry's motive is still directed to eye and sales appeal rather than to safety. Car bumpers are actually decorations, a sort of cosmetic rather than a safety feature. A standard bumper height for all cars could save a great many lives and a great many millions of dollars. In conclusion let me repeat my question: What is the law of our land, and what is our federal authority doing to co-ordinate and give leadership to the provinces, which have a great deal of authority in this field, to enforce specific laws regarding air pollution and exhaust standards?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) for bringing up this question, especially at this time, since there will be at the Chateau Laurier during the next three days the general annual meeting of the Ottawa district Ontario Motor League. That association concerns itself with all matters related to automobiles and I know the interest and importance the hon. member attaches to such a question.
However, I would not like him to believe that the Canadian government scorns all those good intentions and does not consider any change. As he knows, Bill C-137, entitled an "Act respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicles and to provide for safety standards..." was given first reading on November 3.
With regard to safety and air pollution, here is what clause 2(h) of the bill says, and I quote:
"safety standards" means standards regulating the design, construction or functioning of motor vehicles and their components for the purpose of protecting persons against personal injury, impairment of health or death.
If we talk about air pollution, this is an indication that there is an impairment of health and, under this clause of Bill C-137, the minister will have the authority to prosecute those who will not meet the required standards. I urge the hon. members of the opposition to show all their devotion, their goodwill and to offer their suggestions when this bill comes up for second reading in a week or two, and especially when it is sent to the Committee on Transport and communications.
November 20, 1969
1092	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Other countries have other standards with regard to noise, for instance. Following the passage of this bill, the minister will be able to make changes in the legislation or to deal severely with those who use motor vehicles which are too noisy because paragraph (h) which deals with the protection of people against personal injury and impairment of health or death, is broad enough to cover these cases. Therefore the minister will be in a position to deal severely with the manufacturers or the owners of exceedingly noisy vehicles.
If this bill is passed this year or early next spring, all the security standards with which it deals, will be imposed with regard to the construction of 1971 model cars.
I think this is a good answer to the question asked a while ago by the hon. member for Surrey about the legal proceedings taken in

the United States against two automobile manufacturers because of air pollution. This clause covers the cases of noise because it deals with impairment of health or death. We can only hope that the hon. member and the members of his group will support the passing of this bill and will propose acceptable amendments in order to improve its contents. Thus, the government will also be in a position to claim that it has its own legislation to regulate the construction of motor vehicles in order to protect the health of our people. Indeed, it will be possible to take legal proceedings against those whose vehicles are the cause of air pollution or personal injuries if the standards set by the law have not been observed.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Friday, November 21, 1969