1969-06-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of newspaper reports on a question I directed to the Prime Minister during oral question period last Friday. In my question I indicated that Metropolitan Toronto plumbers working a 37J hour week would, as a result of recently concluded collective bargaining, be paid more than Members of Parliament. A number of newspaper reports- and the particular one I shall quote is the Canadian Press report contained in Saturday's Ottawa Journal-stated:
Members of parliament are paid $18,000. Of this amount, $6,000 is tax free."
Little wonder that the headline "Plumber's Pay to Top M.Ps?" ended with a question mark.
The newspaper report would indicate, since $260 times 52 does not exceed $18,000, that the factual foundation of my question was not valid. This is an implication which I emphatically deny. I have no information on how plumbers are reimbursed the expenses they incur in the exercise of their trade. I was not comparing the expense allowances of M.Ps and plumbers. I was comparing salaries or wages, and the plumbers' 52 times $260, or $13,520, certainly exceeds the M.Ps' $12,000 annual indemnity.


Mr. Speaker:: In spite of the obvious support received by the hon. member for his alleged question of privilege I suggest that the matter should not be pursued further. It is not, actually, a question of privilege, and we ought now to go on to another matter.
I might inform hon. members that this seems to be an allotted day for questions of privilege, having in mind that the Chair has been formally advised of three such questions, the second of which is in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West. Shortly thereafter, notice of a question of privilege was sent to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in connection with
approximately the same subject as the one raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I do not think it will be necessary for each question to be presented to the house separately; for the time being I will invite the hon. member for Edmonton West to indicate what his question involves.
MR. LAMBERT (EDMONTON WEST); MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)- IMPARTIALITY OF CHAIRMEN-PRESS RELEASE BY CHAIRMAN OF PROCEDURE COMMITTEE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is briefly as follows: One of the matters to be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization was the degree of impartiality and conduct of the chairmen of the house standing and special committees and whether they should assume a position comparable to that of the chairman and deputy chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
Notwithstanding this referral, which has not been adjudicated upon by the standing committee, the chairman, without authorization of the committee, or even discussion at the last meeting, has seen fit to issue a press release, in his own name, on Friday, June 20, -I have attached a copy to my notice to Your Honour-wherein he pleads the case for the adoption of the proposed rule 75C as referred to in the standing committee's third report. This report was adopted by the government majority on the committee, with all opposition members present at the meeting voting against it.
It is contrary to all the principles of our committee system and the role of committee chairmen to so act unilaterally and in a partisan manner. As such, this action by the chairman constitutes a breach of the privileges of the members of the house and of the committee.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Your Honour is correct, Mr. Speaker, in saying that my question of privilege is the same as that which has just been raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Since he has stated it clearly, there is little I should add. I might just say, however, in

June 23, 1969
Question of Privilege
support of my contention that the chairman of our committee-who has otherwise been an excellent chairman-exceeded his authority, that he issued his release on a letterhead which has the following printed at the top: "Chairman of the Standing Committee, Procedure and Organization." In other words, the release appeared to have been given in the name of the committee, whereas the committee itself gave the chairman no such authorization.
I protest this action because it seems to me it is not in line with the tradition of impartiality which chairmen should follow and which our committee, in particular, has been enjoining on the chairmen of all the standing committees.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank both hon. members who have spoken for having given me notice of their intention to raise this question of privilege. I think everyone in the house will appreciate that they, like myself, are concerned about the proper operation of the committee system, and certainly that there should be no partisan abuse of the position of chairman.
I have had a certain amount of experience with this complicated question of presenting rule changes, not only to hon. members but to the public and to the press. I think hon. members will be aware that the proposal contained in the committee's formal report consisted of three proposed orders of the house, and without reflecting upon the excellent draftsmen responsible for such orders, I think it is clear that the wording of the orders is in technical language not readily understandable to either the public or to the gentlemen of the press, who have to meet a deadline of some kind when announcements of this sort are made. Therefore, I undertook on my own initiative to prepare what I thought was a fair and proper summary of the three standing orders which were recommended by the committee, and I stand by that summary. I think that anybody who reads it would in general agree that it is not a partisan statement but an attempt to explain the text of the standing orders.
The position of a committee that sits in camera is rather difficult. I must say that in the interest only of avoiding undue discussion I refrained on Friday from raising a question of privilege of my own. As recorded at page 10453 of Hansard, after my report had been tabled the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose in his place and stated:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that this is a report of the Liberal members of the committee only. It does not have the support of any members of the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is true.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I suggest there is some infringement on the privileges of those hon. members who are members of my committee in that this statement is not accurate. As everybody knows, this report carried with it in its majority recommendations the substantial concurrence of all members of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Duncan Gordon Blair: In connection with this question of press releases I should also like to point out that before the house opened on Friday morning the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre distributed a long, three page press release-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Duncan Gordon Blair: -setting forth his opinions and views on the recommendations of the committee. I am not suggesting for a moment that he is not entitled to express his opinion, but what I do say is that perhaps this might indicate that there is a reason why the chairman should have undertaken to prepare an explanatory press release.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the standing orders the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave the Chair some hours ago notice of their intention to raise this matter. Anticipating that there might be a motion and lengthy debate, the Chair spent most of the luncheon hour considering the alternatives open to the Chair, to hon. members and to the committee. I am sorry that I cannot use all of the knowledge that I gained during these two hours of study; perhaps I will have an opportunity to do so on another occasion.
For the time being, in view of the fact that there is no motion presented to the house by either the hon. member for Edmonton West or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and also in view of the fact that, if I may say so, the very question raised by the hon. members is now before the Committee on Procedure and Organization, I suggest that it is not for the Chair to decide in what way the responsibility of the chairman of the committee should be considered, but rather for the committee itself to make a recommendation to the house.
June 23, 1969	COMMONS



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon- P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies in both languages of the two reports submitted by the government of Canada at the last meeting of the constitutional conference, held on June 11 and 12 last.
I promised to the house, on the morrow of this conference, to table those reports in the house. They are entitled: "The Taxing Powers and the Constitution of Canada", and "Federal-Provincial Grants and the Spending Powers of Parliament".
fEnglish]
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that we also presented to the conference a third paper which dealt with certain constitutional aspects of regional disparity. This paper is not being tabled now as it was principally a review of the positions that we had stated before in publications of the federal government such as "Federalism for the Future" and "The Constitution and the People of Canada" and in the papers that were tabled today. Whether any further paper on the subject of regional disparities will be published subsequently will depend on the future. It will depend on the nature of our future discussions on this subject.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to give hon. members a brief account of my recent tour of Scandinavia. This is the first statement I have given and I think it appropriate that it should be made here in parliament and not in the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: My tour began on June 8 in Oslo and ended on June 19 in Reykjavik, after visiting Helsinki, Copenhagen and Stockholm. This was the first time a Canadian foreign minister had made a tour of all five Nordic countries. It was the first time that a Canadian foreign minister had visited some of these countries.
Report of Minister on Scandinavia
My purpose in undertaking this tour was to reaffirm on a personal basis the long standing good relations between the Canadian and Nordic governments, to provide a new impetus for increased co-operation between Canadians and the Nordic peoples, and to make Canada better known in those countries.
In all the capitals visited, I emphasized that the enlargement of Canada's international horizons taking place as a result of our foreign policy review does not imply any lessening of Canada's interest in Europe and that we recognize the importance of Europe not only for our security but also for many other dimensions of our national life. It is from Europe that most of our population, our culture and our tradition comes. The bulk of our immigration and a significant proportion of our exchanges of persons, ideas and goods are still with Europe. These relations are of great importance not only in themselves but also as a means of diversifying our external relations and developing an identifiably Canadian way of life in North America. For all these reasons we wish to seek new forms of co-operation with the Europeans, including the Scandinavians.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Everywhere we went our reception was friendly and generous, and I wish to say here, as I said there, how much we appreciated the care with which our programs were prepared and the many kindnesses we were shown. It was evidence, I think, of the high regard in which Canada is held in those countries and of their desire to get to know us better.
Great interest was shown in our review of foreign and defence policies. In outlining its nature and the results so far, I stressed the great changes that have taken place both in Canada and the world in the last few years. I pointed out that Canada is now aware, as it has never been before, that it is not only an Atlantic nation but also an American nation with growing interests in Latin America, a Pacific nation with growing ties with Japan and other Asian countries, and an Arctic nation with increasing responsibilities for the development, surveillance and defence of our vast northern territories. Above all, I emphasized that in deciding to stay in NATO and to stay in Europe, we have rejected a non-aligned or inward-looking orientation.
This explanation received a sympathetic reception everywhere. Those Nordic countries that are partners of ours in NATO pointed out
10514	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Report of Minister on Scandinavia that our action would necessitate readjustments within NATO and they stressed the importance of both the timing and the possible psychological repercussions as factors to be carefully weighed. However, I am confident that they have a better understanding now of our objectives and that they are reassured of our intention to maintain an effective Canadian military presence in Europe.
Another aspect of our foreign policy review which attracted considerable interest was our decision to open negotiations on diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. All the Nordic countries except Iceland have embassies in Peking and I formed the impression that they welcomed the Canadian initiative. I also took advantage of my presence in Stockholm to get a personal report on this subject from our Ambassador there.
We had some very useful exchanges of views in the Nordic capitals about the general question of east-west relations and European security. I explained Canada's vital interest in the search for detente between east and west and for a lasting solution to Europe's security problems. This was why we had welcomed the various initiatives, including the Budapest Declaration, that had been taken concerning the possibility of holding a conference on European security.
I expressed support in particular for the positive but realistic approach of the Finnish government and for their view that any conference that might eventually meet should be without pre-conditions, should be fully prepared, should involve all countries concerned and, above all, should be assured of reasonable prospects for success.
The west at least had no interest in a conference that failed and it would therefore be wise to proceed step by step, sounding out the possibilities of agreement beginning with the easier problems and moving on gradually to the more difficult ones. I explained that we envisaged this in terms of a steady on-going process, in which NATO consultations had an important role to play, rather than in terms of some great occasion on which there was likely to be an abrupt clash of views on stubborn points of contention. I also made it clear that Canada intended to be involved in this process from the beginning and throughout. I found that there was a near identity of view on these points between all the Nordic governments and ourselves, and it was agreed that we should keep in close touch as bilateral consultations proceeded.

We also had an opportunity to discuss developments in western Europe, including future prospects for the European Common Market and its relationship to proposals for a Nordic economic union. We found it useful to compare notes on the situation in the Middle East, in Nigeria and in Viet Nam. We exchanged views on the disarmament negotiations and on United Nations matters, including peace keeping operations and the provision of aid in disaster situations. On all these questions we found that more often than not our appreciation and approach were very close to those of the various Nordic governments.
In each capital we discussed a number of bilateral questions concerned with trade and other forms of exchange. It should be borne in mind that Canada is the second best customer for Denmark and Sweden. We found everywhere a desire to increase co-operation on a functional basis and some specific suggestions were discussed, particularly in the economic, scientific and technological fields. Interest was expressed in reciprocal visits by parliamentarians and I hope, Mr. Speaker, to have a chance to discuss this with you at an early date.
In meetings with the public media as well as with governmental authorities, I made a special point of explaining Canadian policies and objectives in terms designed to make clear that we had our own view of the world, our own aspirations and our own way of doing things that were not quite like anybody else's. As a result I think there is a better knowledge of Canada in the Nordic countries and a better appreciation of the possibilities for our working together. I, in turn, have a much clearer picture of these countries and their peoples and of the prospects for joint action.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily it might be difficult to know whether I should commence my remarks with a quotation from Confucius or from Hans Christian Andersen, but in the circumstances I must begin by protesting the failure of the minister to make this statement in the house on Friday.


Mitchell William Sharp: It wasn't ready then.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it must have taken a long time to prepare this statement-


Mr. Harkness:: It always takes a long time to try to make something out of nothing.
June 23, 1969	COMMONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister had plenty of time to prepare to meet the press, but not time enough to perform his first obligation upon his return, namely to meet the House of Commons. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to admit that the statement he made today lost nothing by being delayed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think it would be safe to say that no Canadian minister has been the object of such derision internationally since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came back from London.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not know whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is more to be pitied than laughed at or more to be laughed at than pitied. But still the comment made by Winston Churchill comes to mind, made after Wendell Wilkie returned from a world tour. Wilkie said, "Mr. Churchill'-as he then was-"I could write a book," and Churchill replied, "And the title could be Gullible's Travels."
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The purpose of the minister's trip is incomprehensible. He gave no explanation before he left Canada concerning why he was going. Now that he has returned he has given a rather convoluted explanation to the house and the country. I must say I congratulate him on being able to keep a straight face during his presentation, while all those about him were having great difficulty doing so. According to the minister's statement and the news reports, the minister made a number of speeches in Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm and the Lord knows where else, on the genesis of the Prime Minister's NATO policy. It was much the same sort of dou-bletaik we have been hearing for several months, of keeping one foot in Europe and maintaining an effective military presence. This kind of talk has been a farce here. It is bad enough that this should take place before a Canadian audience but it is worse that the minister should make a road show of it.
Already it seems clear that the real reason the minister went to Scandinavia was to get in cn what he thought was the successful conclusion of the talks between Canadian diplomats and representatives of the Peking government. The minister was going to jump on the bandwagon just as it came into public view. Before he left Canada, when he landed
Report of Minister on Scandinavia in Europe, and on every occasion that presented itself he dropped hints that he would be glad to see the representative of the People's Republic of China. The minister's eagerness was equalled only by the Ambassador's indifference. If the minister met anyone at all, it was strictly Occidental.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize to the house for using that play on words; but his apparent pursuit of the Chinese Ambassador has made this country look foolish. What it has done to the minister's reputation I am too charitable to say. He described this as the first official visit of a Canadian foreign minister to the countries of Scandinavia, yet his main reason for going seemed to concern not only different countries but a different continent.
The minister claims to have encouraged- and by one reading he claims to have conceived-a meeting between the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, and yet he urged them to discuss only the matters on which they can agree. I presume he would not want there to appear to be a difference of opinion. Despite the best efforts of the government to make Canada seem like a country of fools, we are not; we cannot accept fairy tales as an excuse for policy. The most revealing statement on the minister's visit slipped from his own tongue in an interview with Mr. Arthur Blakely, contained in Friday's Montreal Gazette. I quote Mr. Blakely's story:
Even so, Mr. Sharp felt that the exercise had been worth while. He had had some interesting chats with the Canadian Ambassador to Sweden, Arthur Andrew in which the latter had been in a position "to tell me face to face things he would not dare put in a cable".
If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I trust the Ambassador spoke for all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Poor Sharp, poor Sharp!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party share the view expressed with such wit by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that it would have been much more courteous and proper for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to have first made this statement in the house, before he made it in a press interview last Friday. We sympathize with the minister's difficulty in presenting Canada's NATO policy to our Scandinavian allies and friends, because he has never practised telling this house what Canada's phase by phase
10516	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Report of Minister on Scandinavia foreign and defence policy is. Certainly if he told the Scandinavian ministers something in this regard, he said something that has never been said in this house.
We in this party are glad that the minister has visited the Scandinavian countries. In our view the smaller countries of Europe represent an enlightened and constructive outlook on world affairs based largely on support of the United Nations. We think Canada should co-operate as closely as possible with them in strengthening international organizations.
We would have liked to hear something more definite in the minister's statement on the progress of the negotiations in respect of the diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China. We know there are differences of opinion in this house, but as far as this party is concerned we welcome vigorous action on the part of the government to assist in bringing nearly a quarter of the human race within the community of nations.
On the question of east-west relations and European security, we in this party strongly support the proposed conference and urge upon the minister that some risk must be taken. What he has said about success being assured before a conference is held seems to be carrying this rather far. We think that even at the risk of having an unsuccessful conference, without an immediate and positive result, a conference should be held as a means to ending the massive military confrontation in Europe which is costing so much money and which is a risk in that vital part of the world.
In his statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us he compared notes with his Nordic colleagues on the situation in the Middle East, Nigeria and Viet Nam. We would very much have liked to hear what the basis for this exchange of notes was. We believe that both Canada and the Scandinavian countries have an important role to play in providing the peace keeping forces that may well be needed to bring about a lasting peace in the war tom areas. We would have liked to hear what Canada's policy is, because in each one of these areas it becomes apparent there is a need for the contribution of Canada and the Scandinavian countries to the international forces.


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to express our thanks to the minister for his note informing us that he 
had not had time to get the text of his statement translated in time for today's sitting.
Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the national day of French Canadians, it is most significant to note that when some statement is to be made it does not seem so important to wait until the French text is ready.
At any rate, we support the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the spokesman for the New Democratic party. We feel that these meetings the minister attended have merely served the cause of understanding between good neighbours, but do not seem to have led to anything very concrete. In fact, we must admit that the results are rather vague and have little new to offer.
If we must take such a roundabout way simply to arrive at the recognition of Communist China, I think that is taking too many precautions to establish clearly Canada's policy.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that when I reported on June 2 regarding the NATO ministerial meeting, I undertook to report progress as decisions are reached on changes necessary to give substance to the government policy on defence as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 3.
This report I make today will not be a lengthy one, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons. There are many variables which must be taken into account before final decisions can be made. For example, our role and force structure in NATO are still being discussed with our allies. We will honour our obligation to be governed by the established NATO consultative procedures, and hence our plans must remain tentative for the time being. For similar reasons we do not wish to anticipate changes which might be made in air defence roles and organization. In this regard, we are looking forward to receiving and studying the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. These are but two examples, Mr. Speaker, and when account is taken of all the
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
factors that must be studied before firm decisions are made, hon. members can understand the difficulty I have in making this first report as full and specific as I would have wished. There are, of course, some broad aspects which I can announce at this time and as I have stated earlier, I will continue to make public, from time to time, further details as they become firm.

During the whole course of the defence review, and particularly following the government's decision to base defence forces on the four point program in the April 3 statement, we have conducted a careful analysis to determine the resources required, both material and human, to fill our defence needs and at the same time be consistent with national priorities and capabilities.
Although there are some detailed alternatives still to be decided, we have concluded that a regular force of 80,000 to 85,000 will be needed to meet Canada's defence requirements.
We propose to make the transition over a period of three years, and to reach the new manpower levels without instituting a plan of forced attrition for this purpose. We fully recognize that this will result in some temporary personnel imbalances within certain trades and specialties, but we are confident these can be overcome by making available opportunities for retraining.
Basic to our planning was a firm decision to concentrate, wherever possible, on reducing administrative and support activities, to provide us with a higher ratio of operational to non-operational forces than in the past. This includes a re-examination of our command and control activities with a view to reducing headquarters staff, including those here in Ottawa.
I would now like to describe in general terms the force structure we plan to establish by early 1973. Maritime Command will continue in the anti-submarine role, using most of the existing equipment. However, we are continuing plans for employing the new ships under construction and are considering a replacement aircraft for the Argus. At the same time, we are exploring the possibility of widening the roles open to maritime forces in response to the government's broad policy directive. In particular, we expect more emphasis will be placed on activities relating to Canadian sovereign interests in our adjacent waters, and the seabed. In this context 29180-665
Statement by Minister on Defence Needs our Arctic territories take on particular significance.
Mobile Command will undergo some changes but will continue to maintain in Canada forces for a variety of roles related to the defence of Canada, aid to the civil power, co-operation with United States forces for the defence of North America, and collective security and peacekeeping abroad. This will mean more emphasis on light, quick-reaction, airportable land force units designed to meet these roles. Mobile Command will continue to be organized in combat groups and the Canadian Airborne Regiment is being retained.
Air Defence Command will remain very much as it is for the immediate future. However, we are engaged in intensive study of Canada's roles in continental air defence, and related discussions are proceeding between Canadian and United States military and civilian officials. As for the longer term, it will be some time before decisions can be made on the post 1975 bomber defence system, including AWACS, over-the-horizon radars and new interceptors.
Air Transport Command's strategic airlift capability will depend primarily on our present fleet of Hercules transports. They will be augmented for shorter hauls by Buffalo aircraft, now in the inventory. Although our detailed analysis of strategic deployment requirements is not yet complete, we expect that some contraction in the size of our air transport force will be made through retirement of part of the Yukon fleet and of other older aircraft. On the other hand, we are continuing with our studies of the requirements for a long range pure-jet military transport aircraft.
Along with the reductions in the regular force, we are planning to reduce the reserve force. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, we will be consulting next month with the Conference of Defence Associations and will be exchanging with them ideas on how we might make the most effective use of our reserve force, as a back-up to the regular force in their new roles and missions.
Our cadet program has been most successful. Its benefits in character building and the promotion of good citizenship will, in the future, as in the past, make an important contribution to national development. We intend to continue to support a program involving about 100,000 cadets.
It will be obvious, Mr. Speaker, that reductions in over-all strength of the forces, and
10518	COMMONS
Statement by Minister on Defence Needs particularly reductions in administrative overhead, will result in the closure of certain bases. Decisions have not yet been made on this complicated matter and I believe it will be another month or two before our studies will be completed. We will give ample advance notice before closing any base. In each case a comprehensive plan will be developed, in consultation with all the interested parties, with a view to minimizing the disruptive effects on the communities, on the personnel directly involved, and on their families.
There will be a reduction in the number of civilians employed in the department. This reduction, for the most part, will be achieved by normal turnover and by transfers to suitable vacancies elsewhere in the government service. The facilities of the Department of National Defence, the Union of National Defence Employees, the Public Service Commission, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be used to the utmost in these endeavours.
Mr. Speaker, in my statement on June 2, I said that we believed we can achieve the transition to the new defence posture, barring unexpected international developments, within a defence budget which will be maintained for the next three years at its current dollar level. Our studies since then have served to substantiate this estimate. I am confident that these resources will be sufficient to equip and maintain the force organization I have just outlined.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, I should like to mention a fact that may be overlooked. Although we will be reducing our over-all regular force strength, we will continue to recruit qualified young Canadians for whom we can promise an attractive and challenging career.
For the reasons I mentioned earlier, that is all the information I can give at this time. I appreciate hon. members' desire to receive more complete details and I regret that these are not yet available. You will recall that when I spoke on this subject on June 2, I pointed out that this concern was shared by members of the forces, and I will have to ask them too to be patient a little longer. I am personally confident that both during and after the period of change we are about to embark upon, the Canadian Armed Forces will continue to exhibit the same high standards of professionalism they have displayed in the past, and will continue to be a source of pride to all Canadians.

DEBATES	June 23, 1969


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I should like to thank the minister for giving us an advance copy of the statement he has just read. However, I regret that the notice of it was so short that there was no time for a considered analysis of its full implications. Therefore, the remarks that I will make at this time will be of a preliminary nature.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It is obvious that the problem of most Canadians as well as of the minister in the matter of defence policy is that Canadians are ruled, and presumably the minister is overruled, by a government dominated by men whose understanding of their heavy responsibility in this matter is as shallow as the cliche "make love, not war".
The lesson of history is that every leader who has taken the course of least resistance, of which Ethelred the Unready and Neville Chamberlain are examples, and in whose hands the fate of the nation was unhappily placed has sooner or later dragged his people into disaster and war. I deplore the actual and concrete reduction in our armed forces because I believe that although our forces may seem costly, the resulting saving is minimal. I think that their reduction is not only unfortunate in itself, but also because of the impression it may create, not only among our friends and allies but also among our enemies. I deplore whatever aid and comfort our present defence policy may give to those who would destroy our way of life. We have to remember that the world has become a global village and that we can no longer retreat into national isolationism and expect that course to succeed.
The minister's statement-and I appreciate the difficult position in which he finds himself-perhaps raises as many questions as it answers. It is difficult for me to understand how, with a reduced and limited capacity, for example, we can hope to expand our commitments with regard either to continental defence or the very valid and necessary activities of our maritime command to establish our sovereignty over our coastal waters.
I think the fact that the minister was able to announce in fairly definite terms that the ceiling of manpower in the forces would be between 80,000 and 85,000 men indicates a tendency of the government to put the cart before the horse in this business, and it looks as if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) has been given an ultimatum to
June 23, 1989	COMMONS
operate within a certain ceiling in dollar value, regardless of the outcome of any studies which may be undertaken in the fields of external affairs and defence. I should like to point out that this ceiling will lower as long as the value of the purchasing power of our dollar continues to decline.
With regard to some specific statements which the minister made, I am pleased that he has established that it is his intention to honour our obligation to be governed by the established NATO consultative procedures. I was also pleased to hear him indicate that the government will give some attention to the reports of the Committee on National Defence and External Affairs. I hope that it will give more attention to future reports of that committee than it did to its report on NATO.
I wish to congratulate the minister on his intention to try to reduce further the administrative costs of the armed forces and to increase the ratio of the combat units to total personnel and total costs, but I am afraid that he will meet with disappointment unless he has more success in grappling with Parkinson's law than did most of his colleagues up to now.
With regard to the minister's remarks concerning the maritime command, I am pleased that the government recognizes the vital importance of the role which that command carries out. If I may digress for a moment, may I say that I know the personnel stationed in my constituency will be pleased to know that the government is contemplating a study of a replacement aircraft for the Argus.
I think it is very unwise to reduce the strength of the reserve forces. Our professionals say that at the time when our permanent force is to be reduced, our reserve strength should be increased so that we might have something to fall back on in certain situations.
I hope that the minister will take into very careful consideration, as he promised, the economic side effects of the closing of bases, especially those located in more or less isolated areas the economy of which is dependent on the bases. I also hope that the government, in concert with other levels of government, will find some compensating stimulation for the economy in any area where a base must be closed before that action is taken.
The minister has deplored the apparent necessity for keeping the forces in a state of some uncertainty for some time longer. I hope 29180-6651
Statement by Minister on Defence Needs that he can correct the situation at the earliest time, but I agree with him that our armed forces are made up of professionals and they will carry out whatever duty is allotted to them in a fashion of which all Canadians can be proud; because I believe that the Canadians who represent us in the armed forces, especially those who are stationed in Europe, are of the very highest professional quality and are a credit to all Canadians.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks which I have to make will not take too long because I, like others, find myself in a difficult position as a member of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on External Affairs and National Defence. The committee spent all of last week drafting a report. I know what is in it but, because of the time it takes to translate it into French, it cannot be tabled until Wednesday or Thursday.
However, may I say that speaking individually I have a great fondness for the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Lewis:: Watch out.


Harold Edward Winch: But when he speaks, as he did today, on the so-called government policy on national defence, I am not only amazed but I think that the minister has increased the confusion in the defence policy and, worst of all, has demonstrated that so far as the government is concerned our defence policy is a fait accompli and the opinions expressed in the committee or in the House of Commons mean nothing at all.
I do not know why we have spent so many months in the committee, studying defence matters, when all we can do now is to come here to listen to an announcement of a fait accompli by the government.


Mr. McGrath:: The house leader is not even listening. Shame on him.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister said a few minutes ago: "We will honour our obligation to be governed by the established NATO consultative procedures, and hence our plans must remain tentative for the time being... In this regard we are looking forward to receiving and studying the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence."
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
As to NATO, 1 thought we made an arduous trip and worked our heads off to file
10520	COMMONS
Statement by Minister on Defence Needs a report on this subject prior to the negotiations in Washington and Brussels. The government had the report for weeks, both the majority report and a minority report signed by three representatives of this party. So that first statement about waiting for a report on NATO is sheer, unmitigated nonsense.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Harold Edward Winch: He did not say it? "In this regard we are looking forward to receiving and studying the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence." This is the same paragraph on NATO-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps the secretary sent me the wrong copy. I completely agree with the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: *-when he talks about a reduction in the number of Armed Forces personnel. I had the privilege of attending the Mobile Command exercises at Camp Petawa-wa last Saturday and the success of the demonstration there, showing what can be done through co-ordination and co-operation, indicates to me that we can vastly reduce our force under NATO in Europe with the efficient integration of army and air force units. And, as the previous speaker suggested, if we did a job at N.D.H.Q. to ensure there were more Indians and less chiefs it would undoubtedly be possible to achieve the objective of 85,000.
However, there is one thing which really bothers us, especially in the Defence Committee, and that is the practice of the government in presenting defence policy as a fait accompli. Under its terms of reference the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was asked to go into all aspects of defence policy, including the subject of Maritime Command. Only last week a subcommittee of nine was established to consider policy governing Maritime Command. It held its organization meeting on Thursday intending to get its work under way, yet today the minister tells us that Maritime Command will continue its anti-submarine role. This is another example of a fait accompli.
We are told that consideration is being given to replacing the Argus. What about the

DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Tracker which is to be phased out in 1972 or 1973? The statement talks about Canada's sovereign interest in the Arctic. It is really not fair to give us these generalities. The information we have is that our entire navy, including our new ships, has not been constructed with prows suitable for sailing in Arctic waters, and that we do not possess planes capable of operating in that region either. We are entitled to more than generalities of this sort, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to comment on the important aspect of policy which involves A.B.M.s and AWACS. I hope Canada will not enter into any negotiations leading to the establishment here of either the A.B.M. or AWAC systems, but I shall refrain from further comment bearing in mind that there is considerable comment on this matter in the report which is coming from the defence committee.
Nevertheless, I should like to add a further word about the aspect which really stumps members of the House of Commons and its committees. I refer to the government's propensity for the fait accompli. Why does the government not take its own committees into consideration before these decisions are made? Why does it not take into consideration the recommendations of other organizations before announcements are made? I have referred particularly to Maritime Command. Now there is the question of a reserve force. I am glad we were given a copy of the minister's statement. Let us see what it says on this aspect: "Along with reductions in the regular force, we are planning to reduce the reserve force. In this regard we will be consulting next month with the Conference of Defence Associations."
One month after we have been told by the minister that it has been decided to reduce the reserve force, consultations are to take place with the organizations which are interested. Mr. Speaker, representatives of these associations appeared before the defence committee last week and urged that there should be an increase in the reserve force.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are getting restless. I have only a few words to say to end what could have been a lengthy speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: We do most heartfeltly wish that there were more facts presented, less
June 23, 19G9	COMMONS
wishful thinking, more consultation and more co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, as I have congratulations for the most part to offer the minister, you will believe me if I say that I will be brief, because it is much more difficult to congratulate than to criticize.
For several years, Canada was considered by many countries as a small country covering a few acres of snow. It needed the last wars and the good services of our armed forces for them to have some idea of what Canada really was. Today, anyone of us, anyone of our friends who goes to Europe realizes that our soldiers have been our best ambassadors, even if many of them are buried there. At all events, even if we must now reduce our forces, I think that is perfectly normal, since Canadians have played their role wonderfully well. Considering the length of our coast-line, I am happy that the Maritime command will continue in its anti-submarine role. We all know that Canada has the longest coast-line in the world.
On sea, in the air and on the ground, the department is considering modernizing sensibly everything that is mechanized, and it is quite normal if we want to maintain an adequate defence.
Modernizing the equipment will mean reducing the strength of our forces. We will then know the same effects that were felt in industry and in other fields.
For a long time, the army could afford to keep idle people. But today, in his statement, the minister is advising us that from now on, his role as father of a family is ended and that he intends to administer the department as a business. Therefore, I wish to congratulate him on behalf of our party and assure him of our support.
Mr. Speaker, my only criticism concerns the question of elections. The armed forces being the only group that does not publish electoral lists, it was fraudulently that I, as a candidate, obtained one at the last election. I discovered there the names of two families that left the Portneuf riding twenty-five years ago and are now living in Montreal. Two members of those families who were in the armed forces were approached in Ontario at the camp where they were stationed, and they still had the right to vote in the Portneuf riding. That is my only criticism, and should
Prices and Incomes Commission the minister reduce the strength of our forces, I trust he will make the necessary recommendations so that the names of military personnel no longer living in their home riding will also be deleted from the electoral lists.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the moment is not opportune for the Chair to remind hon. members of the terms of Standing Order 15(3) which reads:
On motions... a minister of the Crown may make an announcement or statement of government policy. Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the name limitation.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I suggest to hon. members that when we have spent nearly one hour on two statements we have perhaps not observed either the spirit or the letter of this Standing Order. I appreciate that we are dealing with very important matters, but at the same time I have the impression that over the weeks there has been a tendency for ministerial statements to become longer and for the comments thereon by opposition members to become proportionately longer as well. Perhaps this might be borne in mind by members of the government and by representatives of the opposition when we reach this item of business from day to day.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make which meets the spirit and the letter of your remarks. I should like to inform the house of the names of the remaining appointees to the Prices and Incomes Commission.
Hon. members will recall that I recently announced the appointment of Dr. John H. Young who had agreed to serve as chairman of the commission. I am now pleased to announce that Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, a cabinet minister in a former Quebec government, has been named vice-chairman of the commission. Dr. George V. Haythorne, former
10522	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Prices ant Incomes Commission
deputy minister of labour of the government of Canada, and Mr. George E. Freeman, director of research for the Bank of Canada, have been appointed commissioners.
I should like to ask leave of the house to table their biographies covering the training and experience of these four members, all of which makes them, I think, eminently qualified to begin this new and important assignment. On behalf of myself and also on behalf of the Canadian government I should like to say how pleased and grateful I am to them for accepting these appointments and for choosing this way to serve their country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Recruiting of the counsel and staff, the clerks and technical advisers of the commission, is now under way, and the chairman has informed me that the commission will be able to begin its work on July 2.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit I will try to be circumscribed by the comments of Your Honour. I noted that the minister said that his statement would be short. It may have been short, but it took a long time for us to reach this point in time. It is almost six months now since the white paper on price stability was presented and the announcement of this commission was made in this house; it is only now that the personnel of this very important commission have been appointed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We wanted to get the right people.


James Aloysius McGrath: It took the minister almost five months to appoint the chairman of the commission, and it is incredible that he had to look no further than his own backyard to find a suitable person. It also seems to me incredible that it took another month for the minister to bring the house up to date on the other appointments to the commission. It would not be difficult to anticipate that the government would look for a banker, and where else to look than the Bank of Canada? It would not be difficult to anticipate that the government would appoint somebody who was familiar with the labour laws and labour scene in this country, and where else to look than the Department of Labour? Any Liberal in the province of Quebec would anticipate the appointment of Paul Gerin-Lajoie.
Why did it take six months to fill these appointments, Mr. Speaker? During all that
[Mr. Basford.)
time inflation was taking its toll in this country. Prices were going up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: We can only conclude that the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must seek the hon. member's co-operation. I would not think that he was now abiding by either the spirit or the letter of the law. I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member of the terms of the Standing Order, which requires ministers to make statements that ought not to provoke debate. In speaking on behalf of his party the hon. member is under the same limitation. It would seem to me that if he is to go on and debate the question of inflation and other very general problems he is definitely going beyond the terms of the statement made by the minister. I seek his cooperation so that we may go on with the business of the house.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to conclude by saying that the government has its priorities all mixed up. The government has failed to recognize the urgency of the most serious problem facing the country today, namely, rising prices, the continuous rise in the cost of living index and the effect that this has on the average man and woman in this country. I suggest to the minister and the government that, if they want to know what is the most urgent problem facing the country, all they have to do is to talk to the man on the street. He will readily tell them that the most serious problem facing this country today is rising prices, the increase in the cost of living index, and poverty. It is about time that this government got the message.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the statement of the minister let me say first of all that no one questions the training and experience of the people appointed by the minister. What is being questioned is the intention and the credibility of the minister and the government. This is what is at issue.
There is no question in my mind that the government has had the power to do something about prices for a long time now but has failed to take any action in this area. Many of us have reason to suspect that with this commission the government is simply throwing another camouflage over its failure to act. The government's delay in appointing
June 23, 1369



the commission represents its unwillingness to come to grips with the serious problem of inflation and rising prices in this country, and has very little to do with the quality and calibre of the men being appointed to the commission itself.
A number of years ago the Macquarrie commission reported to the government on combines legislation. That commission pointed out ways which were open to the government to take effective action against rising prices. From that time the government has done very little to accept any of the recommendations of the Macquarrie commission. It has failed to use the powers it already possesses to investigate rising prices.
The disturbing feature about this commission is that it will be completely isolated from the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons that the minister has talked about appointing. Since the committee cannot make recommendations to the commission, the members of this house will not have the opportunity to express their concerns in any effective way. The commission will operate in its own way, and if its work is not successful there is very little that the House of Commons can do about it. It seems to me that this is an important failing and one that should be corrected immediately. As co-chairman of the previous committee the minister knows that a committee of the House of Commons can do an effective job in holding down prices and focusing attention on those sectors of the economy that are being abused.
In closing I merely say, therefore, that the best men in the world will not do the job for us if the intentions of the minister and the government are other than the taking of urgent action to counter rising prices.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
That the report of the committee appointed September 8, 1965, to survey the organization and work of the Canadian Pension Commission, tabled on March 26, 1968, be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fortin: 1.	When will the government undertake a revision of the orders, regulations and statutory rules?
2.	What is the staff of the O.R.S.R. division?
3.	Is it the government's intention to amend the Regulations Act (R.S.C. 1952 c. 235) principally with respect to the legal status of the regulations and to possible discrepancies with the Canada Evidence Act?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. It is anticipated that a consolidation and revision of subsidiary legislation (regulations, etc., of a legislative nature) will be undertaken after the revision of the Statutes of Canada is completed.
2.	There is no such division as the O.R.S.R. division; however, the duties in relation to orders, regulations and statutory rules are performed by the Orders in Council section of the Privy Council office together with the legal adviser to the Privy Council office. The Orders in Council section is composed of three officers and five clerical staff. The legal adviser has one secretary.
3.	The government intends to examine the Regulations Act after the Special House Committee on Statutory Instruments submits its report.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Does the CNR operate an exclusive communication service and, if not, under what arrangement is this service offered the public in the name of the CNR?
2.	Did the CNR's telegraph service operate at a profit in 1968 and, if so, what was the amount of profit to the company?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian
National Railways advises as follows:	1.
Pursuant to Section 26 of the Canadian National Railways Act being Chapter 29 of the Statutes of Canada 1955, the C.N.R. is empowered to establish, construct or acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise and to maintain and operate telecommunication facilities systems and services in Canada and elsewhere. In addition, it may carry on a public


CABINET MINISTERS ON SOUTH AMERICAN TRIP
Mr. Gaulhier: 1 Were any provincial Cabinet Ministers or senior provincial officials invited to accompany the federal Cabinet Ministers and senior officials of their department on the mission to South America in October and November last (a) if provincial Ministers and officials were invited, who were they and in what capacity were they invited to attend (b) if not, for what reason were provincial Ministers and officials not invited?
2.	Were the provincial Ministers and officials made aware of the mission by federal Ministers and officials prior to its departure and were they informed of the results of the mission on their return and, if so, will the government table this correspondence ?
3.	Were representatives of the news media invited to accompany the mission and, if so, which representatives of the (a) English language media, and (b) French language media, were invited, and (c) who accepted and attended?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No provincial ministers or officials were invited to participate in the ministerial mission which visited nine Latin American countries in October and November of 1968.
Except for the renewal of a trade agreement and the signature of a minor agreement in another field wholly within federal jurisdiction the objective of the mission was to explore the possibilities of developing closer relations between Canada and Latin America in all important fields.
2.	The government's decision to send the mission was announced several months in advance, and a few days before its departure the Prime Minister made a full statement in the house regarding its composition, itinerary and objectives. Following its return the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a brief statement in the House of Commons and subsequently tabled the preliminary report of the mission, copies of which have been sent to the provinces.
3.	All media represented in the Parliamentary Press Gallery were given an opportunity to participate in the ministerial mission. In addition, special steps were taken to inform the Canadian Press and certain weekly publications issued in the English and French languages.
The mission was accompanied for all or part of its duration by the following representatives of the press:	Mr. Paul Kidd,
Washington Correspondent, Southam News Service; Mr. Guy Anger, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, French Radio News; Mr. Louis Rollet, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, French Radio News; Mr. Pedro Marcos Bilbao, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, International Service; Mr. William Dampier, Toronto Telegram; Mr. Don Newlands, Mrs. Newlands and Mr. David Lee, freelance, for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Television Network, programme "The Way It Is".


* WHITE PAPER ON EXTERNAL POLICY
Mr. Lewis: Will the proposed White Paper on External Policy be prepared and presented to the House for debate prior to the summer recess?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is "no".
June 23, 1969



POST OFFICE CLOSURES Question No. 2,024


Mr. Laprise:: 1.	How many post offices have been closed In each province in Canada since June 25, 1968 and how many post offices is it proposed to close during the year 1969?
2 How many families are affected by the changes in their addresses?
3.	How much does the government expect to save in each province by the closing of these post offices?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	(a) British Columbia, 13; Alberta, 42; Saskatchewan, 40; Manitoba, 37; Ontario, 92; Quebec, 51; New Brunswick, 32; Nova Scotia, 45; Prince Edward Island, 16; Newfoundland, 11; Northwest Territories, 1; Yukon, 0. (b) 235 for the period of June 1969 to December 1969 inclusive.
2.	Departmental records are not maintained in such a way that would make it possible to compile these statistics.
3.	Departmental records are not maintained in such a way as to permit compilation of savings broken down by provinces. However, since the inception of the Department's program in February 1967, to close small unproductive Post Offices, an approximate saving of $513,865 has been realized throughout the country.


THE FLORENCE AGREEMENT
Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	Is there an international agreement entitled "The Florence Agreement" which the Government of Canada has not yet signed and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many countries have signed this agreement?
3.	Did Canada participate in the drafting of this agreement?
4 What countries have not yet signed this agreement?
5. When is it expected that Canada may sign this agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes, there is an international agreement called the Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, which was adopted in
Questions
Florence in July 1950 and opened for signature at Lake Success, New York on November 22, 1950. Canada has not signed the agreement because it has not been considered to be in Canada's interest to abandon the limited protection afforded domestic producers against imports of certain educational, scientific and cultural materials as long as important trading partners maintained barriers against Canadian exports of these materials. Canada does impose a small duty on such imports but other countries, even where no tariffs are maintained, continue to limit imports from Canada of these materials by the use of stringent non-tariff barriers. In any event the question of Canada's accession is under continuous review in the light of changing conditions in trade and the intensive study into aspects of intellectual property currently being prepared by the Economic Council.
2.	As of May 22, 1969, the agreement had entered into force for 62 countries. A further eight countries had signed but not ratified the agreement and the agreement is not in force for these countries.
3.	No.
4.	Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian S. S. R., Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Maidive Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen and Zambia (63).
5.	See answer 1.


USE OF CHEMICAL &quot;MACE&quot;
Mr. Salisman: 1.	Has a decision been made by the RCMP on the use of the chemical "mace"?
2.	Is there a Department of National Health and Welfare report on this chemical?
3.	Is there a report in the Solicitor General's Department on the use of this chemical?
4.	Is there a report by the RCMP on the use of this chemical?
10526

June 23, 1969
Questions
5.	Is it the intention of the government to have one or all of these reports tabled?
6.	Have there been any requests from police jurisdictions in Canada outside the federal government for information on this chemical?
7.	If so, what has been the nature of the government's replies to these requests?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of the Solicitor General and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. Yes; a decision has been made by the R.C.M. Police that chemical "Mace" will not be used.
2.	No.
3.	No; however, the Department of National Health and Welfare replied to specific questions by the R.C.M. Police in respect to the chemical "Mace".
4.	No.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Yes.
7.	The R.C.M. Police have supplied copies of the material they obtained from the Department of National Health and Welfare, on the chemical "Mace", to those police departments requesting them and to other major police departments.


GRAIN SHIPMENT COSTS TO CHURCHILL AND MONTREAL
Mr. Noble: What is the difference in cost to the Canadian Wheat Board of shipping a bushel of grain from the Prairies into the elevator at the Port of Churchill, Manitoba, compared to shipping a bushel of grain from the Prairies into a grain elevator at the Port of Montreal, Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Average cost of moving wheat from country points to Churchill, 10.71 cents. Average cost of moving wheat from country points to Lakehead, 12.00 cents. Average cost of moving wheat from Lakehead to Montreal, 13.50 cents. It should be noted that the differential between the Lakehead and Montreal is recovered in the Canadian Wheat Board sales prices and is therefore not a cost to the Board.


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Forestry provide subsidies and/or support programs for any

segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.	(a) Subsidies are provided by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in the fishing industry for fishermen and fishing firms towards the construction of wooden fishing vessels to the extent of either 30 per cent, 40 per cent, or 50 per cent of the cost of construction. Payments to the fishermen and firms in this respect for 1969-70 are estimated at $565,000; (b) In the fishing segment support is given to fishermen and fish processors, (i) through purchase and disposal of groundfish products, canned mackerel, salt cod, and Lake Erie yellow perch; (ii) through the provision of loans to companies engaged in processing groundfish products. Probable loans in 196970 are estimated at $4,200,000; (iii) through re-settlement of families in Newfoundland. Payments in this respect are estimated at $1,400,000 for 1969-70; (c) In the forestry segment, support of research in universities and other forestry activities is provided through a number of grants to forestry schools and to forestry organizations. Support is also given to the Province of Newfoundland under a 1965 agreement to assist with an inventory and land capability study. For 1969-70 the grants to Universities will amount to $283,000, and assistance to the Province of Newfoundland is estimated at $800,000. Grants to forestry organizations will be as follows: Canadian Forestry Association, $50,000; Commonwealth Forestry Institute (3,000 pounds Sterling), $8,000; British Columbia, Festival of Forestry Organization, $10,000.
2.	The following amounts were paid for subsidies and support programs during the years 1960-68: 1960-61, $4,605,511; 1961-62, $7,699,537; 1962-63, $9,043,003; 1963-64, $9,326,596; 1964-65,	$10,034,543;	1965-66,	$12,193,065;
1966-67, $11,731,104; 1967-68, $8,817,611; 196869, $9,429,551.


INDIANS ON DEPARTMENTAL STAFF
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What is the total staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and how many of these are Indian?
June 23, 1969

2 What percentage of the total staff are "decision making" Indian employees?
3.	Do there exist any programs specifically training Indians to qualify for "decision making" positions within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
4.	What percentage of the total salaries paid by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is paid to Indian employees?
5.	How many agents on Indian reserves are Indians, how many non-Indians and does the government or Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have any explicit policy regarding the ratio?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. For
the year 1969-70 the total authorized strength of the Department is 9,121 of which 692 of these are Indians.
2	.7 per cent of the staff are decision
making" Indian employees.
3. In1 November of 1968 there was introduced in the department an Indian and Eskimo Recruitment and Development Program. The specific objective of this program was to increase the number of Indian people in the Department who occupy "decision making" positions. This objective was to be achieved in three ways: 1. By launching a summer recruitment program among university students of recognized Indian ancestry with a view to encouraging them to join the department upon completion of their education. 2. Through a recruiting program on Indian reserves, high schools and in all areas where Indians live to encourage qualified Indian people to seek employment with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. 3. To develop an in-service training program which will train Indian people who are now employed in the department to assume more responsible roles. For the first phase of the program, namely the university student summer program, 60 Indian and Eskimo university students have been placed in all areas of the Department including social programs, the economic development program and the conservation program and the administrative program. The development part of the program is in the planning stage and the Department is being assisted by a Consultative Committee composed of Indians. Further recruitment will take place in the fall.
4. 9.1 per cent of the departmental budget for payroll costs is paid to Indian employees.
Questions
5. There are five superintendents (formerly known as Indian Agents) who have Indian status; there are 60 superintendents of nonIndian status.
There is no statutory preference for Indian people. Position of superintendent is subject to the Public Service Employment Act, and appointments are made in order of merit from eligibility lists established as the result of competitions. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is promoting a recruitment program designed to increase the number of Indian employees both in this Department and in the Public Service of Canada.


PAN ARCTIC OIL LTD.
Mr. Foriin: 1.	Has Pan Arctic Oil Ltd. submitted to the government its Annual Report and, if not, when will that report be filed?
2.	If such report has been received by the government, will it be tabled in Parliament?
3.	What amount was invested in that company by the government, under (a) shares (b) bonds and loans (c) grants?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No.
An Annual Report is being prepared and will be filed shortly.
2.	Yes.
3.	For a grant of nine million dollars made by the Government to Panarctic Oils Ltd., the Government has received 900,000 preferred shares with a par value of 10 dollars. On the basis of one common share for each four preferred shares, the Government has received 225,000 common shares, of no par value, but a cost of 10 cents per share or a total of 22,500 dollars. The number of shares issued to the Government in each class represents 45 per cent of the total shares issued being in the proportion which the amount of the Government grant bears to the total funding of 20 million dollars in Panartic Oils Ltd.


VETERANS AFFAIRS SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Veterans Affairs provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?

June 23. 1969
Questions
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. The Department of Veterans
Affairs provides subsidies and/or support programs for veterans who reside in Canada.
2. The amounts paid for such programs during each of the years 1960-68 were as follows:
Fiscal year	Disability pensions	War veterans allowances, civilian war allowances and assistance fund	Other benefits and allowances	Treatment services	Veterans' Land Act loans	Total$000	$600	sooo	$000	sooo	$0001959-60	59,938	8,661	48,652	24,600	272,8001960-bl	61,382	8,436	49,796	36,972	288,4441961-62	77,876	8,295	47,625	32,804	322,5921962-63	84,611	7,431	44,003	39,040	329,1751963-64	86,262	6,901	46,115	42.131	333,6901964-65	.... 165,353	96,222	8,674	47,402	37,257	354,9081965-66	.... 170,485	104,863	8,813	49,582	47,423	381,1661966-67	.... 180,252	108,699	8,168	54,251	79,900	431,2701967-68	.... 189,249	104,046	7,725	58,434	98,471	457,925


INDIAN REPRESENTATION ON SCHOOL BOARDS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What is the policy of the federal government respecting Indian representation on local school boards in districts where Indian children are educated?
2.	To what extent is this being enforced?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
policy of the federal government is to encourage provincial governments to enact legislation which will permit Indian representation on local school boards. This has been done over the past few years through an exchange of letters between the Minister of this Department and the ministers of education in the provinces, and through discussions between officials of this Department and those of the departments of education. In pursuing this policy, the Department was acting on behalf of, and in the interest of, the Indian people. Today the Indian people are able to exert political pressure through their representatives in the provincial governments. The results of this intergovernment activity are: 1. In Ontario, new legislation permits the minister of education to appoint Indian representatives to school boards. 2. In New Brunswick, new legislation permits the minister of education to appoint Indian repre-IMr. Robinson.]
sentatives to school boards. 3. In Saskatchewan, new legislation gives the Indian people the status of electors who may stand for election as school trustees or who may vote for a representative on the school board. 4. In British Columbia, new legislation gives the Indian people the status of ratepayers who may now apply to have their names placed on the voter's list.
A bill is now before the Legislature in Manitoba which, when passed, will give the Indian people the status of electors.
The Alberta Legislature was prepared to present a bill to provide Indian representation on school boards at the current session but the Indian Association in Alberta asked the Alberta Government to postpone the bill until they had had more time to examine it.
2. The role of the federal government has been strictly advisory since education is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces who enact their own school legislation and enforce it. This Department will continue to encourage provincial governments to enact the legislation necessary to provide Indians with the opportunity of being elected to school boards. There has been a very active interest on the part of the Indian people in this matter and, in all provinces where legislation permits, there are Indian representatives on various school boards.
June 23, 1969


ACQUISITION OF MOBILE HOMES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the federal government consider the application of N.H.A. funds to acquire mobile homes and, if so, when, and if, not, for what reason?
2.	Does the federal government have statistics on the number of mobile homes utilized in Canada and the number of people accommodated by them and, if so, what are the numbers?
3.	Will the federal government recommend that other levels of government provide mobile home park facilities to accommodate mobile homes and will the federal government provide funds to assist in this regard?
4.	Will the federal government consider providing facilities for mobile homes in National Parks?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. Under the National Housing Act home ownership loans must be secured by a first mortgage on real estate and the housing to be financed must meet certain minimum standards as to size, safety and so forth. If such security can be provided and such requirements can be met mobile homes will be eligible for financing under the N.H.A.
2.	According to the 1966 Census of Canada, there were 28,177 mobile homes in Canada occupied by persons who had no other permanent home. The number of persons accommodated therein is not available. DBS does not compile statistics on the number of mobile homes used for vacation purposes.
3.	When further amendments to the National Housing Act are under review consideration will be given to provisions relating to the financing of mobile homes and the sites on which they may be placed. At that time, provinces and municipalities will have to be consulted regarding provincial laws and municipal codes.
4.	No consideration is being given to providing facilities for mobile homes in National Parks. Facilities are provided in public campgrounds for vacation-type trailers. In this case, the duration of stay in any one location is normally restricted to two weeks.


LONG HARBOUR, NFLD.-ELECTRIC REDUCTION COMPANY GRANT
Mr. Moores: 1.	Did ERCO receive any grant through ADA during the construction of the facilities at Long Harbour, Newfoundland?
Questions
2.	With whom were negotiations carried out?
3.	How much money was made available and on what terms?
4.	Were federal government experts consulted regarding possible pollution during the construction period?
5.	Was effective pollution control a condition of the ADA grant?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	A group of company officials including the President, Vice-President and Secretary.
3.	A payment of $3 million under the Area Development Incentives Act was made after the facility reached commercial production in December 1968. Payments of $1 million each would be made in December 1969 and December 1970 provided the conditions of the Act and Regulations continue to be met.
4.	The Department of Fisheries and Forestry experts were consulted in association with an oceanographer from the Bedford Institute.
5.	No.


COLOURED SPREAD SALES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Does the government know how many pounds of "coloured spread" were sold in Canada from April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1963 and from April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969?
2.	Of that amount, what proportion was sold illegally?
3.	What were for the same periods the amounts of other imitation milk product sold in Canada?
4.	What were the amounts of milk products of all kinds which were imported from other countries during the above-mentioned years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. If by "coloured spread" is meant margarine, the Manufacturers Sales of Margarine for periods specified were: April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968, 188,-
151,000	lbs; April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969,
195,142,000	lbs.
2.	No information available.
3.	There are no statistics available on imitation fluid milk sales in Canada.
4.	The amounts of milk products of all kinds imported from other countries were as follows: April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968, 488,189 cwt.; April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969, 478.504 cwt.

June 23, 1969
Questions


'HOMES BUILT UNDER VETERANS LAND ACT
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many homes were built in Ontario under the Veterans' Land Act during the past five years?
2.	How many loans under the Veterans' Land Act were granted where both the husband and the wife qualified?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is, 2,002. The answer to the second part is as follows: The Veterans' Land Act regulations provide that where a man and wife are both veterans only one of them may receive the benefits of Part I of the act. Information is not readily available from VLA records as to whether established veterans' wives are also veterans.


VETERANS AFFAIRS PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Is there a branch or division within the Department of Veterans Affairs dealing with Public Relations matters and, if so, how many people are so employed there, what is the official name of the branch or division, what amount of money was expended during the fiscal year 1968-69, what positions are held by each person working therein and what is the salary paid to each and their qualifications?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: There is a division in the Department of Veterans Affairs dealing with public relations matters. There are 11 employees and the official name is the Public Relations Division. The total amount expended by the Division during the fiscal year 1968-69 was $117,427. The positions, salaries and qualifications of the staff of the Division are set out hereunder: Chief, Public Relations Division, Information Officer 4, salary $14,490 per annum. Since joining the Department in 1944, has been involved in information and public relations work; has been chief of the division since 1954; Canadian Public Relations Society Accreditation; overseas veteran World War II. Information Officer 3, salary $10,960 per annum. Graduate in law from Laval University; nine years in newspaper and journalism work; has been with Public Relations Division for two years. Information Officer 2, salary $9,660 per annum. Graduate in arts from Toronto University; over 20 years experience in Department of Veterans Affairs the last eight years in the Public Relations Division as editor of departmental publications; member Canadian Industrial Editors

Association. Information Officer 2, salary $9,800 per annum. Employed with commercial radio stations and for 11 years with C.B.C. as a publicist; joined Public Relations Division, DVA in October 1968; overseas veteran World War II. Information Officer 1, salary $8,412 per annum. Reporter with daily commercial news; eight years as publicity assistant, Department of Trade and Commerce; seven years with Public Relations Division, DVA; overseas veteran World War II. Administrative Officer 1, salary $7,812 per annum. Over 25 years experience in DVA in clerical and administrative work; in Public Relations Division, DVA since May 1968. Support Staff: 1-CR 4, salary $5,211 per annum; 2-CR 3, salary $5,124 per annum; 1-CR 3, salary $4,656 per annum; 1-ST 2, salary $3,852 per annum.


PUBLIC WORKS-PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works have a relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


FARM MACHINERY PRICES
Mr. Beaudoin: Has it been determined by the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery that prices for various types of tractors are much lower in England than in Canada and, if so, what steps will the government take to reduce prices in Canada?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Royal Commission on Farm Machinery prepared a paper for the Canadian Agriculture Congress in March, 1969, entitled "Farm Tractor Prices in Canada Compared with Those in England and Other Countries". This paper shows that prices in the 1967 selling season were significantly higher in Canada than in the United Kingdom for tractors up to 55 to 60 hp. but somewhat lower for tractors with greater horsepower.
Announcement of any policy which may be established in this regard will be made to the House in the usual manner.
June 23, 1969	COMMONS


INCORPORATION OF UNIONS
Mr. Robinson: Is it the government's intention to require the Canadian incorporation of all unions operating in Canada and, if so, will they be subject to the same rules and regulations as laid down in the Canada Companies Act?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Matters related to this question are involved in the report of the Task Force on Labour Relations and are being studied in the course of considering amendments to the IRDI Act. Until this study is completed, it is not possible to predict government action.


VETERAN DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1 How many veterans receive a disability pension of (a) 100% (b) 90-99% (c) 80-89%	(d) 70-79%
Questions
(e) 60-69% (f) 50-59% (g) 40-49% (h) 30-39% (i) 20-29% (j) 10-19% (k) less than 10%, in each of the years 1960-69 respectively?
2.	How many veterans are there of (a) the Boer War (b) the First World War (c) the Second World War (d) the Korean war?
3.	How many veterans served in more than one war?
4.	How many veterans are entitled to and/or are receiving more than one veteran's pension?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 
QUOTAS TO CREAM PRODUCERS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many cream producers were awarded quotas for the 1969-70 dairy year, which entitles them to the dairy subsidy in the Provinces of (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba (d) Ontario and (e) Quebec?
2.	How many producers received a phasing-out payment this year in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba (d) Ontario and (e) Quebec?
3.	Were any additional quotas allotted to producers in any of these provinces and, if so, what provinces were involved and what was the allotment to each province?
4.	How much subsidy was paid in the Provinces of (a) Quebec (b) Ontario (c) Manitoba (d)
Saskatchewan and (e) Alberta in the dairy year 1967-68 and 1968-69?
5.	What is the Dairy Commission's philosophy behind disallowing transfer of quotas to producers purchasing herds from registered quota holders with quotas under 3,500 pounds?
6.	Were any adjustments made to increase quotas to any producers for the current dairy year 1969-70?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	The quotas for 1969-70 will not be completed until the end of June.
2.	None.
3.	No additional quotas will be allotted to producers in any province.
Questions

June 23, 1969
4.
Province
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
1967-68 $ 9,623,852.68 4,407,285.16 4,820,335.29 37,440,587.78 45,725,390.28

5.	There is no such disallowance when the producer purchasing the herd already has a quota. In the case of producers who do not already have a quota and who intend to ship cream the minimum quota which will be reallocated is now 1,750 pounds.
6.	No adjustments will be made to increase quotas to any producers for 1969-70 other than through reallocation on the purchase of the herd of another person holding a quota.


ST. EPHREM, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works have a programme for the construction of a post office in St. Ephrem, in the constituency of Beauce?
2.	If so (a) has the Department of Public Works called or will it call for tenders (b) when will the work begin?
2. Tenders are expected to be called later this summer and work should commence as soon as possible after award of contract.


BEAUCEVILLE-WEST, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works have a programme for the construction of a post office in Beauceville-West, in the constituency of Beauce?
2.	If so (a) has the Department of Public Works called, or will it call for tenders (b) when will the work begin?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes for a build to lease building.
2. (a) Tenders will be called in the near future; (b) As soon as possible after award of contract.


VETERANS PENSIONS EXPENDITURES
Mr. Robinson: What was the total amount paid for veterans pensions during each of the years 1945 to 1968 inclusive?

Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veier-
Hon. Arthur Laing Works): 1. Yes.		(Minister	of Public ans Affairs): contained in	The required information is the following table.	
Table The total number of disability and dependent pensions in force, and the annual liability as at the end of fiscal years 1945-1968.					
Year			Disability	Dependent	Total annual liability
1945					28,639 * 33,821 34,399 34,164 33,965 34,403 34,009 33,701 33,722 33,888 34,012 33,990 33,780 33,576 33,419 33,014 32,699 32,351 31,989 31,649 31,231 30,712 30,531 30,102	
1946						
1947						
1948						
1949						
1950						
1951						
1952						
1953						
1954						
1955						
1956						
1957						
1958						
1959						148,457,627
1960						
1961						
1962						
1963						
1964						
1965						
1966						
1967						
1968						
					
^ Note: (a) The above figures represent			pensions in respect of World War I, World War II, Special Force and		

June 23, 1969	COMMONS


RESEARCH GRANT TO MR. CHANDLER DAVIES
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	For the past two years, what was the amount of the research grant which the Canadian Government paid to Mr. Chandler Davies?
2.	What was the subject of the research?
3.	What was its purpose?
4.	Where was it carried out?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. 1968-69, $6,350, Senior Research Fellowship; 1969-70, $15,130, Operating Grant.
2.	Mathematics in both cases.
3.	The purpose of a Senior Research Fellowship is to give an experienced research investigator who has been granted sabbatical leave by his university an opportunity to pursue his research interests and increase his knowledge and awareness of new advances in his special field. The purpose of an Operating Grant is to provide support for scientific research conceived and carried out by competent investigators and is judged primarily on the basis of an assessment of the scientific competence of the applicant and the quality of his work. Dr. Davis' request was for support of research in "Inequalities for Matrices".
4.	Senior Research Fellowship:	Canada,
United States, Hungary, Rumania, Russia and France. Operating Grant: University of Toronto.

Questions


PAYMENTS UNDER GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How much money has been paid under the Guaranteed Income Supplement in each year since its inception?
2.	How many people in each province receive benefits under the Guaranteed Income Supplement?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. January to March 1967, $39,680,997; April 1967 to March 1968, $234,414,934; April 1968 to March 1969, $244,490,849.
2. As of April 30, 1969: Newfoundland, 23,052; Prince Edward Island, 8,294; Nova Scotia, 39,903; New Brunswick, 30,490; Quebec, 209,749; Ontario, 241,808; Manitoba, 46,479; Saskatchewan, 42,138; Alberta, 54,257; British Columbia, 80,157; Northwest Territories, 610; Yukon, 237; Total, 777,174.


CUSTOMS AND TARIFFS REVENUE
Mr. Robinson: What was the total revenue obtained from customs and tariffs for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Customs and Excise
The following shows the amounts ol revenue collected by Customs and Excise during the fiscal years 1960-61 to 1968-69:
Fiscal Year	Customs Import Duties	* Sales Taxes	Sales Taxes Transferred To Old Age Security Fund($ 000's)	($ 000's)	($ 000's)1960-61	498,698	990,849	(270,231)1961-62	534,516	1,044,557	(284,879)1962-63	644,992	1,108,210	(302,239)1963-64	581,441	1,277,815	(331,760)1964-65	622.102	1,587,771	(383,151)1965-66	685,519	1,917,215	(522,086)1966-67	777,586	2,073,081	(559,515)1967-68	746,437	2,145,609	(544,516)Mar. 31/69 (Not final).	750,331	2,052,415	(516,633)Other Excise Taxes	Excise Duties	Sundry Collections	** Net Revenue($ 000's)	($ 000's)	(8 000's)	($ 000's)290,658	344,945	1,627	2,126,777262,526	362,799	1,279	3,105,677260,378	381,866	1,460	2,396,906273,415	393,326	1,596	2,527,593269,082	411,402	2,160	2,892,517296,178	445,885	2,228	3,347,025315,580	460,980	2,081	3,629,308337,048	488,554	2,015	3,719,663366,784	502,244	1,908	3,673,682
'Totals include amount of sales taxes transferred to Old Age Security Fund. "Refunds and Drawbacks Deducted.

June 23, 1969
Questions


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Forestry have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Mr. E, F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


WORLD BANK LOANS
Mr. Dumont: To the knowledge of the government, has the World Bank recently made loans totalling $78,000,000 to (a) The Republic of China (b) The Republic of Korea (c) Trinidad and Tobago (d) Yugoslavia and, if so, in what amounts, at what interest rates and for what period for each country?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The World Bank has recently* made loans totalling U.S. $108.2 million to:
Amount $ 31.2 Million	Term	Interesta) Republic of China	15J years (3J years grace)	61 per centb) Republic of Korea	45 Million	30 years (7 years grace)	6J per centc) Trinidad and Tobago	2 Million	15 years (2 years grace)	6J per centd) Yugoslavia	30 Million	25 years (5 years grace)	6J per cent
*The loan to the Republic of Korea was announced on May 16, 1969; the loans to the Republic of China, Trinidad and Tobago, and Yugoslavia were announced on May 28, 1969.


MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION AT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to invite representatives of any municipal governments to the next Federal-Provincial conference?
2 If so, does this indicate a new policy of the federal government?


James Edgar Walker: 1. No. It would be for provincial governments to decide whether to include such representatives in their delegations.
2.	Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: 1. Which of the following have advisers on bilingualism on their staffs: the Bank of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank, the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, the National Arts Centre Corporation and the Northern Ontario Pipeline Crown Corporation?

2.	Which of the above have advisers on bilingualism who (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue
(c)	have another language as their mother tongue
(d)	are bilingual?
3.	What are the ages and educational levels of the advisers on bilingualism of each of these?
4.	What is the administrative level of the position of adviser on bilingualism in each of these bodies, and in each case, at what level have such appointments been made?
Return tabled.


EXPROPRIATIONS BY NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Of the expropriations by the NCC settled in the year 1968, what were (a) the dates of these expropriations (b) the amount of compensation in each case (c) the amount of interest paid because the Commission delayed settlement (d) the number and cost of real estate appraisals (e) the values estimated by each appraiser, including alternative estimates based on different approaches to value?
2.	Were any of the former owners represented by a member of the National Capital Commission or any of its advisory bodies?
3.	Were any of the properties purchased or expropriated in 1968 owned or partly owned by any members of the National Capital Commission or any of its advisory boards?
Return tabled.
June 23, 1969



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs back in the House of Commons. May I ask him whether Canada as a member of NATO is pressing NATO countries to enter into discussions with the Warsaw pact countries in an attempt to bring about meetings which will be fruitful and result possibly in a detente?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my report on my Scandinavian tour, we have been supporting in particular the Finnish initiative which embodies the conditions and qualifications we think necessary for a successful conference. We believe that the Budapest Declaration, or the language of that declaration, is not of a nature best calculated to make friends and influence people. The Finnish initiative seems to have that character and has, therefore, more hope of success.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked, Mr. Speaker, whether Canada is pressing her NATO allies or associates to proceed along those lines?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is our policy. It is the position we are pursuing within NATO.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Has Canada actually made representations to this effect to the NATO council or to any appropriate NATO organization? Has it done so beyond speaking to individual Scandinavian countries, for example? Has Canada made specific recommendations to the appropriate NATO organization which would take the step that has been alluded to? Also, what does the minister consider is the appropriate first step for anyone to take having regard to his indication that we ought to proceed step by step?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been foremost among NATO countries over a long period of months in advocating a detente between east and west. This has perhaps been our most important contribution to the NATO discussions in recent months. Our view about the course of the discussions, as I indicated,
Inquiries of the Ministry is that we should proceed to discuss those questions upon which greatest progress is likely to be made immediately. We should begin with disarmament.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whether in his discussions with the Finnish government he indicated that Canada would be prepared to attend such a conference? Also, did he find that other countries had indicated to the Finnish government that they would be willing to attend such a conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we not only indicated our willingness to attend but also our wish to be invited. This is the first hurdle in these discussions which must be surmounted. The plans which have been put forward do not indicate with sufficient certainty as yet that Canada and the United States will be invited. But it is our wish to be invited and we are certainly willing to go if we are invited.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister speaks of certain steps which ought to be taken preliminary to such a conference. Has the minister outlined these proposed steps in any document and has this document been circulated among our NATO allies? If so, what has been the response?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for us in the NATO council to distribute documents of this kind. We have been discussing in the NATO council for some months the prospects for detente. Indeed, this discussion, as the hon. gentlemen will recall, was quite well advanced before the Czechoslovakian invasion. We now hope to get the discussions under way again, and that is why we have been giving such strong support to the initiative of the Finnish government which is an entirely neutral government. That initiative seems to offer the best hope. It would enable the two sides to come together and discuss the issues upon which Europe is divided. As I understand it, the discussions that are going on are very informal because in many cases certain countries have not replied yet to the proposals put forward by the Finnish government. Perhaps the conference might consider a series of questions, beginning with those upon which greatest progress is likely to be made and ending with those that are most difficult.
June 23, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement the minister made earlier today. Since it is highly unlikely that the minister visited the Scandinavian countries purely on a good will mission while the house was in session, may I ask whether he knew, prior to leaving Ottawa, that a high ranking diplomatic official of the People's Republic of China was to be in Stockholm in the latter part of June? Was it the minister's intention to meet that diplomatic representative? If it was, may I ask what caused the mix-up?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had the greatest difficulty in persuading the press that I did not go to Scandinavia in order to meet the Chinese in Stockholm. I have made these denials time after time and always they have been received with apparent disbelief. In fact, I did not go for the purpose the hon. gentleman alluded to. I did not know when the Chinese ambassador was to arrive in Stockholm.


Douglas Scott Harkness: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is our cable code communication from Stockholm so insecure that our Canadian ambassador is afraid to send vital messages to the minister in Ottawa, thus making it necessary for the minister to go to Stockholm and talk face to face with the ambassador?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question as asked is in order.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government either made an offer or agreed to the withdrawal of diplomatic recognition of the Chinese government located in Taipei in exchange for diplomatic exchanges with Peking? Perhaps I could rephrase the question.
I was trying to be very precise. In short terms, has the government agreed or offered to withdraw recognition of the People's Republic of China located in Taipei in exchange for diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China located in Peking?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have stated on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, we have had a one-China policy, intend to have a one-China

policy and we will recognize only one government. If we can reach agreement with Peking, it will be the People's Republic of China government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. So there is no misunderstanding, if agreement is reached to have diplomatic recognition with Peking, I take it we will then be withdrawing our present recognition of Taipei?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canada is a signatory to the Geneva protocol of 1925 against the use of chemical and biological warfare, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether Canada's part in the diabolical research and development of chemical and biological weaponry is being reviewed in the present review of our defence policy with, I hope, a view to terminating it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already asked that this type of question be made part of our review: the degree to which we are bound by the Geneva protocols and the arrangements thereunder. I have no report as yet to enable me to answer that question.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any possibility of the house being informed of the results of that review within a reasonable time, either before we rise or very shortly after we come back in the fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, is linked to the over-all review of policy which will be presented to the House of Commons. I have no timetable to propose to the house at this point on that question.


David Lewis: I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Wednesday last I asked the then acting minister some questions about the possibility of the transportation of germs and other elements of chemical and biological warfare over Canadian air space. May I ask the minister to inform the house whether any shipments of such materials take place from the United States into or over Canada by planes, trucks or trains?
June 23, 1963


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity of asking my officials to confirm the accuracy of the report that was made by the acting minister to see whether there were any aspects of it which required further elucidation. I am informed there is no record of any transport of any of these kinds of materials to Greenland or Alaska. Permission would be required whether they were transported across Canada in military or civilian vehicles.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last Tuesday the acting minister was asked whether he would investigate the reports of alleged harassment of members of the Greek community by supporters of the military regime in Greece. Is the minister able to report to the house now with respect to that inquiry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just before I came into the house I inquired whether the investigation was complete. I was informed it is not yet complete.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last Thursday, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote) quoted some figures according to which the income of Quebec farmers had increased by $16 million in 1968, compared with 1967. I would like to ask the minister whether he feels that the lower price obtained by the farmer for his manufactured milk and the export tax, will contribute to increase the income in 1969, compared with 1968?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member's question is argumentative and I think it could easily be considered at the time of adjournment.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry



ALLEGED INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF BOX CARS-EXTENSION OF DELIVERY TIME

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, possibly I could direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. In my mail today I received four or five letters from various parts of Saskatchewan in which farmers complain of injustice or inequity in connection with the distribution of box cars. This condition has become worse and more intensified in the last couple of weeks. Will the minister look into this matter and possibly on Wednesday make a statement to the house because this problem is causing serious difficulty, particularly in those areas where there are minimum quotas and cars are not available for the purpose of transportation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman would send us the particulars so that we may know which shipping points he is referring to, we could get a report through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce from the Wheat Board respecting the situation. If there is a disparity or a disproportionate number of cars being allocated to those points, we could try to persuade the railways to correct the situation. I caution the right hon. member that it is not wise to load more cars than can be unloaded.


John George Diefenbaker: I need no caution in that direction, Mr. Speaker. When there are no cars, the caution is worthless. Two areas come to mind at once, namely, Kinistino and Glenavon, on which the minister can start.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the last statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated that there were still some delivery points on a unit basis and about 38 per cent still on three bushels or less, may I ask the minister if the government is considering the possibility of easing the concern on the part of the farmers by assuring them that the delivery season will be kept open until at least a five bushel delivery has been made effective at every delivery point on the prairies?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce
10538	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry commented on this the other day. It has to be borne in mind, however, that keeping the delivery points open on the past crop year does not add greatly to the marketing prospects for the ensuing year. This has to be taken into account, the amount of space available and the kind of grain our customers wish us to have in export position.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I apologize that time did not give me the opportunity of giving the minister notice beforehand. In view of the fact that on Saturday last at Port Dover, Ontario, out of seven United States pleasure boats from Erie, Pennsylvania, bringing United States dollars and good will to Canada two were fined $10 and all were ordered to get out of Canada because they had not reported to the customs officer who was not available, will the minister devise some means of clearing our United States visitors through customs on weekends through the three summer months, which is the only time that most of the United States boats can visit Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation which he has to assume will be noted by the minister. If the hon. member wants to pursue the matter further this will be a question that will have to be set down at the time of adjournment.


William David Knowles: Time of adjournment, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs supplementary to questions directed to him a few minutes ago with regard to recognition of the People's Republic of China. Aside from the world peace issue involved, having in mind the importance to the prairie provinces of our grain trade with the Orient and also the importance of that trade to the ports of British Columbia, would the minister undertake to press on with his efforts to reach an

DEBATES	June 23, 1969
acceptable basis for recognition of the People's Republic of China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has taken the initiative and I hope both sides will reach an amicable agreement.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government be taking advantage of the presence in Peking of Premier Smallwood to facilitate the negotiations?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


OCCASION OF LAST MEETING BETWEEN MAINLAND CHINESE AND CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of his apparent chasing of a will-o'-the-wisp while he was on his trip to the Scandinavian countries, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house when was the last occasion that there was a meeting between the elusive Chinese communists and representatives of the government of Canada in regard to the solicitation of the part of the government of Canada, on bended knee, for recognition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious doubt as to the terminology of the question asked by the right hon. member. I doubt that the question can be asked in those terms.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would help the minister. I now ask him, when was the last occasion that this convivial group got together, the communist Chinese and the Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled by the attitude of the right hon. gentleman. The only elusive will-o'-the-wisp has been these reports that I was going to Stockholm to meet the Chinese, which I tried to deny from the beginning. But in reply to the right hon. gentleman, whose motivations I do not quite understand, whether he wants to interrupt these discussions-


John George Diefenbaker: I just want to get an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We cannot debate the question at the moment.
June 23, 1969	COMMONS


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will he tell the house under what arrangements Devco is using the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund in its early retirement plan?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As has been mentioned in the house before, Mr. Speaker, the assistance to people retired at age 60 is a two-stage step. The first step is supplementary unemployment benefits administered by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The second step is direct assistance or pensions paid for by Devco when unemployment insurance benefits run out.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is apparent the minister completely misunderstands the representations I am making. Under what special arrangements has Devco brought about the use of the U.I.C. fund in its early retirement plan?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps of historical interest to the hon. member to know that this arrangement was made some time ago, as the former minister of manpower has pointed out on several occasions in the house. It is not the first time such arrangements have been made, and it probably will not be the last. The important thing is that it is of great benefit to the men concerned.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to ask the minister to take into account that this is the first time that any such plan has been in operation. It has nothing to do with former arrangements. I ask the minister once more: Under what special arrangements can Devco use the U.I.C. fund, a fund which has been denied to individual Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked the question three times. He may not be satisfied with the reply given to him by the minister, but I suggest to him that the rules allow him to ask the question just once. He asked it the third time as a point of order, and I suggest it was not a legitimate point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a supplementary question I would ask the minister why individual Canadians are being denied that right that is being used by Devco, a Crown company?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question is argumentative.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AID


BIAFRA-RED CROSS ROLE IN PROVIDING RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question that was directed to the acting minister a few days ago and which he was unable to answer. Now that the Biafran authorities are indicating that they are prepared to allow daylight flights, what representations has the government of Canada made to encourage Nigeria to extend safe passage for daylight flights by the Red Cross?
Mitchell William Sharp: Recently on a number of occasions we have had discussions with the Nigerian authorities urging them to agree to continue their offer for daylight flights. I am very happy that there seems to be some progress and I hope the Leader of the Opposition is correct in saying agreement has been reached on these matters. We have also been discussing with the Nigerian government the safety of flyers who may be involved. We share with the Leader of the Opposition the desire to make our aid available on the most effective basis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the report that the Red Cross has withdrawn from operations in Nigeria because of planes being shot down, is the government of Canada prepared to make arrangements to bring assistance to the starving people in Nigeria through any other agencies? Is this matter being given active consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition's statement is not correct. The International Red Cross, I understand, will be continuing to operate in both Biafra and other parts of Nigeria. Discussions are now going on with respect to daylight flights and other methods of delivery over land and over water. We are doing everything possible to assist with these discussions.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in his discussions with the federal government of Nigeria he made any protest about the shooting down of a clearly marked Red Cross relief plane on June 11, I believe, with consequent loss of life of the crew, in complete disregard of international conventions?
10540	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Nigerian government had given notice quite a long time ago that night flights were contrary to the wishes of the Nigerian authorities and that anyone who flew contrary to the wishes of the Nigerian government would do so at his own peril. The Nigerian authorities suggested at that time, and reiterated it on a number of occasions, that flights should be made in daylight.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since it now appears certain that the long season of excessive rainfall in Ontario will result in very serious crop losses, will the minister say whether farmers in Ontario will be accorded the same sympathetic consideration regarding repayment of government loans, both principal and interest, as has been indicated for western farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, the lack of income or lack of cash flow will not be apparent until later this season when the harvest is in and is being marketed. Certainly if there is a problem with respect to this matter at that time it can be considered.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
If the same cause exists in Quebec, will the farmers of that province get the same treatment as those in the West and in Ontario?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this has been applied universally across the country so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the policies the minister has brought into being apparently are not working in western Canada, could he come up with some new ones?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to [Mr. Brewin.l
DEBATES	June 23, 1969
the Minister of National Defence. Does the sentence in the statement he made on motions today to the effect that Maritime Command will continue in an anti-submarine warfare role mean that it will continue in that role in the full sense in which it is now engaged in this operation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think I qualified that statement by saying that so far we are negotiating with SACLANT as well as with SACEUR the question of our NATO participation and the A.S.W. role which, as my hon. friend knows, is within the purview of that particular responsibility within NATO.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether part of these discussions with SACLANT and SACEUR includes a possible specialized role or specialized activities within the broader A.S.W. role in NATO itself.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, they do, as a possibility. They, of course, study options and maybe we can come out of these discussions with practically the same kind of operation we are doing now. This I cannot prejudge until we have terminated the discussions.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the questions already asked of the Minister of National Defence. Although the minister stated that decisions with regard to closure of bases generally had not been taken, does it flow from the statement he made with regard to Maritime Command that it is unlikely that Maritime Command bases will be closed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think I would have to ask the hon. member for his definition of bases within Maritime Command. I do not think any maritime bases are being considered for closing at least for the time being, but I cannot be that sure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the discussion between the minister and the hon. member could be continued outside the house.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It pertains to Shearwater.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for
June 23, 1969

the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the people have been waiting several years for information, can the minister relieve their anxiety and quell some of the rumours by giving the house a date, before the house recesses in July or August or before we come back in October, when there will be a definitive statement on base closure?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe I am right in saying that probably before August 1 we will be in a position to announce what bases are to be closed.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence. I wonder whether he could possibly explain a little more clearly to the opposition our phased policy as opposed to their "two-phased" policy?


An hon. Member:: Funny guy over there.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CONSIDERATION OF INTEREST RATES BY COMMITTEE DURING SUMMER RECESS
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon.
member for Gatineau in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Since we have indicated to him our willingness to sit through the summer to hold hearings in respect of the outrageous rise in interest rates, can he indicate whether he has received information from the other parties as to their willingness to do the same?


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member for Waterloo for giving me notice of his question. The hon. member wants to know if the members of other parties have told me that they would be prepared to sit this summer.
I think this is a hypothetical question since the matter has not yet been referred to the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I am planning this week, namely on Wednesday, to convene the members of the sub-committee on Program and Procedure in order to discuss the general policy of that committee.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether I heard him

Inquiries of the Ministry correctly when he said next Wednesday rather than this Wednesday and whether it is his intention to have the committee meet while parliament is still in session to consider this matter?


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, if I gave the impession that it was next Wednesday, I want to say that it is this Wednesday. Like all hon. members, I hope that on the 27-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the six-weeks old strike in the iron ore industry in Quebec and Labrador. I know the minister has endeavoured to get some cooperation from the governments of Newfoundland and Quebec and I believe he has received the cold shoulder from the latter province. In view of the fact that dock and railway workers are involved who come under federal jurisdiction, is the minister doing anything at all to try to effect a settlement?
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member so properly pointed out, the lengthy strike in the northern part of Quebec, Labrador and Newfoundland is very complicated because of the fact that there are 16 unions involved which come under federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction. We did endeavour to approach the matter on a joint basis but the province of Newfoundland has expressed a desire that its conciliation board receive a little more time in an effort to bring their particular problems to a successful end.
In so far as federal jurisdiction is concerned, I would remind the house that two conciliation boards are still meeting and that employees under federal jurisdiction are not on strike.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now acquaint the
June 23, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry house with the approximate time and location of his intended tour of the prairie provinces this summer and also whether or not he will be meeting with individual farmers and farm organizations at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course I will be meeting with individual farmers. I understand there are quite a few western farmers who would like to talk with me. I am not in a position yet to give the exact itinerary, however.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has not accepted any invitations to go east tomorrow and in view of the fact that the people of the west are almost frantic to have him come, may I ask whether he could make a trip west tomorrow?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when he will introduce amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act with a view to making provision for appeals from deportation to be heard in Toronto, where most requests originate?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my hon. friend a definite date, but this matter is under consideration at the present time in the hope that the board will be able in the future to operate a panel in that area.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I should like to know whether there has been a recent change in the regulations controlling the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund, and also whether it is not a contravention of those regulations to receive benefits when voluntary severance is admitted by applicants?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the second question he asked is clearly argumentative.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then, Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer the first question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am afraid I have lost track of what the original question was.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister has apparently forgotten the first part of my question. Perhaps I could repeat it or rephrase it. Will he advise the house whether there have been recent changes in the regulations controlling the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund which would allow a person who has apparently severed himself from his position to make an application and receive benefits under the act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is not the situation under normal circumstances. If the hon. member has a more specific incident in mind, perhaps I will be able to deal with it tomorrow.




Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On June 12 I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to one Alexandoros Panagoulis who was sentenced to death for political activities in Greece. The acting minister said he would have the matter looked into. Will the minister, now that he is back, look into the matter himself and perhaps give me an answer some time?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.


BIOLOGICAL WARFARE-TRANSFER OF MATERIALS ACROSS CANADIAN TERRITORY
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I intended earlier to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he could inform the house how the materials used at Shirley's Bay, and particularly the material used at Suffield, Alberta, in connection with chemical and biological warfare research gets to either or both of these laboratory grounds?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice. As I said in
June 23, 1369
reply to the earlier question, the inquiries we made indicate there has been no request to transport any materials to Alaska and Greenland. Before making a further inquiry I would want to know if in fact U.S. materials are used in Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, before Orders of the Day are called perhaps I might ask the President of the Privy Council when it is intended to proceed with government order 91 in respect of the setting up of a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Price Stability, Incomes and Employment, especially in view of the limited timetable of the House, and whether it is the intention that this committee will sit during the recess?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we would hope to deal with government order No. 4 in respect of the official languages bill, the government order dealing with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Assistance bill and then the completion of order No. 84 with regard to Bill C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities. We would also expect to deal before Tising with the motion in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. On that basis and subject to consultation, I am not certain we will be able to get to the order in question before the house recesses.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka) moved:: That in order particularly to discuss the depart ment's neglect to assert federal leadership and take effective action to attack the worsening contamination of the Canadian environment by pollution, consideration be given to Vote 1 of the 1969-70 estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources contained in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works presented to the house on May 30th, 1969 and to other estimates relating to this department.
Alleged, Lack of Action to Combat Pollution He said: Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity afforded by the rules to bring before the house the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the report of the standing committee in order to underline the urgency of federal government action to control pollution in our Canadian environment and to deplore in the strongest terms the basic failure of the government to take leadership or any effective action. It should not be necessary to remind ourselves and the government of the priority this problem should demand. Obviously the government has overlooked it and has not given priority to this very important, very serious and most urgent matter.
We are trying to make Canada a better place, where we can feel at home anywhere. This is the intent of the the official languages bill which we have been considering. What kind of a home will it be if our water, soil and air are polluted, and of what use will it be to make a home which is unsatisfactory to all our citizens? We are trying to make working conditions better so that our people will have more time for leisure activities. But where will they go for holidays in a polluted country, and what tourists will come here if we allow this to happen?
We are trying to legislate regional equality of opportunity. This should not mean equal opportunity to suffer from pollution, but that is what the result will be if pollution control does not accompany regional development. In other words, we must move hand in hand in our efforts to improve the economy and the country from a pollution standpoint. Surely we can say very clearly that pollution in relation to our environment is the greatest threat, except for war, to our continued existence.
The population explosion, urbanization, the increased use of technology to create new products and the great variety of new wastes being released from industrial plants make it increasingly difficult to keep pollution under control. Pollution comes from such diverse sources as household detergents, human wastes, industrial by-products, which cannot be otherwise used or consumed, from mines, pulp mills and food processing plants, from agricultural wastes and automobile exhausts, as well as from many other sources.
We cannot just run from one emergency to another dealing with the pollution of our environment. There has to be some management on a national basis of our environment and resources, and this has to be done on a planned and co-ordinated basis across the

Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution whole country. If one province has tight pollution control methods, if it has good legislation and enforces it, it should not be penalized by the movement of industry to another province or area where the regulations are not so stringent. This is one of the basic reasons national controls and national minimum standards ought to be enforced.
For a moment I should like to mention some of our urgent problems today and give some examples of what we see in the newspapers that causes the people concern. I have quite a number of examples but I shall mention only a few in passing. On April 24 the Globe and Mail carried an article entitled "Oil And Chemical Slick Threatens West Lake Erie Ducks, Beaches." This is an additional source of pollution to the already existing threat from the serious dumping from industrial plants.
On May 28 an article appeared in the Globe and Mail entitled "May Charge Inco For Spill Of Acid." This took place in the Sudbury area and created a great deal of concern to the people there. The matter is being investigated by the Ontario Water Resources Commission.
This month another article appeared in the Globe and Mail under the heading "Lake Pollution To Be Probed At Kingston". It had to do with the problem of oil pollution from ships in eastern Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and suggested that the problem would be tackled by a conservation group.
Let me refer to another field of pollution, namely, air pollution by jets. It appears quite clear that jet aircraft are now beginning to loom large as a potential contributor to the air pollution of our big cities. These huge jet engines are major contributors to the tremendous build-up of poisonous hydrocarbons in the atmosphere over the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver airports in particular. Jet take-offs and landings at these airports are increasing very rapidly. Last year they totalled more than 65,000 at Toronto, 58,000 at Montreal and 23,500 at Vancouver.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Coming a little closer to where we are, the Rideau River beaches are threatened by pollution again this year. Last year sewage backed up in the Nepean system and overflowed into the Rideau, sending up the bacteria count high enough to force the closing of the beaches. Temporary emergency pumping helped ease the situation. More pumps were supposed to come from the Ontario Water Resources Commission but they have not 
June 23, 1969
arrived yet. Now sewage is again starting to spill into the river, and tests conducted early this year indicated that effluent is getting into the river from Nepean Creek.
Another dangerous situation exists at Lake Memphremagog. Pollution of that lake in the eastern townships of Quebec is far more serious than it was first thought to be. New reports of pollution measurements indicate that the infection level of the lake is growing more rapidly than was feared. Bacterial contamination at the end of last summer was found to be 58 times higher than when first measured in the spring. In two bays near Georgeville 46 per cent of the samples were in the poorest category, over 1,000 bacteria per 100 millilitres of water; yet Georgeville is not the worst area of Lake Memphremagog.
Coming right down to today, there is a report of a mysterious fish kill in British Columbia. One of the most important sports in British Columbia is fishing in rivers, and this sport is threatened. The Nicomekl River in the lower mainland, greater Vancouver area is a favourite river for thousands of British Columbians. Today we learn that hundreds of trout, chub and cohoe salmon fry are being killed by some pollution agent that has found its way into this river. What is the government doing about this situation? Are they waiting for the situation to go away? Are they waiting for the provincial authorities to do something, or are they going to take some action on a joint basis?
These are just a few of the problems of the pollution of our environment which have not been dealt with. The government is dragging its feet with the apparent excuse of a division of jurisdiction with the provinces, but that excuse is wearing very thin because the way has been shown for a joint federal-provincial effort and for sole federal action many times. In 1966 the resource ministers conference on pollution in Montreal gave a very clear direction. This was a federal-provincial effort which should have been followed up, but in fact that very excellent pollution conference has not been followed by action from the federal government.
Second, dozens of publications and articles have been written by knowledgeable writers. The most recent that I have seen is an excellent series in the May/June issue of the A.I.C. Review published by the Agricultural Institute of Canada. This was a comprehensive look at the problems of pollution and some of the solutions.

June 23, 1969	COMMONS
Third, solutions have been reached in the United States and are contained in the clean water act, and in Germany some solutions have been found by associations for waste water purification. These are countries with divided jurisdiction; yet they have managed to meet the problem.
Fourth, a complete policy paper by the Progressive Conservative party of Canada was issued last year. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) acknowledged the study and commented on it, just in case you may think it went unnoticed.
Finally, the standing committee of this house issued its report on May 30, 1969, which stated fairly clearly what had to be done.
The federal role is not really in any doubt. The most essential need is for the federal government to demonstrate that it will take the lead in an all-out fight against pollution right across the country. This it has not done. Other areas have been spelled out so often that I will not enlarge upon them now. They are not just areas of opportunity; they are areas that no other level of government can undertake.
We must have a national pollution abatement policy with related federal, provincial and municipal legislation. We must have provision of research facilities, collection of water, air and soil data, establishment of national minimum standards and design facilities for the removal of pollutants. We need a co-ordination of effort among the many federal departments, and I will deal with that in just a moment. We need the establishment of a national pollution abatement commission. We need the provision of financial incentives to assist in areas where ordinary commercial effort would not be sufficient, particularly in assisting provincial efforts and efforts by such bodies as water control commissions and water basin conservation areas. The groundwork has all been done many times. It has been spelled out over and over again.
Where is the concentrated, vigorous attack we need? I think it has all gone down the drain with the rest of the Canadian dream of federal leadership which was so hopefully looked for a year ago. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who sold himself to Canadians a year ago as a centralist, as a person who would take vigorous action in fields of joint federal-provincial jurisdiction, has proved, in this particular field and in many others, to be
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution exactly the opposite of what the people believed. He has walked away from co-operative programs such as this one, especially when money is involved. In his approach to this problem he has been very casual.
Question after question has been asked in the house by members of all opposition parties, but there have been no answers. We have heard only one thing, that a water act will be introduced later this year. This water act has been under consideration for four or five years now. It was promised by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) when he was minister of resources. It was promised by two previous ministers of energy, mines and resources. The water act is coming, everything will be settled, we hear over and over again. In the first place, we have not seen it so we have no idea what will be contained in it. It still has not come, and if the plans for adjournment materialize there are only a few days left. I wonder whether the minister is going to tell us today that the water act will be introduced this week. After I had put my motion on the order paper I really expected that he would bring it in this morning to beat me to the gun, but not even that did any good. Therefore we have to assume that it just is not ready or that the government is not ready to proceed with it.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the minister resigns tomorrow we will have it a day later.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We have not seen the water act, but it will not provide a solution unless it is in much broader terms than its title indicates. We cannot meet the problem by just dealing with water resources. There are many other aspects of pollution which must be dealt with in some co-ordinated way. I do not know how it is going to be done. We made a suggestion as a party that there should be a pollution abatement commission. I think that was a good idea. But if the government finds something better we will go along with it. However, let us have something, and let us get away from all this division.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It has been very common
knowledge that the main problem with pollution in the federal area is the division of jurisdictions, the divisions between the federal and provincial governments and between numerous agencies, including the International Joint Commission which involves another country. So we have been hoping to see some concentration of effort.
10546	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
When the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was set up I thought: this is the department which will deal with it; this is the department which will co-ordinate the whole effort. But instead of concentrating these powers the Prime Minister has allowed them to become further fragmented. Responsibility for resources has been given to a Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang). Without reflecting in any way on the abilities of the minister concerned, I must say this does not indicate that a high priority has been given to the control of pollution, especially as it affects our water resources. If this were the only responsibility assigned to the Minister without Portfolio the conclusion reached might be different. But it is not.
Then there is the menace of air pollution, to be dealt with by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The minister in this case seems to be interested in internal smoke rather than external smoke. We have not seen much evidence of an attack on air pollution through the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The Department of Agriculture has come to the fore recently in connection with soil pollution and particularly in connection with pesticides, which are presently a serious hazard. Its efforts have been receiving a good deal of publicity across the country. Who is next? The Department of External Affairs is responsible for taking measures against pollution when it occurs in international waters. This responsibility is by no means regarded as having first priority. In fact, as has been pointed out in the discussion already today, the minister has been away engaged in other tasks.
The Department of Fisheries is also concerned with the matter. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has suddenly taken a leading role in this area. In the last few weeks he has been making speech after speech on this subject and is apparently seeking to fill the void in which none of the other departments has been active. Only today he made an announcement concerning the establishment of a fresh water agency in Manitoba, part of whose duties will be to inquire into pollution and deal with it in waters all across Canada. To me, this move looks like a power play. I do not believe that the job of pollution control is one that any minister really wants. I do not think it would be a happy job for any minister to undertake. I get the feeling that the Minister of Fisheries is trying to take 
DEBATES	June 23, 1969
control of the efforts against water pollution. If he is, and if he intends to go ahead vigorously, good luck to him. I hope somebody does.
The situation has been further fragmented within the last few weeks by the active entry of the Departments of Fisheries and Agriculture into this arena. The result is that we do not know where to turn. We do not know to whom to direct questions on this subject. One can direct them to half a dozen different ministers and they are all ready to answer, or at least to stand up and try to give an answer, but we do not get very much by way of solid information.
Pollution affects the interests of many departments; it is rarely the concern of one department alone. Take the simple case of a farmer using d.d.t. under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture which has the duty of licensing pesticides. He may seriously pollute waters under the control of the resources department, creating a hazard which the Department of National Health and Welfare is called on to deal with, killing fish in which the Department of Fisheries is interested and, finally, affecting boundary waters under the control of the Department of External Affairs.
It is no use saying we must allow each department to operate on its own. In any case, they are not doing so. We do not know who is in charge. If the Prime Minister were more honest he might say: Well, I am leaving it to the provinces. I hope he does not take that course, because there is a definite, serious and urgent federal responsibility involved. The Prime Minister's approach has been extremely casual and he has allowed jurisdiction to become fragmented. The progress made during the last year has been nil. There has been no follow-up to the promising start made by the resource ministers' convention. It is true the inland water centre at Burlington is getting under way, and for this we are thankful, but I would remind hon. members that this project was instituted by a former prime minister. The reports of the International Joint Commission received concerned acknowledgement from the government, but no action was taken. The much heralded water legislation has not yet appeared, though a year has now gone by and three previous ministers have trumpeted its arrival.
The report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources has been received and filed-and I mean "filed"; I
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
have seen no evidence of action. It was a good report, particularly with regard to the desirability of setting up centres such as that in Burlington in other places across Canada. But nothing additional has been promised or promoted. We wait for a glimmer of hope for better surroundings while the gloom deepens across the country.
I conclude by pointing out that pollution is a national danger, a current one and an urgent one. Right now in the coastal waters of the Pacific Ocean near Vancouver, as well as in Piacentia Bay in the Atlantic, pollution is actually occurring. Pollution of areas of the Great Lakes is already a fact. The situation could be contained if action were taken promptly. Provincial governments are acting individually here and there to meet the challenge. In some provinces pollution control commissions of one sort or another have been established.
I intend to leave it to others in this debate to draw attention to some of the specific and detailed areas to which immediate attention should be given. I know there are many. I hope the debate today may lead to concentrated and concerned action to deal with water, soil and air pollution. I hope, too, it will help the government to realize this is essentially a single problem, one to which a response must be developed on a national scale.
There is one way in which man may perhaps escape from the consequences of his polluting habits. In this morning's Globe and Mail there is an article about a marine scientist who is developing an underwater habitat in which people can live for extended periods. It is being tried out in Georgian Bay in the neighbourhood of Bruce Peninsula. Man who came from the sea, can, it seems, now return to the sea, provided, of course, that he can find a clean place in the ocean.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) in relation to the pollution problem facing the Canadian nation. I must say I endorse practically all of the comments he made in regard to the need for taking immediate action.
Frankly, I must admit that I too am rather confused by the lack of apparent interest on the part of the various federal departments in solving the pollution problem in Canada today. Along with other members of the house
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution I had hoped that we would see the Canada water act come down at a very early date; in fact, it was promised for the beginning of the year. Then we hoped to see it on the Order Paper before the end of this session. However, we are still waiting and hoping that it will give us a lead as to what the government is going to do in this regard.
I should like to make some rather general comments first of all and deal very briefly, if I may, with the committee's report which was presented to the house at the end of May. I think the committee's recommendations are good. They are very general and certainly do not cover the entire problem, but I feel that the members of the committee are to be congratulated on putting into print and laying before the government the report that they presented. I certainly endorse it.
The committee pointed out

I might say that the report was unanimous-that everyone is concerned about the increasing magnitude of air, water and soil pollution and the jurisdictional conflict which hampers the finding and implementing of proper solutions. I do not think any member of this house with any knowledge of the pollution problem would fail to admit readily that the greatest drawback to finding a solution to pollution is that we are in a jurisdictional muddle in regard to what the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government each can or cannot do.
In 1969, a time when perhaps the very existence of mankind depends upon finding solutions to pollution, the problem would be funny were it not so serious. It is tragic that federal and provincial politicians have not the desire-and I think part of the trouble stems from their lack of desire-to sit down and lay out some program that could and should solve many of the major pollution problems facing Canada today.
In this regard the committee recommended:
-that the government draft a code of standards for the cleaning up of and the future protection of all Canadian waters; that provincial approval of such a code be sought; and that the federal government provide an enforcement procedure-if necessary by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code.
This is something that we should have had years and years ago. Instead we find that in 1969 major pollution problems are confronting us everywhere we turn. We should not have had to wait till now for a committee to suggest to the government the procedures that should be taken.
10548	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution
The committee further recommended:
-that a centre or centres similar to the Canada Centre for Inland Waters be set up to centralize ail existing and future federal research in air and soil pollution and to extend and speed up such research so that codes of standards may be drafted to protect the air and soil from pollution.
Again I have no hesitation in saying that I endorse the general objectives of the committee. Having made this report the committee and its members are going to go on-at least I hope we are-and see that some legislative action is taken. I commend to the minister that he take this report seriously and that legislation be brought in to implement the ideas the committee has placed before the government. I have no hesitation in stating that time is short, that we must move and move quickly if we are to prevent some of the major disasters that are now becoming apparent in the field of pollution control.
I should like to point out too that pollution has become international in scope. It is not merely a provincial problem or a municipal problem or a federal problem; it has become an international problem. Our scientists have warned all the nations of the world that we are swiftly and completely damaging our environment to the extent that we are threatening man's existence on earth. It is as simple as that. We may try to laugh this off because we think that since we are living in a country that is sparsely populated this problem might not affect us too much. Nevertheless, the problem is there and the nations of the world have been given this warning.
Despite the mounting pollution problem we find governments and politicians are reluctant to make those moves that are required to put our house in order as far as pollution control is concerned. Why, Mr. Speaker, are we reluctant to move? This is not a civil service problem; it is a problem for governments and for politicians.
The reason for the reluctance is the enormous cost of pollution control and the many strict and possibly unpopular moves that will have to be made. Everybody knows that governments and politicians do not like making unpopular moves, and basically this is the problem that is facing us in the field of pollution control. All sectors of our economy, be they private or public, will have to make major and costly adjustments if any plan is to succeed. Again I point out that one of the drawbacks has been that we have been afraid to go to industry and to the private sector and to tell companies causing pollution that

they have to eliminate pollution that is affecting our rivers, streams, air, soil and everything else. I think we must be in a position to demand that controls be implemented.
Since this is going to cost money, we may ask who is going to provide it? The average citizen, of course. He has to pay for everything anyway. Whether through increased prices or taxation, eventually the cost will be met by the wage earners of this nation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I should like to outline this afternoon a few general problems. There is a host of material available, in fact so much that it would be difficult to condense to the point where it could be put before the house in a short 20-minute speech. However, one of the major weaknesses as far as the federal government is concerned in its approach to pollution is that there is absolutely no co-ordination on the subject between the various departments. This is supposed to come within the Canada water act. At the moment one arm does not know what the other is doing. There are about 14 independent departments of government that somewhere along the line are involved with the pollution problem. Some departments have standards to enforce; others have none. In this day and age that is a ridiculous state of affairs. The legislation on the statute books is inadequate and we cannot control pollution by using existing legislation. In fact, no single department of government has sufficient authority to deal adequately with pollution problems. It is time the people of Canada were made aware of the facts.
Departments have inadequate facilities to enforce existing laws. They are loath to use existing powers to enforce existing laws for fear of upsetting those in the private sector of our economy. That attitude is all wrong. It is sheer nonsense. The various departments of government find it convenient to ignore many of the major causes of pollution. They get around the problem by saying, "We can do nothing, because if we act we shall upset the provincial governments". Their attitude is that many pollution problems fall under provincial jurisdiction and have nothing to do with the federal government. I say that it is the duty of this government, which has hidden behind the gimmick of constitutional issues in order not to accept responsibility for pollution control, to iron out constitutional problems in this field. The government ought to be meeting with representatives of the
June 23, 1S69	COMMONS
provinces and municipalities and trying to iron out these so-called constitutional problems. This government has been in power since 1963. Except for the odd new face, it is the same old gang that has been in power all along. The pollution problems of 1963 are still with us today in 1969.


An hon. Member:: The same old gang sits in the opposition.


Randolph Harding: Yes, that may be so. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has the responsibility for dealing with pollution of rivers and lakes. How is it, then, that this department has no pollution standards? I asked for a return to be tabled in the house indicating the standards the department has adopted in order to fight pollution, and I have learned that the department has no standards at all. Here is one government department that has the responsibility of dealing with water resources; yet it has no standards to enforce in the fight against pollution. That state of affairs must be remedied.
Recently amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act were introduced into the house and, lo and behold, on examining them, I found that federal and provincial Crown corporations did not come under the act. It does not apply to them. We tried to introduce an amendment to bring the Navigable Waters Protection Act up to date but that amendment was defeated. One could ask, "What has the Navigable Waters Protection Act to do with pollution?" It has plenty to do with it, I say. If a dam is to be built or a reservoir constructed-the reservoir might be 100 miles long-and the government does not insist that the reservoir basin shall be cleared of standing timber before construction begins, the water of the reservoir could remain polluted for as long as any of us in this house stay alive. The government is aware of weaknesses in the act; yet it always tells us, "We must have constitutional discussions before we dare to move in this area."
I have raised these points because one of our provincial governments ignored the damage that could be done when it failed to insist that timber in reservoir basins be cleared. We need only look at the example in British Columbia of Duncan Lake to see what a mess can be created. Another disgrace is shaping up in the reservoir behind Mica Dam which, when completed, will form a lake 125 miles long. The timber has not been properly cleared. This is a national scandal. It is true that the two projects I have mentioned are 29180-667
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution under the control of the provincial government, but I submit that the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act could be brought to bear. The federal government must put teeth into its laws if it is to control pollution. If necessary amendments to the Criminal Code should be brought in, there should be appropriate fines and penalties for individuals, companies or Crown corporations that contravene the provisions of laws affecting pollution control.
In legislating we are not keeping our eyes fixed on today or tomorrow only; we are legislating for the benefit of our coming generations. We want our youngsters to enjoy recreational areas which we have been wise enough to create during our stay here.
I now wish to speak about the Fisheries Act in relation to pollution. Hon. members have spoked about that act this afternoon. It requires major amendments. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has made good speeches, the spirit of which I endorse. In his attempts to have regulations under the Fisheries Act enforced he will have my backing and the backing of many others in the house.
Let us examine some of the effects of our fisheries legislation. First of all, there must be a large fish kill before we prosecute anybody. That is not good enough. It is too late to prosecute after all the fish have been killed. That is like locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen. I say the act should be amended and we should tighten regulations governing pollution. We must put teeth into the Fisheries Act if it is to do any good in this area.
For instance, in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, there has been large-scale pollution of which the department was warned by its own research station in Nova Scotia. The department's experts said that there might be possible trouble from the phosphorus plant. The federal government gave a $5 million grant to the company under the area incentives plan and the company built the plant. The government did not insist that the company behave as a good industrial citizen. Later there was a tremendous fish kill in the area which affected many fishermen. A tremendous amount of damage was done and only after that did the federal government offer to pay the fishermen compensation.
The government hopes the fishermen will prosecute the company and get back some of the money which was paid out in compensation. I say that the fishermen should not be prosecuting the company. That is the job of

June 23, 1969
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution the Department of Fisheries. It should collect every penny owing from the company. The taxpayers of Canada should not be out of pocket on account of the phosphorus spill from this industrial plant. I say to the government that it is setting a precedent in this area that can be followed in other parts of Canada. It is reasonably certain now that the spill from the plant killed the fish. Therefore the plant ought to be liable for the compensation that was paid to fishermen.
While I am on the subject of fisheries regulations may I mention the Fraser River. The lower reaches of the Fraser River are a running sewer. That is all they are. That stretch of water is one of the filthiest waterways in this nation. The Department of Fisheries is unable to force municipalities and others up the river to clean up raw sewage being dumped into the water. Great damage is being done; there is no doubt about that. Great harm is being done to the fish in that part of the river. Do we need to have vast numbers of fish killed before the government acts? I could cite many other examples. Pulp mills in the area have broken pollution control regulations time and again. They are breaking them today. Action is not being taken against them. Many threats are being made and letters are being written. Then the government gets real tough and sends them a registered letter to really scare them.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr.   Bailsman@: It doesn't get there. The Post Office is not working.


Randolph Harding: These problems worry us. Pollution control is a matter of establishing on a co-operation basis a working agreement between the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities. I agree with the hon. member who spoke earlier that a national abatement pollution policy should be established to set national goals as to the standards for a national policy. We have to do this. Industries must be told that they cannot move out of Kootenay West to Alberta or Saskatchewan because if they do they will be up against the same national standards.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse the time because I know quite a few members wish to speak. I will clear up two or three points and then take my seat.
My second point is that we must have complete understanding of jurisdiction. This can be ironed out through frequent meetings of the federal-provincial ministers' group which has already been set up. Once the jurisdictional problem is ironed out, if governments are not afraid to move we will be well on the way to solving many of our major pollution problems.
In the field of enforcement, amendments must be made to the Criminal Code, including adequate penalties. We need priorities in attacking the major problems facing us. These cannot all be tackled at once. Priorities must be set up and we must move very quickly and adequately on them.
There must be one department and one minister responsible for pollution. This minister must have the power to co-ordinate the activities of all other departments. He must be in charge of pollution problems for the whole nation. In addition there must be a vast research program for water, air and soil pollution. Federal, provincial and municipal legislation must be passed to cover every aspect of the pollution problems facing us today. There must be co-ordination of the legislation passed by the various provinces. There should be some type of loan system set up for municipalities' and, in some cases, industry to obtain loans to carry out the improvements needed to prevent pollution.
While I have dealt mainly with water pollution, air and soil pollution are equally serious. I wish to make one comment regarding the pollution of soil. It concerns the use of d.d.t. which is very widespread. Not much research is being carried out in Canada with regard to the effects of d.d.t. on fish and game, human beings, cattle, grain, and so on.
Recently a survey was conducted in the United States which covered the whole of the river basins and lakes in that country. Although it did not touch every lake, it was a very broad survey. Out of 590 samples of fish taken from 45 rivers and lakes throughout the nation, 584 had d.d.t. in their tissues. In some cases it was exceptionally high. Some concentrations were as high as nine times the food and drug administration's tolerance level. This is very serious. This report confirms that there is an accelerating pollution of the environment by hard pesticides. It confirms the findings of some experts that there should be thorough research into d.d.t. by the govern-
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
ment and its various departments. It is not the most toxic pesticide; there are others that are much worse.
We must face this problem now. It is not only a problem in Canada and the United States. Every nation is faced with the problem of finding the residues of these pesticides in fish and game and foods which are grown. We are not carrying out the research in Canada that is necessary. I hope other hon. members will also deal with this later this afternoon. I thank Your Honour and hon. members for the few extra minutes given to me this afternoon.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, today we have before us a nonconfidence motion introduced by the Progressive Conservative party which reads as follows:
That in order particularly to discuss the department's neglect to assert federal leadership and take effective action to attack the worsening contamination of the Canadian environment by pollution, consideration be given to-
I inform at once the Conservatives that we will support this motion because we are also of the opinion that the government is too slow in meeting the problems of pollution which at this time seriously endanger human life.
However, instead of criticizing the vote I would have liked the motion to read as follows: "That the Bank of Canada will grant free interest loans to municipalities, to provinces, so that all the bills to be studied and put forward in the future are passed as soon as possible."
When dealing with the water pollution problem, and in order to enlighten the house and the committee that will study the problem, I should like to confine my remarks mainly to suggestions because it is a serious problem and we seem to forget that actions is urgently needed, since the survival of the human race twenty years from now is at stake.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The cost of air pollution varies in Canada, according to estimates, from $20 to $65 per capita, depending on the areas. These figures include the washing, painting, cleaning of buildings, air filtration and the cost of medical care. But there is more to it than expenditures and losses. Air pollution is a serious threat to health. It has been established that it weakens the resistance of the body, decreases vitality, and increases the incidence of illness.
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution
In addition, it is possible that air pollution, even relatively low, contributes to the increase of degenerative illnesses including cancer of the skin and the lungs, heart and vascular diseases, and chronic bronchitis. Fortunately, scientific progress in other fields allows us to hope that air pollution also can be checked. Here again, above all, new plants should be required not to pollute the air.
Would it not be advisable to grant loans, without interest, to our municipalities that they might solve once and for all those air pollution problems? But no! Collective suicide is being witnessed complacently, and we are told there is no money. What must we do?
Personal conscience is the prerequisite for any effort towards efficient conservation. A ruling of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington reads as follows:
A non-written pact between the dead, the living and future generations prescribes that we should leave to those who will succeed us something more than debts and exhausted natural resources.
Nature kept its balance for millions of years, but it has now run into a new obstacle. All other creatures follow habits and instincts, while man seeks to dominate things and give them new orientations.
The undiscerning killing of noxious plants and insects by means of chemicals is not only a serious menace to the preservation of wild life but also the source of potential contamination for human beings. In Mexico, 17 children actually died, apparently because of a pesticide that had been used to kill rats in a corn field.
Sewage pollutes the water of our lakes and rivers, thus infiltrating our bodies. Water, which is the most important of our natural resources, can carry germs and toxic elements. According to the World Health Organization, about five million children die every year because of intestinal diseases carried by water.
At a certain point, rivers themselves rebel against the saturation of various poisons from urban sewage, factories, slaughter-houses, or tilled soil. These toxic matters kill the plants, exhaust the oxygen supply in the water and impair the filtering action of the gravel. Once a certain level of pollution is attained, animal and plant life disappears and the river ultimately dies.
In order to clear up our lakes and our rivers, we have to fight different sorts of manmade pollutants: detergents, fertilizers, insecticides, weed-killers, sewage, industrial waste. It is more a matter of prevention than
10552	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution of treatment and it seems that municipalities and industries are now moving in this direction at the moment, however, the rates of interest are a burden far too heavy for them to bear.
Today, Mr. Speaker, air pollution and fog are just mere incidents of our everyday urban life, or so it seems, until a catastrophe in the field of public health occurs, such as the death of 4,000 people in London, in 1952, as a result of the smog, makes us realize that our carelessness can be lethal. About a hundred air pollutants have been so far identified plus those resulting from their integration.
We need people endowed with sufficient sense, imagination, firmness and boldness to demand that sufficient wooded and open areas be reserved for recreational instead of practical purposes. If wilderness disappears, young people will be deprived from satisfying their instinctive taste for dreams and outings. Confined in the canyons of the cities, imprisoned in octopus-like suburbs, their hearts, minds and hands empty, debarred from experiences that their nature requires, they will devote their energies to protest and wrong-doing.
Man has spread pesticides all over without wondering whether they would not be fatal to birds and useful insects, and even to human beings. Man had poured millions of pounds of detergents in the rivers before he found out that he was polluting the water. He let the lakes die through lack of oxygen. He helped increase the fatal effects of smog in allowing harmful substances in the atmosphere.
It is now essential to evaluate the comparative importance of know risks and possible advantages. That is where conscience and intelligence have a role to play. As Harry Commoner said in a striking article on pollution, and I quote:
No scientific procedure can tell us how many abnormal births caused by radioactive fallout we must tolerate before having a new nuclear weapon ... No scientific principle can indicate how to make a choice, which the problem of insecticides could force us to make, between the shadow of the elm and the song of the robin ... the duty of making the necessary judgments does not lie exclusively with scientists and technicians but also with all citizens.
However, the pressure of public opinion remains an essential factor for the success of these efforts. The cahllenge can be met if we muster every skill, every economic force and every human resource in order that what can be achieved physically in this field may become financially feasible. I mentioned

DEBATES	June 23, 1969
before that the Bank of Canada could supply municipalities or provinces, as the case may be, with the funds required for an effective anti-pollution campaign. Man's presumptuous, arrogant meddling has now brought about the deterioration of living conditions we are now concerned with, the extinction of many animal and plant species and the pollution of air and water.
Now that his very survival appears to be at stake, man must revise his thinking, relearn long-forgotten lore and continue his advance along the appropriate ways.
Our research and the conclusions and lessons resulting from it offer hope to a world which ignores largely how serious the situation is. Scholars and researchers do not make the laws, they discover them. Nature's laws exist, and scientists formulate them so that we can observe them.
Mr. Speaker, a duty awaits us. Our governments have this possibility of helping fight pollution. The realities of nature's balance and man's role in this respect have to be presented to the populations of all countries in a way they can understand. Only in this way can scientists give to these responsible the opportunity of taking the necessary decisions on those serious questions.
No municipal, provincial or national effort to maintain nature's balance can be efficient if it is not earnestly demanded and supported by a well informed public opinion. There is no need for people to be specialists in some branch of learning, but everyone should be able to understand what scientists are saying, what technicians are doing and what elected governments who are now increasing debts instead of taking the necessary measures I suggested at the beginning should do, namely that the Bank of Canada should grant interest free loans to our municipalities, as was done recently for western farmers, as was done for Expo, in Montreal, to enable that municipality to develop instead of going bankrupt.
If such loans can help our municipalities and our provinces to fight, with every possible means, pollution which leads to our suicide, we will have really played our role as legislators.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this afternoon hon. members opposite have indicated their appreciation of the serious nature of the pollution problem which faces
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
civilized man in his many activities. In that they have joined the members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works who showed that they had an understanding of the important nature of this problem and the challenge it presents to governments in Canada today.
There is no doubt about the serious nature of the problem with the increased amount of waste which is being produced by man in his industrial and domestic activities. The disposition of these wastes is a serious matter and a challenge in respect of having available for other use by man our natural and renewable resources. It is, of course, a key to intelligent management of water resources to develop first an understanding of their availability in terms of quantity, quality and location. It is this, of course, which has preoccupied the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in recent years in coming to grips with the problem.
I was interested to note that while indicating some understanding of the problem hon. members opposite said very little which really supported the motion that is before us today. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is in fact doing many things in many ways to examine the question of quantity, quality and location of these water resources. Under the Canada water survey there has been established a network of monitoring stations. There are 2,300 of them across the country. There are some 2,000 under the direct responsibility of this department and 300 which are operated by the mines and resources branch of the province of Quebec.
In addition to these monitoring stations which check stream flow and therefore quantities and locations of water, there is being established in co-operation with the provinces a network of stations to assess the chemical qualities of our water resources including such things as hardness, physical characteristics, colour, potability and methods of water treatment for domestic and industrial uses. At the same time we are expanding the network to determine the nature and extent of pollution in major Canadian surface waters and to determine seasonal variations in water quality. Specific attention is being paid to the total nitrogen and phosphorus content of Canadian waters. Special monitoring is being established to detect pesticides, herbicides and algicides that many be present in trace quantities. More intensive research is being carried out to determine water quality problems on the lower Fraser River, the northern
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution Ontario rivers and the Exploits River system of Newfoundland. These studies have been initiated at the request of other agencies as part of over-all water development programs. Intensive water quality studies are being undertaken on ten small watersheds as part of the International Hydrologic Decade. Special studies are in hand on waste disposal problems of specific industries. For example, the effects in local ground water regimes of brine disposal ponds near potash mines is under intensive study.
Studies of groundwater resources are being expanded through establishing a national observation well network in co-operation with the provinces. Assessment of the reserve in aquifers, the replenishment of groundwater, the quality of groundwater, and the potential yield rates are all included in this program.
The department has also undertaken studies of the glacialogical area to examine the relationship between climatic variations and increases and decreases in these important sources of western water.
In addition to these more general programs the department has undertaken specific and intensive programs in co-operation with the provinces on particular river basins. For example, we are working with the province of Ontario in examining the quantity and quality of water in the Hudson Bay drainage of Ontario. The program also includes estimation of the anticipated water needs of the region.
Similarly, a $5 million water resources study of the Saskatchewan-Nelson system is under way in co-operation with the three prairie provinces. The federal government will pay half the total cost of this program. About two-thirds of the cost will go toward water storage studies while the remainder will be spent on examination of water diversion potentials within this huge drainage basin of some 350,000 square miles. These studies are essential before forecasts of water quality levels can be made. I may say that this also demonstrates the effective manner in which federal-provincial co-operation can produce the necessary knowledge about our water resources and how they may be made more useful to the people of this country.
Perhaps the most critical water quality issues facing Canada today concern the Great Lakes. Pollution abatement programs in the Great Lakes basin, on both sides of the international boundary, present a special problem unique in the world and of vital concern to present and future generations. Technically
10554	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1963
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution we are faced with the cumulative effects on lake waters of waste products that escape, even with the best of abatement procedures, and cause progressive deterioration of the Great Lakes. Massive studies of the physical, chemical and geological characteristics of the lakes are essential to understand their capabilities of assimilating and disposing of wastes on the one hand or of concentrating and accumulating them to their detriment on the other. From these studies, together with engineering, economic, social and legal studies, intelligent programs will emerge to improve and maintain the quality of the lakes.
Economically, socially and aesthetically no other water pollution problem in the industrial heartland of North America can compare in magnitude and importance with the critical situation developing in the Great Lakes. In recognition of this problem we have undertaken major positive steps in the Great Lakes area. In 1967, recognizing the need for this knowledge, the government decided to build a major interdisciplinary research establishment. A site at Burlington, Ontario was selected and then without waiting the two years which might have been required for site preparation a laboratory complex was immediately housed in trailers. The laboratories were in operation before the end of 1967 and are now operating with a staff of more than 150 scientists, technicians and administrative personnel. Within 10 years it is anticipated that a staff of 1,000 will be undertaking integrated interdisciplinary research and planning related to the physical, biological and chemical nature of the lakes, pollution, water levels, shore erosion and sedimentation.
The Canada Centre for Inland Waters is expected to cost a total of $23.5 million. In addition, a major research vessel, the Limnos, has been commissioned. This is a floating $2 million laboratory containing the most sophisticated scientific equipment available. A second ship is under lease to allow a full scale offshore research program.
As members of this house will realize, water is perhaps the most versatile of all resources in its uses and as a result a number of federal departments and agencies are involved in various aspects of the government's over-all program. A fine example of co-ordinated programs is taking shape at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters. Not only is this department employing a team of scientists of different disciplines but it is also making

facilities available to the Department of National Health and Welfare as well as the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. University scientists will also use our laboratories. No effort will be spared to bring the best minds to bear in an efficient, effective, co-ordinated search for knowledge.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Within the government there has been established an interdepartmental committee on water programs to review and recommend on all water resource programs of government agencies. This interdepartmental committee has been established to assure that public programs will be co-ordinated and developed in a sensible and consistent manner. It is expected that under the Canada water act this committee will be given some permanent status in respect of the fight against water pollution.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he is able today to indicate when the water act will be introduced.


Otto Emil Lang: I expect to comment on that a little later, Mr. Speaker.
In addition to the question of co-operation between government departments there is the extremely important question of co-ordination and co-operation between federal and provincial governments. I am not going to go into the problems of federal and provincial jurisdiction at this time. It may suffice for me to say that the question of jurisdiction is complex and involves both levels of government. Therefore it requires the best kind of cooperation in the true spirit of federalism for us to make the best and most successful use of our water and provide the best kind of water management.
I should like to mention a couple of initiatives in the area of federal-provincial cooperation. 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
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
to include air and soil pollution as well as water.
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.
We have been successful in developing a broad program of research outside of government. In 1967 the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources launched a grants-in-aid program to support water resources research at Canadian universities. The objectives of the program included provision of funds for a required expansion of water research, development of knowledge and expertise on water problems on the part of university staff and faculties, and the provision of greater opportunities for graduate students to undertake work in this field as' a stimulus1 for increasing the pool of trained personnel available for employment.
To assist in the administration of this program, we established a national advisory committee on water resources research by Order in Council in the fall of 1967. This committee is charged with three important functions: provision of continuing advice to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the needs and priorities for water resources research; assistance in the co-ordination of water resources research, and review and recommendations on applications for grants in aid of research from the department.
In the research grant program a total of $800,000 has been awarded to individuals1 at 23 universities since March, 1968. Of this amount, $600,000 was awarded in the natural sciences while $200,000 was for support of social science research. An estimated 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the funds awarded to date bear directly or indirectly on pollution problems.
The greatest challenge to federal-provincial co-operation comes in the doing-the actual planning and implementation of water resource management schemes. I feel quite sure the general public will not excuse inaction because of difficulties over federal or provincial jurisdiction. They want the job done. Recognizing the need for comprehensive planning and action, and in anticipation of the proposed Canada water act, we have offered a special co-operative program to the provinces. Two years ago, in May, 1967 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution
advised the provinces that the federal government was prepared to join with one or more provinces in each region of the country to undertake pilot studies in comprehensive river basin planning. I must confess that we have been unable to encourage either the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario to discuss joint planning on the Ottawa River. I am encouraged, however, by recent reports in the press on the statements of the new Minister of Energy and Resources Management for Ontario. I am hopeful that discussions with Ontario and Quebec may soon begin.
More progress has been made elsewhere and we are actively negotiating agreements with British Columbia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. I expect that these agreements may be concluded soon, all within the next few months. The fundamental problem in each of these river basins is one of water quality. We are eager to get on with the job and look forward to working in close co-operation with the provinces to improve the water quality as well as carrying out over-all comprehensive framework plans for the long-range development of their water resources.
Even before we begin these co-operative studies with the provinces, this department is moving ahead with a group of fundamental studies to gain a better understanding of the social and economic impact of water pollution, to develop proposals for determining priorities for federal action, and to recommend a sophisticated instutional and economic means of achieving pollution abatement.
Contrary to the motion, therefore, Mr. Speaker, a very useful program progresses on all fronts. We have not, however, engaged in a reckless spending spree on ad hoc programs. We are working toward a co-ordinated and co-operative federal-provincial plan.
Water quality programs permeate the entire process of water resource research, planning, development and management. It is difficult to isolate exactly the items which should be related to water pollution abatement in the 1969-70 estimates. At least $11 million or over 20 per cent of the total estimates for water and renewable resources activities is earmarked for water quality programs. I expect that more than this amount will be required in future years.
As I said before, the disposal of wastes created directly or indirectly by man and all his activities is a basic element of the social and economic system of all societies, primitive and modern. In all industrial societies a
10556	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1963
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution constantly increasing tonnage of solid, liquid, and gaseous material must be burned, buried or washed away daily. No nation has yet succeeded in disposing of such enormous quantities of waste without fouling the air, soil or water, sometimes on a global basis. Despite the vastness of our land, Canada has not escaped this critical environmental problem and we find ourselves today facing an urgent problem of national dimensions.
The total costs of waste disposal are too large and the disbenefits to those who use our ah' or water downwind or downstream of the pollution sources are too great to permit us to accept solutions to the problem that are not at once efficient and effective. The simple solutions proposed in the past are demonstrably inadequate as the world-wide pollution problem itself clearly proves. We must seek modern management methods with mechanisms that restore, maintain and improve the quality of our environment on a continuing, perpetual basis as an integral function of our socio-economic-legal system. The suggestion is frequently made that massive inputs of funds from the public treasury are needed and justified, primarily to subsidize waste treatment in the private sector. It is also argued that a series of punitive measures adapted to specific uses would suffice. We reject these notions on the grounds that thev are inefficient and ineffective and that 'they would place an unnecessary financial burden on our economy.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
What is required is an approach which deals with water problems basin by basin. There must be sufficient flexibility to meet the special needs of each basin. There must be a balance between the interests of all those who may wish to use the water, water which belongs to the public generally rather than to infividuals. Those who use or pollute our water must bear the proper cost of their activity. The goods produced must bear a proper portion of this cost. Such proposals require a federal involvement to ensure that regions of the country do not compete with one another in permitting pollution as an incentive to industry but at the cost of others outside the region who have the pollution imposed upon them.
In the past three years this department has done much to unravel the fundamental nature of the pollution problem in Canada through research within the government, by government supported studies in the private sector and through research in universities. We have also acquired a considerable amount of data

and information on water quality. We have established major research facilities, and we have provided the machinery for co-ordinating the entire federal effort in this field. We have also, as I have said, begun to see the fruits of our continuing efforts to achieve a joint federal-provincial approach as witnessed by current negotiations with British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces as well as the recent favourable public statements from Ontario. We now believe that the base has been laid for a major federal-provincial anti-pollution campaign.
It was with this in mind that I announced earlier my intention to introduce the Canada water bill this session. My plan was to have first reading in this session, to hold the essential federal-provincial discussions this summer during the recess, and to re-introduce the bill early in the fall. In this bill the federal government will propose to exercise to the full its undoubted responsibility for water resource management. In particular, it will provide the institutional structure to establish an anti-pollution program in concert with the provinces and incorporating the concepts and mechanisms which I have described.
The approach to be articulated in this bill is based on federal-provincial co-operation and upon respect for all provincial responsibilities. It is a realistic, pragmatic approach to the thorny constitutional problems which arise when several governments are involved. At the same time the bill will recognize the urgency of water quality and water management problems and provide for strong federal initiative whenever and wherever the circumstances demand. The officials in this and other departments have spent the past several months preparing this bill for introduction. The preparation has taken longer than anticipated. Everyone will surely agree, however, that a major bill on such a complex issue of great and lasting national significance deserves the best possible preparation. It is apparent now that these preparations will take several more weeks. It is now my plan, therefore, to issue a policy statement in July together with a draft of the bill itself as a basis for federal-provincial consultations and to allow hon. members and the public an opportunity to study the important implications of our proposal.
Finally, I put it to the house that the motion to condemn this department for failure to act on water pollution is clearly without merit. We have a broad, carefully developed anti-pollution program tailored to the
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
complexities of the problem and the realities of federal-provincial relations. It would have been easy to make a great show of activity by opening the public treasury, but we are not seeking short run answers nor will we mislead the public with ill founded proposals. We have been searching for permanent, effective and efficient solutions to the problems of waste disposal and environmental quality- problems that have existed as long as society itself, problems that industrial man has yet to resolve. We intend to continue our program not only with a sense of urgency but also with full appreciation for the careful deliberation that this important issue demands.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-old age security-reduction of guaranteed income supplement upon receipt of pension by spouses; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-treasury board-Courtenay, B.C., letter carrier service; the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand (Mr. Knowles)-failure of U.S. pleasure craft to report to customs officer, Port Dover, Ontario.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Aiken.
Gerald William Baldwin: 
Robert Lorne Stanfield: If they get it before fall.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, and I am not sure which fall. We are told this bill would allow Ottawa to co-ordinate the activities of federal and provincial government agencies wherever and whenever the development of Canada's major river systems is concerned.
If the minister does introduce such a measure, and if it has the capacity to do what he says it does, I shall be the first to stand up and approve. But hon. gentlemen opposite cannot blame us for having doubts. For example, I can recall, with regard to the Peace River, that under a Liberal government the then secretary of state for external affairs, now a shining ornament in the other place, was instrumental for purposes of his own, in collaboration with the premier of British Columbia, in permitting the federal government to disregard its rights under the 
Navigable Waters Protection Act and allow the desecration of the Peace River. I was up in that area the other day. I was glad that the difficulties in connection with navigation have been partly cleared up. But the level of the Peace River as it flows past the settlements in Alberta and British Columbia is extremely low for this time of year and I prophesy that before a year has passed the situation will be even worse. I lay the blame for this1 directly at the door of the Liberal party.


Mr. Orange:: You formed the government at that time. Why didn't you stop it?


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the confusion which has arisen, I should like to take a few minutes in which to investigate the constitutional aspects of water pollution control. The need for my doing so is reinforced by the somewhat naive conclusions which hon. gentlemen opposite have reached in this complex area. A good example is the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), when he was minister of energy, mines and resources, that pollution is essentially within provincial jurisdiction because, if resources as such are provincial then their misuse is also a provincial matter. What surprises' me is that the minister should have chastised members of the opposition for proposing simplistic solutions to what he described as complex issues. Yet what could be more simplistic than the theory advanced by the minister? For years we have asked that the government set up a parliamentary committee to study this question. I am not asserting that a parliamentary committee could solve it any earlier, but it would have the effect of reducing to simple terms the tasks with which this government has failed to deal.
I sometimes think that 100 years from now, when this building is torn down, they will find in a secret cell in the depth of the basement four or five skeletons near a sign saying:	"Experts Studying Federal-Provincial
Issues. Do Not Disturb." These issues can only be dealt with when the people of Canada are aware of them; when they have been reduced to terms understandable by the ordinary man and woman. This is the purpose of committee hearings, and because of the government's failure to send this whole question to a committee it is necessary for the opposition to take the initiative today and give the government the benefit of advice on the constitutional problem to which the minister
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
referred in his speech today when he said: "This is a complex issue and we do not intend to touch it."
What is the basis for saying that pollution control is a provincial matter? It is an extended argument beginning with section 109 of the British North America Act which says, among other things, that all lands, mines, minerals and royalties shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Although there is a different means, the result is the same for the four western provinces. The argument, then, is that having accepted ownership the provinces have also acquired the water rights incidental to those lands. There is a Privy Council decision relevant to this point in the case of Burrard Power Company v. Regina, 1911. While this much is conceded, it must be borne in mind that ownership does not automatically grant immunity from legislation. In other words, the relevant consideration is not so much who owns the water as who has the legislative competence. The Criminal Code is full of examples of instances where the federal government has legislated, intervening in matters which are provincial, because it has been obliged to do so in order to fulfil its responsibility of legislating in cases where great problems have arisen, and where matters which normally would fall under provincial jurisdiction have become of such moment that the federal government felt called upon to intervene by way of legislation under the Criminal Code.
The argument for provincial legislative competence relies primarily upon section 92(5) of the B.N.A. Act which gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the management and sale of the public lands belonging to them. In diminishing degrees of importance the provinces may also argue on the basis of section 92(13) affecting property and civil rights, section 92(16) referring generally to all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province, and section 92(10) covering local works and undertakings.
The argument for federal competence has an electric nature similar to the provincial argument. The section primarily relied upon is 91(10) which gives the federal government legislative authority with regard to navigation and shipping, with supplementary authority from 91(9). In other words, every body of water which can be navigated in Canada is subject to the exclusive control of the federal government with regard to all matters concerning navigation. Section 91(12) which deals with sea coast and inland fisheries is equally 29180-6681
Alleged hack of Action to Combat Pollution important. It provides the federal government with the legislative competence for the Fisheries Act, which, as I indicated earlier, is regarded as the panacea in this area of pollution control by the Minister of Fisheries. Furthermore, since the federal government alone is competent with regard to the criminal law, it could investigate pollution control through prohibitory measures. Finally, although the provinces have been given the authority to deal with local works and undertakings there is a specific exception attached to works which are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
These are a number of the points to which I might have referred. What concerns me is that this problem may develop and expand until it hangs like a black cloud over the people of this country. While federal and provincial governments may still be arguing over questions of jurisdiction, and the federal government may still be engaged upon minor excursions into examinations, tests and studies of the subject, it may well be too late for the people of this country, through federal jurisdiction, to exercise the competence they have if they so see fit.
In the matter of restrictive trade practices, the federal government has used the criminal law as a means of regulating certain issues. On the question of the food and drug administration, the federal government has also relied on the criminal law as a means of dealing with such problems. I am not suggesting that this is the proper way to proceed, but I am suggesting-and here I agree with the minister-that there should be an opportunity for the federal government and the provincial governments together to work out a process of co-operative action.
For example, authority can be delegated. As of today it would be possible, without any changes to the constitution of this country, for both the federal and provincial governments to delegate to crown agencies that jurisdiction which is required, each within its own area of legislative competence, to deal with this problem. It is not enough not to talk about the problem or simply to make examinations or conduct studies. Before the problem is finally solved it will be essential to pass regulations and to apply sanctions, if necessary. Industry and those concerned must be told in no uncertain terms that they cannot go on indefinitely polluting the air and water that is so essential for our preservation as a society.
10560	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution
I suggest to the minister and the government that it simply is not good enough to tell the house they are planning this long range group of studies and examinations and that they will look into the matter. It is essential, not later but now, for the federal government to secure the necessary authority to take action. If the government cannot secure this authority from the provincial governments as a group, then certainly under a series of bilateral agreements it would be competent for the federal governments so to act.
No good reason has yet been advanced by the minister, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or by any other member of the treasury benches for not taking this action. This problem did not just arise today or yesterday; it has been with us for a great many years and has been the subject of a great deal of literature as well as speeches both in this house and in the provincial legislatures.
I am not by any means downgrading the importance of many of the federal-provincial conferences that have taken place on other matters, but this much is of the essence: unless an approach is taken that will produce solutions to the problems facing us, with regulations laid down and sanctions applied against those who are concerned, then we are in for a very serious time on this continent.
To bring in the water act is fine. To engage in all these studies the minister has told us about is fine. But I think we have to go a step further. Before this session is over, or certainly during the time when the minister has indicated he intends to issue a white paper with a draft copy of the bill attached, I should like the minister to indicate what is going to be the government's view, and what the government is going to do if it cannot secure from any of the provinces the consent that is required. This is not to suggest by any means that the federal government would have to transgress the constitution; I have indicated that there are ways and means by which a government that has determination and the power to do so can take action.
Use can be made, for example, as the minister is aware, of the peace, order and good government clause. Let us assume that we reach a moment in our social history when the pollution of the St. Lawrence system and the Great Lakes suddenly passes the stage of safety. Surely then, under the peace, order and good government clause the federal government would have every right to intervene. I am not suggesting that that time has come, but with that knowledge, and having in mind the confederation debates that have 
DEBATES	June 23, 1969
shown beyond doubt what the powers of the federal government are to be, I suggest there is the power to delegate authority. As the minister knows, as a result of the Prince Edward Island case it is now competent for the federal and provincial governments, not to delegate authority to each other, but to delegate authority to an agency which can then take action.
Under those circumstances I urge the government not to wait but to take action. I urge the government to take the steps that can be taken, and which I indicated are available, so that before this problem overwhelms us the government will outline a clear and precise method of dealing with it, as well as the powers the government can exercise if it has the ingenuity and determination to do so.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time I wonder whether I might call it six o'clock?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, would the house allow me to revert to motions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: That the petition of the Boy Scouts of Canada- Scouts du Canada-asking for the adoption of a bill to change its name in French to "Les Boys Scouts du Canada" and asking for the incorporation of "L'Association des scouts du Canada" and filed after the time prescribed in Standing Order 90 be referred to the Standing Committee of Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders with the fourteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions tabled in the house on Monday, June 23, so that the committee may make the recommendations deemed useful.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
June 23, 1969	COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Aiken.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: 
Harold Edward Winch: It still stinks, no matter who is responsible!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If anything constructive results from this debate, it should be that of protraying to the Canadian people the great need for a higher degree of transfer of powers to the federal government. Pollution does not stop at provincial boundaries, nor does it stop
10562	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution at international boundaries. If the opposition is really serious about tackling this problem, they must agree with this. They are telling us that it has taken a long time to bring in the water bill. This bill is the result of co-operation and co-ordination among many governmental bodies. Anyone who has dealt with many agencies at one time is fully aware that it takes much longer to get business done in such a situation.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka <Mr, Aiken), and I pay him a compliment by referring to so many of the items he mentioned, talked about what the United States had done and the strong measures the United States government had taken. Surely the hon. member is not trying to confuse the issue. The United States federal government has been granted substantial powers to deal with these situations. Constitutionally speaking, the state governments of the United States are much weaker than the provincial governments in Canada. There is really no great comparison between the powers of the federal government in Washington and the federal government in Ottawa. I wish our constitution gave the federal government of Canada the strength and powers the government of the United States has today.
Matters of this type emphasize my concern over the jurisdictional conflict. We cannot fight modem problems with constitutional powers, some of which would be applicable to the days of the horse and buggy. I stand firmly in favour of constitutionally strengthening the federal government in Canada. Meanwhile, it is irresponsible to ignore the constitution and barge ahead holus-bolus. Such a procedure cannot help but create internal problems, and we have enough of those already.
Reference was made today in this debate to the peace, order and good government clause of the B.N.A. Act or the Canadian constitution. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) stated this provision was not workable. We realize this has been used in wartime and periods of crises, but if we are going to wait until there is a crisis to amend the Canadian Constitution,, a crisis great enough to use the peace, order and good government clause, then it is a mistake and it is wrong for the future of Canada. If we are not going to strengthen the powers of the federal government, and if we are not going to use the elastic clause to a certain extent, then we have no other choice but to deal with many bodies. If this happens, it will take a lengthy

DEBATES	June 23, 1969
time to pass legislation in this house respecting interprovincial-federal bills.
I wish to read again from the report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Your committee also recommends that a centre or centres similar to the Canada Centre for Inland Waters be set up to centralize all existing and future federal research in air and soil pollution and to extend and speed up such research so that codes of standards may be drafted to protect the air and soil from pollution.
There is a lot of work involved in setting up these centres. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who started off this debate today, said that nothing had been done about these recommendations to date. Our report has been in this house for three weeks, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member is complaining because no research centres have been set up. This government is swift in action, but projects of this magnitude cannot be brought in overnight. However, I gratefully acknowledge the indirect compliment to this government by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka in thinking we are so speedy in action.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That was so indirect I did not understand it.	,


Mr. Barneit:: Is the hon. member not aware recommendations along those lines were put before the government at least three years ago?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: This is a good report, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, it is a good report.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: 
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I am happy today to act on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), in joining with his colleague from Saskatoon -Humboldt (Mr. Lang) in asserting that our government has been far from asleep in the control of the quality of the Canadian environment. I do not seek to deny that there is a problem. That would be like some hon. gentlemen from a former administration who used to seem to think that there was no such thing as galloping unemployment in Canada- that was just a nasty rumour started by a lot of people out of work.
We admit there is a problem. Mankind has been taking the marvellous technical advances of this century and using them indiscriminately to foul, to both greater and lesser extents, the air he breathes, the water he utilizes for drinking, bathing and processing, and the soil from which his very food supply must come. We know that action is needed, and needed to an ever increasing degree, if man is to avoid transforming his own planet into an unlivable wasteland.
But we have been moving. The minister has explained what his department has been doing to ensure that our waters remain a usable resource for Canadians. Towards this objective, I know that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has been exerting his best efforts as well, and I am pleased to say that the Department of National Health and Welfare has been able to assist in the battle. Because of its effect on health and on the use of recreational facilities, water pollution has long been a matter of concern to the Department of National Health and Welfare. The
10566	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution water pollution activities of the department are carried out by the public health engineering and radiation protection divisions of the health services branch and by the medical services branch. The department works closely with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in these activities. They include advisory responsibilities, surveillance, special studies and research. The department also supports outside water pollution activities through its national health grants program. Close collaboration with the provinces is maintained in the conduct of all these activities.
The advisory services provided keep these people indeed busy. Departmental staff serve on a number of advisory committees and boards such as the International Development Commission technical advisory boards, the Atlantic Development Board's supervisory committee on resource study of the Atlantic provinces, the interdepartmental committee on water programs, Central Mortgage and Housing advisory committee on household sewage treatment units, the reactor safety advisory committee of the atomic energy control board and various provincial pollution committees. But the department's activities go beyond just advising a host of committees. There is an important surveillance function fulfilled. Allow me to cite some examples.
International Joint Commission studies currently involve the St. Croix river, New Brunswick, and the Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and international section of the St. Lawrence river. Measurements are made of physical, chemical and bacteriological parameters including turbidity, suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, nirtogen, phenols, toxic constituents, coliform and fecal organisms.
Another project follows from completion of a comprehensive inventory of federal facilities, where assessment studies of waste water treatment plants are being undertaken at five regional centres across Canada.
In a more specialized field, the department determines radioactive effluent discharged into the environs of nuclear reactor sites, through a systematic reactor environment monitoring project, including water samples taken near Chalk River reactors, the nuclear power demonstration reactor, the Douglas Point nuclear power station and the White-shell nuclear research establishment. Another task is keeping a regular check on potable water supplies aboard common carriers.

There are also special investigations done towards specific goals, over a short period of time. I would point out that this often leads into a continuing surveillance study. Two examples of this are: a pilot plant project at the request of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown, to develop an effective method of treating food processing wastes having high bio-chemical oxygen demand and suspended solids characteristics, and, at the request of New Brunswick, pollution assessment studies on international rivers emptying into the Saint John river-including the Medux-nekeag, Presquile and the Aroostock rivers.
This may not sound exciting, but I can assure you that they are vital to maintaining a proper audit of the health effects of water pollution, both immediately, and more importantly, potentially. Similarly unglamourous, but immensely valuable to the protection of Canadian health, is the department's research program. Current projects give an idea of the long range importance of these studies. To cite some, I would name the development of effective methods for the removal of phenols from industrial wastes; the development of effective methods for the disposal of digested sludge; the development of effective methods for the enumeration of bacterial pollution indices; the development of effective methods for the microbiological oxidation of specific organic matter; the development of effective methods for the isolation of salmonellae from water and waste water, and the development of Canadian drinking water standards.
But above the water, there is the sky, and the sky today in many places is not the pristine fresh blue of our grandfather's era. Each and every day in our metropolitan areas, the exhausts of tens of thousands of automobiles, the stacks of scores of industries, and the fumes of countless heating plants and units belch forth their smoke and gas into the atmosphere. Even the rural areas are not immune; pesticides used in crop control are not just harmless mists. The current debate on d.d.t. points up the potential hazards of even long used materials, let alone the numerous new products being introduced on the market annually.
We talk of the "big sky" but we must realize that there are definite limits to the amount of cubic feet of air that can safely absorb the junk, if I might use that term, that our affluent western industrial society expels upward. In the past, in many large cities intensive weather conditions of a special nature have combined with air pollution
June 23, 1963	COMMONS
to cause the death of literally thousands of people in a short period of time. Take carbon monoxide as a case in point. This is an extremely deadly gas, yet it is the major component of pollution from motor vehicles. The continuing growth of the automobile population means that we may be approaching a saturation point.
There are other groups of elements to cause worry too. Nitrous oxides are one; hydrocarbons are another. In all, there are certainly enough of these types of substances to impel the Minister of National Health and Welfare to seek new and positive action. This concern is not new to the department. As a matter of fact, it has been in the field for about 15 years. For instance, the department has for a long time provided consultative and technical services in the solution of in-plant air pollution problems as a part of its broad industrial hygiene activities. With increasing attention being given to the broader question of mb an air pollution generally and its effect on health and on the economy, the department has been expanding its activities. The air pollution activities of the department are now carried out by the occupational health and radiation protection divisions of the health services branch. These activities include advisory responsibilities, surveillance, special studies and research. The department also supports outside air pollution control activities through its national health grants program. Close collaboration with the provinces is maintained in the conduct of all these activities, including inservice training for some provincial staff. In connection with I.J.C. studies, the department also maintains close relationships with United States federal and state departments of health.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Some concrete examples of our activity can be mentioned, such as the I.J.C. survey in the Detroit-W'indsor and Port Huron areas on the subject of trans-boundary pollution. This work is carried out in co-operation with the province of Ontario. Measurements include dust-fall, smoke density, suspended particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxidants and hydrocarbons. Related meteorological data are provided by the Department of Transport. We also make radio-active fallout measurements on daily filter samples collected by a 24 station sampling network across Canada.
In addition, special studies are undertaken on the same basis as they are in the water
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution pollution field. Right now, a general study is being made in the national capital region, and a specific inquiry in the same location is going on with respect to automobile emissions. On a larger scale, as part of the department's broader industrial hygiene activities, studies have recently been completed including load surveys in a smelting plant and in mines in New Brunswick; tests for toxic gases and solvents in the Ottawa area; dust conditions in working areas in Windsor; dust conditions in grain terminals; chlorine measurements in Vancouver and an insecticide study in New Brunswick.
Thus, over a year ago, the Dominion Council of Health, including all deputy ministers of health in Canada, passed a resolution in co-operation with the provinces, concerning the role of the federal government, in air pollution control. Among other things the council called for an effective Canadian network of air pollution sampling stations; uniform air quality criteria applicable to Canadian conditions; emission standards for industries and motor vehicles; research on the behaviour and control of air pollution in special geographic areas; as well as a model control unit to assist the provinces, on request, in handling specific problems which would serve as a means of training provincial air pollution personnel.
The federal government intends to respond to this appeal. Already a partial sampling network is in place. Data on smoke density in sulphur dioxide is being collected and published frequently from nine cities across Canada. This program also enjoys a crossfeed from the Ontario sampling network. Moreover, in the realm of training facilities we have established a special air sampling tower at the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa. This tower is equippped with associated meteorological instrumentation in order to provide a testing and training facility as well as a surveillance facility.
The coming year will see a new offensive working toward a national standard of clean air, for the Minister of National Health and Welfare takes very seriously, not only his responsibility to preserve and protect the present health standards of Canadians, but his responsibility to insure that we are able to leave behind us for future generations the heritage of a better atmosphere than the one in which we live now. It is a fundamental part of our program to build a better quality of life for all our citizens. Thus, he will be
10568	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution working very hard toward this end in close collaboration with his colleagues in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, as well as his provincial counterparts.
That, in essence, is the message. Action is under way; more action is forthcoming. The health of our nation demands control of air pollution. Therefore the federal government, along with the provinces, fully intends to meet that demand.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome at least part of the motion of the official opposition, as far as the word "pollution". The wording of the motion could have stopped there and we would have had more than sufficient subject matter to keep us all busy for the entire day. However, the additional wording in the motion concerning Vote 1 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources allowed the minister, quite rightly, to deal at length with the activities of his department at present. It seems strange to many Canadians that we can spend so much time, attention and money on so many mundane things and yet through our governments, our organizations and our industries are unable to effectively deal with the problem that has to do with the survival of our own people as well as the survival of mankind as a whole. We worry even about deodorants. We worry about our armpits. We could well be running around with nice smelling bodies while we breathe in dirty, smelly air and bathe in dirty, polluted water.
It seems to us that our society has ground to a halt or a painfully slow crawl in taking effective action to reduce present pollution and head off future pollution. We are in a morass of conflicting jurisdictions, a multiplicity of departments, boards and commissions between and in the three levels of government. Departments and boards are all too often unaware of what each is doing and their responsibilities overlap.
I was quite interested to hear the elucidation of the minister on the activities of his department. We consider many of them great. We agree perfectly with and approve of the efforts being made in research into water pollution carried out by his department as well as by other departments. There is little or no argument from any corner of the house on the kinds of programs which he mentioned

DEBATES	June 23, 1969
earlier. But he still evaded presenting the kind of effective action which the government must take to deal with pollution. One could even point out a few minor specific examples of instances with which the federal government could deal immediately.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), and perhaps even the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), might ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to consider the sewage disposal units of Canadian forces bases. To be more specific I should mention the one at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan which, believe it or not, still has a separate sewage disposal plant that only gives primary, not secondary treatment to sewage, and dumps it into Moose Jaw creek after which it flows downstream to the city. Surely, it would make sense in this case for the Canadian forces base to integrate the sewage disposal system with that of the city near which it is located to provide a better treatment of sewage disposal. I suggest to the ministers whom I have just mentioned that they draw the attention of the Minister of National Defence to the situation at all the Canadian forces bases and at other federal government establishments throughout Canada.
o (9:00 p.m.)
The Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion (Mr. Marehand) made a statement in the House of Commons on May 29 as reported on page 9203 of Hansard concerning the National Capital Commission and the development of the national capital in which he mentioned that federal assistance was part of a wider development program under which action would be taken to eliminate air and water pollution throughout the whole capital region. May I mention an additional example of a case in which action is required? The minister did not mention this in his statement and I have seen no mention of it before or since. I refer to the operation which goes on in the middle of the national capital. I have heard of no plans of a reasonably long range nature, ten or 15 years, or a shorter period if possible, to do away with the assault on our eyesight and the insult to our noses in the middle of our national capital. I speak of the E. B. Eddy Company. Surely plans are being made for the gradual removal of that plant and the re-establishment of a new modern one somewhere else in this area.
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
There are other aspects of pollution which I should like to discuss. The first concerns the heat pollution caused by large electric generating plants using lake or river water for cooling purposes and then returning it to its source. This was mentioned by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) in the course of his remarks. The heat picked up will cause temperatures in the lake or river to rise, upsetting the balance of aquatic life.
There is an article in the Globe and Mail of March 7 from which I should like to quote briefly.
Waste heat from electrical generating plants, says Dr. John Cairns, Jr., professor of biology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, writing in Scientist and Citizen, is capable of polluting our environment just as surely as do sewage, industrial waste and agricultural waste . . . The main offenders are plants which burn coal, oil or gas to produce electrical energy.
What has aroused the interest of ecologists recently is the ninefold increase foreseen in the production of electric energy from nuclear plants which waste 60 per cent more energy than those using coal or gas, and since this country is moving toward production from nuclear power plants on a large scale, they are asking what is being done now in the research field to guard against this1 kind of pollution.
Reference has been made to herbicides and pesticides. What is the immediate intention of the Canadian government with regard to d.d.t. and the whole group of pesticides known as chlorinated hydrocarbons, the group called the dirty seven, including not only d.d.t. but its chemical cousins aldrin, dieldrin and lindane? A few days ago an article appeared in the Regina Leader Post. The New York Times news service reported:
A few weeks ago Sweden became the first nation to declare a moratorium on the use of D.D.T. and its chemical cousins, aldrin, dieldrin and lindane.
In the United States, the Michigan Agricultural Commission, following a government seizure of 34,000 pounds of Michigan cohoe salmon contaminated with excessive amounts of this pesticide, banned indefinitely the sale of D.D.T. in a desperate effort to save its fishing industry.
What action is Canada taking?
The two major kinds of pollution of water are those caused by municipalities and by industry. Many statements have been made about industrial pollution. While I have no desire to pick on any particular company I will mention one to illustrate that even those with the best intentions in industry end up by
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution being incapable of dealing with the pollution of water and air to which their activities give rise.
In November, 1967, as reported in the magazine "Civic Administration", the vicepresident of the Steel Company of Canada Mr. A. D. Fisher stated that industry had a responsibility to provide substantial capital outlay to effect its contribution to overall environmental control. He made this statement to a meeting of delegates to the Ontario industrial waste conference in Niagara Falls. The report continues:
The Steel Company of Canada vice-president said pollution problems can only be solved through a directed and co-operative effort between industry, community and government.
He told the delegates industry should implement a six point program as its contribution to pollution control. The fifth point in his program was:
Support with technical competence and financial resources corrective programs necessary for control of waste emissions and conservation of water sources.
What actually happened, Mr. Speaker? A year and a half prior to Mr. Fisher's statement, the Steel Company of Canada sought and obtained from the Hamilton City Council authority to pipe additional water into their plant, up to 45 million gallons a day. According to Canadian Labour of June, 1967, and no provision whatsoever was made by Stelco for the repurification of the water after use; it would be pumped back directly into Hamilton Bay, increasing the danger to the domestic water supply of that city and other municipalities.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the same company carried out what it admitted to be intentional spillage. A short time ago the company whose spokesman, Mr. Fisher, laid down this six point program for industry, discovered that hydrochloric acid was eating away its boilers and pipes in part of the plant. They did not know what to do with it so they dumped it into their lagoon system and from there it entered Hamilton Bay. And the company is continuing to do this on a daily and weekly basis in spite of the assertion of its vice-president that industry should adopt this six point program to play a proper role in the control of pollution.
I am dealing mainly with the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and the Niagara and
10570	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23. 1969
Alleged. Lack of Action to Combat Pollution Detroit Rivers in the course of my remarks because, surely, these constitute an area which no minister can claim to be within provincial jurisdictions. Surely, these are international waters'-unless the federal government plans to build partitions to board off the water in the middle of each of these lakes and rivers.
The International Joint Commission began its research into the pollution of Lakes Erie, and Ontario, and the international section of the St. Lawrence River in 1964. It brought out an interim report in December, 1965 dealing with municipal pollution on the United States side of Lake Erie. It noted that 53 per cent of municipal waste from a population of 10 million people was receiving secondary sewage treatment, which was not too bad. Some 47 per cent of the sewage from that population of 10 million enters Lake Erie with either only primary or no sewage treatment. On the Canadian side the situation is somewhat better. From one and a half million people 79 per cent of the sewage receives secondary treatment, the remainder receiving only primary or no treatment whatever.
On the U.S. side of Lake Ontario only 25 per cent of the sewage from a population of almost two million receives secondary treatment whereas 75 per cent receives only primary treatment. From what little I have been able to find out in the last few days concerning the difference between primary and secondary treatment, I suspect that secondary treatment means they have taken out the smaller lumps. On the Canadian side of Lake Ontario the picture was again somewhat better; 82 per cent of the sewage from two and a half million population received secondary treatment, 17 per cent received primary treatment and only one per cent no treatment whatever.
In light of this, the International Joint Commission recommended to both the Canadian and the United States governments that appropriate action be taken by these two governments, in association with state and provincial governments, to ensure (a) sufficient purification of all municipal and industrial waste before discharge to achieve maximum possible removal of phosphates; (b) prohibition of the construction of combined sanitary and storm sewers and the initiation of programs of separating existing combined sewers and (c) an effective system of regular sampling of effluents discharged into these waters and their tributaries.

What has been the result, Mr. Speaker? Three and a half years later, namely last September, the International Joint Commission made another interim report, and sad to say the volume of sewage disposal has increased during this four year period. This means that the same percentage of untreated or undertreated sewage is still entering those two Great Lakes and three rivers, and this after four years of reporting to governments, federal, provincial and state.
Into the Detroit River the city of Windsor is still pumping raw sewage, although the city corporation has announced that a new and improved sewage system will be opened within the next month or two. The position at Windsor is bad enough, even though the population is but 300,000 people, but in the Detroit area there are over three million people. Detroit is still operating a totally inadequate sewage treatment system, possessing an antiquated plant built in the early twenties. Their sewage barely receives primary treatment, yet it is still pumped into the Detroit River.
As far as the Niagara River is concerned, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, but Niagara Falls, New York, is still pumping sewage that has only had preliminary treatment, which is just screening and which I gather means taking out the large lumps, into the Niagara River right across from the Brock Hotel. Only 8 to 10 per cent of the pollution of the Niagara River is from the Canadian side, 90 per cent is from the United States side. The boundary waters treaty between Canada and the United States specifies that one country shall not pollute the waters of the other. Both countries are continuing to violate that treaty. Hamilton city sewage system is providing primary treatment only, with no secondary treatment. The supervision of the Ontario Water Resources Commission, I am reliably informed, of Hamilton and other areas around Lake Ontario is inadequate. This is mainly due to the shortage of bodies and investigatory staff.
Pollution by municipalities is a social crime, a crime not only against nature but against future generations of Canadians. The cost of this kind of municipal pollution will have to be carried by the taxpayers in one way or another, since we taxpayers have been accessaries in our communities to the perpetrating of that social crime. The cost of preventing and overcoming this pollution cannot be borne totally by the municipalities
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
unless we are prepared to allow them 25 to 50 years to cope with it. However, we just have not got that much time. For it to be dealt with immediately requires massive provincial and federal funds and other kinds of assistance. All Canada will have to pitch in to help solve, and pay for the reduction and prevention of, municipal pollution.


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I have another two or three minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I became so interested in what I was saying that I forgot the time.
May I conclude by mentioning a matter that has been raised so many times, namely the constitutional and jurisdictional question. I should like to ask the minister to read a magazine called Civic Administration for November 1967 which carried an interview with the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The headline reads: "I've said it before-it's not our baby". The article deals with water and air pollution, and so far I cannot believe that the present minister has that attitude. This1 question can no longer be a legalistic fantasy for governments of all levels to hide behind. It is strange how in some matters the federal government can act without worrying about provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has previously inserted itself into provincial jurisdiction, and I mentioned the Combines Investigation Act as one example. One can also mention housing standards under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as in the matter of fisheries. In this connection I ask hon. members to read the speech made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) last May 22. So there are lots of past experiences and present examples, and there is nothing to prevent future action. There can be federal intervention without hiding behind what I call this legalistic fantasy of federal, provincial or municipal jurisdiction. There is no reason why the same kind of federal intervention cannot be made in regard to pollution, whether committed by individuals, municipalities or industry.
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution
I am not one of those who believe that air and water fall under provincial jurisdiction. Nor do I believe that they should. Our water, whether it be in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia, belongs to all Canadians. As a visitor to Niagara Falls from Saskatchewan I am as likely to get sick drinking or bathing in the water there as any other Canadian, but it is still Canadian water. Water is no respecter of boundaries.
As a layman may I suggest that there are two facets of pollution that should surely come under federal jurisdiction completely and solely. I refer to air and water pollution.
I submit that if this government were to ask the provinces for jurisdiction over this area of pollution now, they would get it. If they did not get it, I am confident there is enough awareness of this problem and concern about it in the minds of Canadians in every province that they would raise cain with any province that refused to relinquish its jurisdiction in this regard to the federal government. So here is another and final area into which the minister and the government should move. They need no longer use the British North America Act as one way of avoiding the exercise of their responsibilities and the taking of effective measures to control and prevent pollution.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, the motion under debate alleges neglect in asserting federal leadership in respect of pollution and criticizes the approval of the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources by the standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Those departmental estimates were referred to the committee on February 20, and the fourth report of the committee was presented on May 30. The committee was, of course, composed of members of all parties. The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), is one of the Progressive Conservative members, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) who was the second speaker in this debate is an N.D.P. representative on that committee and I happen to be one of the Liberal party representatives. It is truly amazing how that report, which seems to be in such clear English, can be so misunderstood or misconstrued. One therefore questions the responsible attitude of its critics. The committee heard many witnesses. We took trips and examined many facilities and projects.
10572	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution We made detailed and exhaustive studies of the subject matter under debate, pollution, and we came up with a unanimous report. It was not a majority report, Mr. Speaker; it was one that was agreed to by all members of all parties. That took place only three weeks ago. May I now refer to some of the highlights of the report. I quote from the committee report:
Your Committee recommends that as soon as possible-[DOT]
That means as soon as financially possible. -the government allocate more money for scientific research projects that are now under way, as well as to continue new programs for the future.
That paragraph obviously refers to scientific projects launched by the federal government. I continue quoting:
The Committee wishes to state that it has been greatly impressed by the contributions from the Canadian science community and commends all personnel involved in scientific progress in Canada on their achievements.
That paragraph obviously refers to leadership in the water pollution study. Another paragraph of the report read:
The Committee commends the government on the establishment of the Inland Waters Centre at Burlington and the work being carried out there on water pollution research. We recommend that this be given full and increased assistance and that other complementary centres be set up where needed.
The hon. member for Kootenay West said that the recommendations of the report were good and he is still of that opinion. He went on to complain about lack of action and gave some examples of pollution. I do not quarrel with the stand he took on the deplorable situations he described, but each and every one was clearly of provincial concern. I suggest he would have been better to have written to his premier or he could send him a copy of his speech.
An. hon. Member: Here we go again.


Hyliard G. Chappell: He also said that since the provinces had been in default in not acting, we, the federal government, should act. I point out to the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) that three weeks ago when we sat together drafting this report we said:
Your Committee is concerned by increasing magnitude of air, water and soil pollution and the jurisdictional conflict which hampers the finding and the implementing of proper solutions.

Your Committee recommends that the government draft a code of standards for the cleaning up of and the future protection of all Canadian waters; that provincial approval of such a code be sought; and that the federal government provide an enforcement procedure-if necessary by means of an amendment to the criminal code.
Your Committe also recommends that a centre or centres similar to the Canada Centre for Inland Waters be set up to centralize all existing and future federal research in air and soil pollution and to extend and speed up such research so that codes of standards may be drafted to protect the air and soil from pollution.
The committee recognized that we had no right to invade provincial boundaries and close factories that are polluting streams or the air and this force people out of work. We all know that provinces have laws and that municipalities have by-laws. Four years ago we saw an example where a factory was polluting animals and milk at Thorold, Ontario. In that case the province found authority to act. In each of the cases cited in this house, in each example given, it was the responsibility of the provincial governments to act.
What is to be done, Mr. Speaker? We recommended that the federal government provide research. That research is now well under way at Burlington. As I understand it, this is one of the most advanced projects of its kind in North America. Already it is yielding valuable results to the provincial government and to United States authorities.
We went further than that and recommended that the government, through that organization, prepare a code of standards which the provinces might be induced to adopt in order to bring uniformity in this field across Canada. If the mover of the motion and critics of the government who spoke subsequent to him had been serious in their criticisms they could have made sure that the suggestions they have been making today were included in the report of the committee. They could have made those suggestions at the time the committee members were sitting together drafting the report. Or they could have introduced a motion, which would have been on record, to show that they did not agree with the report of the committee.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka asked today, "Are we going to wait for provincial governments to take joint action with us?". I say again that if the hon. member had wished us to rely on joint action that point of view could have been brought out in committee and suggested in the report. The report indicates no such thing. Moreover, I submit the report indicates that that concept
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
was rejected unanimously. Instead, the committee favoured research and persuading the provinces.
The hon. member also said that we must collect air, water and soil sample data in order to assist in the solution of this problem. If my hon. friend for Parry Sound-Muskoka had gone with us on the trip to Burlington he would have seen that that is exactly what has been going on for some months. There, they are carrying out the very research which he says ought to be carried on.
In conclusion I say, Mr. Speaker, that no single person and no single country has all the answers. If someone had all the answers I am sure all the rest of the world would quickly seek advice to solve this naughty problem. Frankly, every example of pollution mentioned in this house today has been of provincial concern. All have been provincial matters, the only exception being the Niagara River, which is an international matter.


Mr. Peters:: That's right. Blame it on the provincial governments.


Hyliard G. Chappell: I submit that the federal government has given strong leadership. We are well advanced through our research facilities in setting standards which we hope the provinces will adopt.
Mr. Speaker, because this matter is of national importance, because many hon. members from all parts of Canada wish to speak on it and because three times today hon. members of the opposition have gone beyond their allotted speaking time by obtaining unanimous consent to extend their remarks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand):
That pursuant to standing order 6(5) (a) this sitting do continue until 11 p.m. tor the purpose of considering the business presently under consideration.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those who object to this motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is
withdrawn.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I come from the southwestern part of Ontario. This is probably the most affected part of Canada from the point of view of pollution, chiefly because there is the greatest concentration of the
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution population of Canada, in the area from Oshawa to Windsor. There is the greatest number of industries in that area and, oddly enough, probably the greatest amount of water considering the area is surrounded by the Great Lakes. Since there has been great public alarm, with justification, regarding the pollution of the waters in this area, and even the soil, this whole question of pollution is of the greatest importance and interest to the people in southwestern Ontario.
It has often been stated that perhaps the greatest problem we have in Canada is our outmoded constitution. That probably is quite true. This outmoded constitution has been used by this and other governments as a means of endless procrastination, for doing nothing and buck-passing. The federal government says, "we will have to talk to the provinces; we have to discuss it". This has gone on almost indefinitely.


Mr. Perraull:: It started when your government was in power.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is that loquacious member from British Columbia! I hope he rises in his place instead of always shouting from his seat.


Raymond J. Perrault: Tell us about when your party was in power.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Regardless of excuses by various levels of government, particularly this one, something must be done and done now. All the reliable authorities on the subject of pollution, water, air or the soil from which we obtain our basic foods, tell us that something must be done soon. Other speakers have dealt with other points. There are a great many matters one could deal with on the subject of pollution. I will limit my remarks to one or two particular aspects.
A few years ago in the city of St. Catharines there was a man who had a small business raising orchids. McKinnon Industries, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation set up a plant there. Fumes from that plant destroyed the orchids. The florist instituted an action against McKinnon Industries which has the full power of the General Motors Corporation behind it. He conducted his case himself and was successful. It is a pretty formidable obstacle, to be faced with all the legal talent of the General Motors Corporation.
When this case went to the Appeal Court of Ontario, the florist won it again. He asked not
10574	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution only for damages, but a permanent injunction. This case eventually went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The defence of McKinnon Industries was that they could not remove the offensive matters from their plant and that it would not be in the public interest to close the plant because the city of St. Catharines depended largely on the payroll from McKinnon Industries. The Supreme Court of Canada did not accept that argument and issued a permanent injunction. Within a very few days the noxious fumes, which the company stated they could not remove, were suddenly removed very quickly.
This is the type of activity that is going on in southwestern Ontario, and I am sure in many other parts of Canada as well. In my own area there are very large deposits of limestone. The Canada Cement Company has a huge plant there, a $50 million or $60 million plant. There are plants1 of the North American Cyanamid Company, Domtar and others. As a result of their processes, these plants emit quantities of fine dust. Houses all over the area in the path of the prevailing wind are covered with a fine, gray dust.
The people in the area have been complaining for years. The Ontario government has taken some steps in this regard, but perhaps not enough. The result is that the people in that area are suffering great inconvenience, hardship and even damage to their health. The trees are not green in that area, they are gray. They are covered with dust.
It may be said that the average citizen has a remedy in civil law. He can sue the company, as the man in St. Catharines did, but most people are not familiar with the courts and lawyers are expensive when they have to deal with companies such as Domtar or Canada Cement. The public should not have to do this. The state should protect people from this kind of activity. There is no point in the federal government procrastinating and stating they will have another conference. These conferences go on endlessly, but never seem to get anywhere. Something must be done immediately because many people are being adversely affected. My area is only one small area. This situation is probably multiplied 50 or 100 times all through southwestern Ontario. Some steps must be taken now. Certainly, the federal government has the power to take the necessary steps. This can be done by means of the Criminal Code. This type of activity can be stopped if it is made an offence. If no agreement can be reached with the provinces 
DEBATES	June 23, 1SB9
on what measures should be taken, the federal government, as the senior government of this country, should take the lead.
If the federal government does not want to use its powers under the Criminal Code, it can give very substantial tax reductions to processing firms so that this money can be invested to remove pollution that, as a result of their industrial processes, is going out of their chimneys. I am told by engineers that although expensive,, this can be done. If the federal government does not wish to adopt the punitive approach, it can do something by means of a tax incentive. Most companies would not pay attention to any minor tax incentives. However, a substantial tax incentive would accomplish the required result. If that did not work, the government could then revert to using the Criminal Code. These are two suggestions.
There is no one in this house or in the city of Ottawa who is not familiar with the air pollution caused by that big company across the river, The E. B. Eddy Company. When walking to the parliament buildings in the morning, one gets the taste of sulphur dioxide coming from that plant. It is a great shame that our capital city should have probably the most offensive smells, if I can put it that way, of any city in the entire country.
I have talked to many tourists and visitors to this city. I have been told by them that Ottawa is a lovely place, but it is a great pity they can hardly breathe in the morning because of the terrible odours coming from across the river. This is largely sulphur dioxide which, as most people know, has a number of adverse effects on health. These are suggestions as to what could be done. The government must do something about them now. If the government wants to use the soft approach it can use the tax incentive method. If that does not work it can use the Criminal Code. Tens of thousands of people in southern Ontario are adversely affected by air pollution.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I next want to deal with the subject of noxious substances that are scattered at random around the country, of which d.d.t. is one. A pamphlet put out in the spring of 1969 by the Canadian Wildlife Federation, a very reputable organization, points out the possible dangers resulting from the use of d.d.t. I am not a research chemist and so cannot say, but all this may well be true. If what the pamphlet says is true, then certainly something
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
should be done about the matter quickly. The government should immediately institute research to find out the extent of the danger, if any, resulting from many substances that are suspected of causing permanent damage to the soil and water, substances such as detergents, pesticides and the like. The National Research Council is already doing some of this work and should be commissioned to do a great deal more.
As I recall it, a few years ago at the United Nations, Canada led a project to collect samples of radioactive fallout, to analyse samples of air, soil, water and basic foods. We even offered to do this for any other country that wanted us to do it. The necessary facilities were ready. I am sure that these facilities could be revived to test samples of soil, water and basic foods to determine what damage, if any, is being done by chemical wastes and detergents. I suggest that a program be got under way immediately.
The same thing is necessary with respect to the Great Lakes. The pollution of Lake Erie has been the subject of much comment. Some of the stories one hears have been slightly exaggerated, but only a few days ago I and my colleague from Halifax-Dartmouth were checking on a research station on Lake Erie. We were told that on one side of Long Point Island the water is quite drinkable, but on the bay side it does not test very well.
According to information supplied by the research station at Burlington, scientists have concluded that both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario can be saved if action is taken at once. The estimated cost of arresting pollution and giving the lakes a new lease of life is something in the order of $2 billion. This result can be achieved at that cost if work is started now, and within five years Lake Erie could be saved. Fortunately, Lake Ontario is not in quite as bad a shape as Lake Erie, but if there is much delay it may be impossible to save both lakes. These were the points that I wanted to make this evening, and as I know other hon. members wish to take part in the debate I shall sit down now.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate which is mainly on pollution. This is a very timely topic all over Canada, and it is one that is very important in my riding. Pollution is a perplexing problem and one that in many ways is also very frustrating. It is frustrating in the jurisdictional sense in that the provinces have some powers and the federal government has
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution some powers, but there is a great lack of co-ordination in attacking the problem. I hope that we will see a new major direction provided for the good of all Canadians as a result of the introduction of the Canada water act. The people in my riding will be watching this legislation with a great deal of interest. I am not going to speak tonight on the topic in the broad sense as I wish to deal mainly with a particular problem in my own riding. This is the proposed diversion of water from the Shuswap-Thompson River system into the Okanagan system, with all its implications for water pollution.
This is a very great issue in the Shuswap-Thompson areas. Never before have I seen the people in those areas get so worked up about a matter as they have about this one. And I say this is great because too often the silent majority will sit back and watch while an important issue is dealt with by the vociferous minority. This is public concern has been largely led by a group called the Shuswap-Thompson River Research and Development Association. I would like to compliment this group for the very fine work they have done and the very positive and objective stand that they have taken on this diversion issue.
As an example of the interest that the people have in this matter, no less than 15 groups made presentations on the subject when the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestries visited Salmon Arm and Kamloops on its recent swing out west. Some of the committee members said that never before had they seen such public concern about water pollution. Our main concern is not that our area is badly polluted and that we want to control pollution; it is more that the area is not polluted and that we want to keep it that way. The issue of the diversion started a few years ago when many of the people in the Okanagan became most concerned about their need for a greater future supply of water. Later, as a result of action in that area, an ARDA report was instigated and prepared by the provincial government of British Columbia. In essence, that report stated that it was physically possible to divert water from the Shuswap system into the Okanagan. This proposed plan would supposedly alleviate the water needs of the people of the Okanagan and ensure them of a supply for the future. Further, because of pollution problems in the Okanagan, it was also hoped that the increased water supply would flush out some of the pollution.
10576	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23. 1969
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution
The people in the Shuswap-Thompson area are not looking at the matter from an isolationist point of view. They are not isolationists. They believe in the development of resources to the fullest, and that there should be sharing of resources for the benefit of all our people. But a resource should not be tampered with in a way to benefit one group of people and take benefits away from another.
Some of the objections to the proposed diversion from many of the groups are:
(1)	Concern that diverting Shuswap water to the Okanagan and thus into the Columbia system could in some respects lead to international control of the Shuswap, Thompson and Fraser rivers. Many feel that the international ramifications of such a project should be fully studied.
(2)	Many people have pointed out that the study done by ARDA is too narrow because it deals only in a physical sense with the diversion of water from one area to another without assessing all of the implications in all of the areas concerned. Another important point is that once water has been diverted and committed to the well-being of thousands of people it is very difficult to uncommit it.
For a few moments I would like to deal with the importance of the water resource in the Shuswap-Thompson area. It has been said many times, and I think hon. members who have seen the area will agree, that it is one of the most beautiful vacation spots in the country. It has many lakes that are beautiful and important, but one of the most important in the whole system is Shuswap Lake itself.
Thousands of tourists visit the area each summer. We will have even more tourists this year as a result of the opening of the new Yellowhead highway. There are some 700 to
1.000	miles of good beaches along the Shuswap lakes, much of them taken up by cottage owners, and with some allocated for public use. Any appreciable change in the water levels of these lakes could greatly damage this most important industry and start a pollution problem, that is now non-existent, through increased silt deposit and lack of flushing action which is presently afforded every year by an abundant passage of fresh water through the system.
Another important resource is fisheries. The Shuswap river and its tributaries annually support 2,000 to 5,000 Chinook, 1,000 to
3.000	Cohoe, and 20,000 to 30,000 Sockeye salmon. Approximately 80 per cent of the

Chinook, 30 per cent of the Cohoe and virtually the entire Sockeye population utilize the section of the Shuswap between Mabel Lake and the mouth of Fortune Creek. Adult migration commences in July and continues until November. Spawning is confined primarily to September and October. Following incubation, the young fish emerge from the spawning gravel in April and May.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Chinook and Cohoe fry remain in the river throughout the year and or migrate downstream soon after emergence from the spawning gravel to take up residence in the lower river and lakes. Sockeye fry migrate to lake rearing areas immediately upon emergence from the spawning gravel. Sockeye, Cohoe and an undetermined portion of the Chinook salmon juveniles maintain fresh water residence until the following spring whereupon they migrate seaward coincident with the annual fry migration.
The observed distribution of spawning salmon in the Shuswap River reveals that the entire spawning population must traverse the section of river occupied by either of the proposed diversion dams, and those fish destined for spawning areas tributary to Mabel Lake must pass the Mabel Lake storage dam site. Conversely, the entire downstream migrant population must pass through the diversion dam area. Thus there is the problem of adult fish passage over the dams as well as the more complex problem of preventing downstream migrants from entering the gravity canal or pumphouses. It is also apparent from the outset that the low velocity impoundments resulting from dam construction will effectively eliminate spawning areas currently utilized by a small percentage of the Chinook and Sockeye salmon populations.
Agriculture is the third resource in my riding that could be detrimentally affected by the diversion. The cattle population of British Columbia is up to some 400,000 during peak times of the year and Kamloops is the centre of the ranching industry in the province. In our type of climate one of the most important limiting factors in the ranching industry is the provision of adequate winter feed. I do not think I need tell you how important water is in an area that has a total annual precipitation of about 9.5 inches. Alfalfa hay is the most important cattle feed grown in the area. Under irrigation, which most of the ranchers are now using, we can usually cut three crops and obtain up to six tons per acre of hay on a dry matter basis. On dry land we
June 23, 1969	COMMONS
can generally take off one good crop and if we are lucky get up to two tons of hay per acre.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been rambling a little bit and I hope that I have not abused your goodwill in taking too much latitude in my remarks. But I thought it was most important that I set the stage as to how this diversion ties in with pollution and how, in turn, it is related to many of the important resources in the Shuswap-Thompson area of my riding.
What are we to do at this point? I am convinced, as I know many of my constituents are, that nothing should be done to fulfil the water needs of the Okanagan until a comprehensive study is made of their needs. In this connection, I should like to endorse the first recommendation that was made by the Shuswap-Thompson River Research and Development Association in their brief to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. It reads:
That no major projects such as the proposed Shuswap-Okanagan Diversion shall be carried out before complete comprehensive river basin studies have been carried out over the affected regions- including ecological studies of recognized scope and depth and widely ranging cost-benefits analysis covering all available alternatives and that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry for Canada shall take immediate, strong action to make this mandatory in all salmon spawning waters to stop the piecemeal destruction of salmon spawning and rearing habitat.
I understand that discussions are now going on between the water resources people in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the water resources branch of the provincial government in British Columbia on the terms of reference and conditions for such a study. I hope that the minister will soon announce that the agreement has been consummated with the province of British Columbia. I hope, too, that some of the things the comprehensive study would determine or estimate are: First, the short and long term agricultural requirements for water in the Shuswap, Thompson and Okanagan areas. Second, the short and long term industrial water requirements of these areas. Third, a definition of the parameters of any water pollution problem in the area with suggestions for its control.
I know time is limited and that other members would like to make some remarks. I am glad to have had the opportunity to make these few remarks.
Alleged Lack of Action to Combat Pollution


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: There are only five minutes left, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You could have had longer.
Another hon. Member: We will sit all day
tomorrow if you like.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have order, please.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have dealt with the environmental crisis facing man, but perhaps I can summarize it by saying that man is living through an environmental crisis of his own making. My interest in pollution stems from the fact that I am a member of the Fisheries Committee, and certainly, like all members, am concerned about the problem. Sources of pollution of our waters, both above and below ground are wide and varied. Increasing population and industrial production lead to ever increasing pollution dangers in the face of a more or less fixed distribution of fresh water supplies.
Pollution has been around for a long time. The Romans were worried about it and made attempts at controlling it. We have a big country with a lot of water and a lot of air. But anyone who has smelled the river outside this building or has travelled down the Gardiner expressway on a still morning or who makes his living providing the country with herring from Placentia Bay knows what pollution is about. We cannot afford to sit back in confidence. We should count ourselves lucky that we have no Los Angeles where carbon dioxide levels are 10 per cent higher than normal. We cannot afford to be complacent. There are many areas I could mention. Many have already been discussed.
Let us, however, take a brief look at fishing. Forest spraying in New Brunswick has led to observations of fish mortality from 50 per cent to 98 per cent. Pollution has seriously affected shellfish beds. It is estimated that 25 per cent of clam and oyster beds have been closed as a result of pollution which has made them unfit for consumption. It becomes a vicious circle. Pollution leads to higher costs for everyone. Fish processing plants have been forced to bring in water from far out to sea because of local pollution. The Atlantic Development Board has subsidized operations such as this.
Let us look at a related problem, that of the fresh water fisheries. There are many lines
10578	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
we can follow here. The problem of pollution for the commercial fishermen of our big lakes needs no elaboration. We cherish our heritage of outdoor life and recreation. But who enjoys fishing in water he cannot bear to smell? These are the hidden costs which government must weigh and act upon. I could speak of agriulture. Since agriculture by its very nature uses more ground water than other sectors, ground water pollution is our biggest concern here. What does it cost in terms of lost production? I do not know, but I know there are costs involved. I could elaborate. I am going through my pages rapidly.


Raymond J. Perrault: Just ask for extra time. Your boys will support you here.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Who is that hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I won't mention him.


Raymond J. Perrault: Don't be muzzled by your leader.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty pursuant to Section 11 of Standing order 58 to advise the house that the consideration of the motion is deemed to have expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether anyone on the government side of the house could give the order of business, so that we might terminate the week in an orderly and sensible manner.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the week will be terminated in an orderly and sensible way will depend on whether or not the opposition acts in a responsible way. Very reasonable suggestions have been made to the opposition members.
In case hon. members are interested, on Thursday we will call item 84, Bill C-202 in respect of incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities. This will be followed by item No. 90, Bill C-207 in respect of the Atlantic Transportation Assistance Act.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see the President of the Treasury Board here. I should like to know whether there is anybody authorized to speak on his behalf before I continue.


Yves Forest: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I asked the President of The Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) when the government intends to lift the freeze so the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) can get on with the business of establishing a letter carrier service in the city of Courtenay. This question to the President of the Treasury Board arose from an earlier question I had addressed to the Postmaster General and which became the subject matter of one of these late evening discussions between the Minister of Communications and myself. On May 16 I was informed by the minister in his reply that on March 1, 1968, a well known economy drive was launched by the government of the day and a freeze was instituted in virtually all of the departments in an attempt to limit spending and reduce the burden of the taxpayers who, incidentally, are the electors of hon. members opposite as well as of members on this side of the house.
The minister went on to say that as a result, Courtenay is one of 24 communities where letter carrier service is justified under our criteria, but where for lack of funds the government could not introduce it until such time as the freeze was lifted.
I submitted my question to the President of the Treasury Board and claimed that it clearly arose from the answer given me by the Minister of Communications. Incidentally, the reply he gave indicated that this question goes far beyond the question of letter carrier service in the one community of Courtenay, which is in my own constituency. In my submission, there is clear evidence of discrimination against the citizens of Courtenay as well as the citizens of the other 23 communities which the Minister of Communications indicated are involved. The answer given to me by the minister revealed that the solution of the problem lies outside the jurisdiction of his department.
This so called freeze is on all fours with something that was known under the regime

June 23, 1969	COMMONS
of a previous government as an austerity program. I refer, of course, to a government headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was in office. I recall at that time how Liberal spokesmen in this chamber labelled the Conservative austerity program as an example of government bungling and mismanagement. I agreed with the Liberal spokesmen at that time with respect of what was done under the Conservative regime. At this time, I must say that these remarks apply equally to the administration which is presently in office.
About a year or so ago when we were discussing the estimates of various departments in committees the suggestion was frankly put forward that the hopes and aspirations of the department involved the development of a program on the basis of a five year period. I thought this was a sound attitude which the government ought to take toward planning and spending programs.
This question I have raised goes far beyond the question of discrimination against the citizens of this community of Courtenay in connection with letter carrier service. It goes to the very heart of rational planning and management on the part of the government. For this reason, I felt I should raise the question with the President of the Treasury Board. It is not good enough for the President of the Treasury Board to tell me that a treasury board ruling merely put a general ceiling on government departmental spending and that it is up to the department itself how it is going to stay within that freeze. I suggest that if we are going to have proper management and proper spending of public funds, it should be done without infringing upon the right of all Canadian citizens to the normal services of the government.
The Minister of Communications pointed out to me that this freeze would reduce the burden on the taxpayers and, incidentally, on the electors who are in my constituency. I submit that whatever the level of government spending, those electors are paying the same kind of taxes as other electors in the country, and therefore they are entitled to equal services under comparable conditions to those obtained by other citizens of the country.
I hope that the spokesman for the President of the Treasury Board can give me some indication as to when the government intends to lift this stupid freeze because I can think of no more irrational way of running the public affairs of the country than to indulge in this kind of unplanned chopping and changing so
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion far as the spending programs of the government are concerned. The Liberal administrations have often tried to give the people of Canada the impression that somehow or other they are businesslike people who know how to manage the affairs of the country. I submit that if this government approaches the planning of the spending programs of this country in the manner that is indicated in this example, the people of Canada should no longer labour under any such illusions. I hope that the spokesman for the President of the Treasury Board can give me some indication that the government is coming to its senses in this respect.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister of Communications and Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) to answer the hon. member's question. It is seldom that the Postmaster General is not here himself to answer such questions.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that the parliamentary secretary was speaking for the President of the Treasury Board and not the Minister of Communications.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point of order at this stage of the proceedings.


Yves Forest: It is the Minister of Communications and Postmaster General who asked me to answer the hon. member's question. I was pointing out that usually the Postmaster General is here, but he could not make it tonight.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege. I addressed a question to the President of the Treasury Board and I do not want to be answered once again by the Minister of Communications on this subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might point out to the hon. member that the practice at the hour of adjournment is not to accept points of order or questions of privilege.


Yves Forest: I suppose that the question concerning mail delivery at Courtenay or communities in which the hon. member is interested is answerable by the Post Office Department. I wish to point out that the
10580	COMMONS DEBATES	June 23, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion minister has already answered a similar question earlier and said that the Post Office Department is unable at this time to consider extending letter carrier service to Courtenay or other communities as a result of the freeze on the hiring of new personnel. However, consideration is being given to providing some type of interim service from a number of central locations in such communities. A decision will be made as soon as a study of these possibilities is completed. I regret that I
cannot advise the hon. member when the freeze will be lifted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, pursuant to Standing Order 2 (3).
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Wednesday, June 25, 1969