1970-06-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in French and in English-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, according to article 41 of Standing Orders, I wish to deposit the annual report in English and in French on the administration of the Canada Pension Plan for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. MacLean: 1.	Have studies been made to determine the feasibility of retaining the aircraft carrier BONAVENTURE in a reserve condition to provide sea transportation from Mobile Command until such time as suitable long-range transport aircraft are available in sufficient numbers to give Transport Command air transport facilities?
2.	What has been the finding of any such studies?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secreiary lo Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2.
Yes; however during the defence review it was concluded that the retention of HMCS Bonaventure could not be justified solely on the basis of providing sea transportation for Mobile Command.


P.E.I.-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOAN
Mr. MacLean: In connection with the loan to the Government of Prince Edward Island of $10,000,000 as provided for in the 1970-71 estimates of the Government of on Canada (a) what is the period of the loan (b) what is the interest rate to be paid by the Province (c) (i) do the terms of the loan require that the payments of principal and interest be amortized over the life of the loan (ii) what are the payments to be made by the Province annually under the terms of the loan (d) what is the total of the interest payments to be made by the Government of Prince Edward Island to the Government of Canada during the life of the loan (e) is there provision under the terms of the loan that interest rates and other matters may be renegotiated during the life of the loan (f) are any annual payments due in each fiscal year under the terms of this loan to be subtracted automatically from any payments made annually by the Government of Canada to the Government of Prince Edward Island (g) what is the total amount of loans made by the Government of Canada, including loans made from the Canada Pension Plan, to the Government of Prince Edward Island which have not yet been repaid (h) are any interest payments on any of the loans referred to in Part (g) now overdue and unpaid?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Finance as follows: (a) Section 11 of Schedule A, First Memorandum of Implementation of the Agreement Covering Development Plan states:	"The
terms of repayment in respect of each loan will be specified in such loan but in any case the terms of repayment will not exceed 30 years." (b) The interest rate shall be equal to the prevailing rate charged by the Minister of Finance to Crown Corporations with equivalent repayment period at the time the loan ... is made, plus J of one per cent; (c) (i) the form of repayment would be agreed upon at the time of the loan being made; (ii) the terms of repayment would be negotiated for each individual loan, (d) This cannot be calculated until particular loans have been agreed upon, (e) No. (f) No. (g) and (h) As at December 31, 1969, there were no direct loams made by the Government of Canada to Prince

June 3, 1970
Questions
Edward Island which were outstanding. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund has purchased to date special twenty year securities of the province amounting to $10 million on which there are no overdue interest payments.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO P.E.I.
Mr. MacLean: What is the estimated total of payments to be made by the Government of Canada to the Government of Prince Edward Island in the fiscal year 1970-71 for all obligations such as grants, equalization payments, etc., but not including payments to be made because of cost-sharing programs, and not including any payments to be made under the Prince Edward Island Development Plan?


Yves Forest: It is estimated that the Department of Finance will make the following payments to the Government of Prince Edward Island on behalf of the Government of Canada in the fiscal year 1970-71:
(a)	British North America Act Subsidies
(b)	Fiscal Arrangements
(i)	Share of Estate Tax
(ii)	Equalization
(iii)	Prior year adjustments
(c)	Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer


CANDIDATES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL ASSOCIATESHIPS
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	Who were the candidates awarded places by virtue of the permanent investigator support program of the Medical Research Council?
2.	Did the successful candidates possess the highest rating of all candidates applying?
3.	From what universities did the successful candidates come?
4.	What is the basis of the composition of the executive committee of the Medical Research Council?
5.	What is the rationalization for the decision to rate various medical school departments, and does the policy take into account the financial resources of a medical school?
6 How is the overall national interest in medical scientific excellence preserved in the method of selection?
7. Does the Medical Research Council have regular communication with medical schools and working scientists concerning policy changes?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The successful candidate for Medical Research Council Associate-ships to he taken up in 1970 were Dr. L. Branda, Dr. K. Lederis, Dr. E. Regoeczi and Dr. A. J. Wahba.
(in thousands of dollars)
$	657
$	283
19,938
2,200	22,421
Total $23,349
2.	The four successful candidates were the only candidates who in the opinion of the Council met all the criteria, both scientific and developmental, which Council has agreed to apply to the selection of new Associates.
3.	One candidate comes from the University of Calgary, one from the University of Sherbrooke, and two from McMaster University.
4.	Under the terms of its Act, the executive committee of the Medical Research Council is composed of the President and the VicePresident of Council and six other members elected by Council.
5.	Recognizing the great disparities that exist in health science research in various regions and in various subject areas in Canada, the Medical Research Council has taken steps to redress this imbalance. It sets aside funds for its Associateship and Negotiated Development Grant programs for the explicit purpose of stimulating high quality research in areas which are in need of development. To provide some of the background material for the operation of these programs, the Council has studied the research effort in the various medical school departments and among other things has taken into account

June 3. 1970

the total amount of extramural research funds available to investigators in the individual departments.
6.	Applications for Associateships, like all others, are scrutinized by expert scientists who are not members of Council or its Committees, as well as by the appropriate scientific committee of Council and by Council itself. The review procedure includes an evaluation of the scientific qualifications and research experience of each candidate, a review of his published work and his proposed research program, and also an assessment of the contribution which the candidate can be expected to make to the development of the over-all research effort in his new environment. The keenness of the competition for funds ensures that the highest standards of scientific excellence are maintained.
7.	Yes.


APPOINTMENT OF JACK AUSTIN AS DEPUTY MINISTER
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was Jack Austin appointed Deputy Minister ol Energy, Mines and Resources and, if so, on what date and at what salary?
2.	What are the qualifications which Mr. Austin possesses that resulted in his appointment to this position?
3.	Was Mr. Austin ever engaged in a federal election campaign and, if so, in what capacities?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minisier):: 1. Mr. Jack Austin was appointed Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources effective May 18, 1970 at an annual salary within the range of $33,000-$37,000.
2.	Mr. Austin was selected because of his wide experience in law and resource enterprises.
3.	Yes. 1962, Official agent for Arthur Laing, a candidate for Vancouver South; 1963, Campaign Manager for Arthur Laing, a candidate for Vancouver South; 1965, Candidate in Vancouver Kingsway.


TAXATION-T4 SLIPS
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Prior to what date, were employers required to provide employees with a Statement of Remuneration Paid (T4 slips) for taxation year 1969?
2.	On what date or dates were employees of the Department of National Defence in the Reserve Forces provided with such statements?
3.	Were all such employees provided with such T4 slips within the period required?
Questions


Mr. Yves  Forset@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. Prior to March 1, 1970.
2	and 3. There are three types of reserve training, Class "A" normal local unit training, one or two nights per week, Class "B", service in a temporary instructional or administrative capacity or undertaking specialist training such as photo interpreter, et cetera, Class "C" continuous employment for a fixed period with the regular force. Members of the Reserves performing Class "C" service have income tax deducted 100 per cent at source. For those performing Class "A" and Land Reserve on Class "B" Service, T-4 slips are issued by the base providing administrative support to the reserve unit. No reports of late issue of T-4 slips were received in Canadian Forces Headquarters. The Director of Pay Services at CFHQ is responsible for issuing T-4 slips to those members of the Sea and Air Reserve who have performed Class "B" Reserve Service and are subject to tax deductions during a taxation year. All Accounting Officers who maintained pay accounts for members of the Reserve performing Class "B" Reserve Service except Land Reserve were required to submit the pay accounts for these members to the Director of Pay Services in accordance with established procedures so that T-4 slips could be issued. However, due to the introduction of a new pay account and difficulties associated with this change, submission of closed pay accounts for the year ending 31 December, 1969, was unavoidably delayed resulting in T-4 slips Class "B" Sea Reserve being issued 23 March, 1970, and Air Reserve 13-18 March, 1970.


RESERVES-NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS
Mr. Moores: Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to consider officers of the Naval Reserves who have taken the RCNR Reserve Officers Communications Course "A" as qualified reserve NCS officers and, if not, for what reason?


David Walter Groos: Naval Reserve officers who have taken the Communications Specialist Course "A" are not considered qualified in Naval Control of Shipping. The NCS qualifying course and the NCS content of the Communications Specialist course include many of the same subjects but the

June 3, 1970
Questions
depth of coverage of these subjects is related to the specific duties in which the officers concerned would be employed on the staff of a Naval Control of Shipping Officer. The NCS qualified officer does not delve into the communications aspects of the subjects common to both courses but does cover, in depth, the organization and practical non-communications aspects of routing, sailing and control of merchant ships. The NCS qualified officer has also some ten hours of instruction on topics not related to communications.


NATIONAL DEFENCE PERSONNEL COMPLEMENT
Mr. Moores: 1.	What is the present personnel complement of the Canadian Armed Forces delineated in terms of Regular Force/Reserve, and In terms of land, sea and air environments?
2.	How many civilians are employed by the Department of National Defence in the Province of Newfoundland?


David Walter Groos: As of 30
April, 1970: 1.
Regular Force Sea	16,908
Land	35,244
Air	40,894
2. 128.
Reserve Force 2,737 19,598 725


RESERVES-TRAINING OF BANDSMEN AND STUDENTS
Mr. Moores: 1.	How much money has been allocated for the training of bandsmen in the Naval Reserve for the current summer training period and, how much was allocated for each of the past five summers?
2.	Which Canadian naval reserve units have bands, and what is the personnel allotment by rank of each reserve band?
3.	Has it been the policy of the Department of National Defence in past summers, to allow students who are in the reserve to be employed for the full two-month period and (a) if so, was this opportunity available on application to all qualified personnel who applied (b) if not, what were the criteria upon which different candidates were selected?
4.	What is the policy this summer with respect to employment of students who are in the Naval Reserve in general, and bandsmen in particular?
5.	If there are limitations in the number of applications that will be accepted, is this because of monetary restrictions?
as a whole, and no specific allocations are made for either summer training periods or for bandsmen.
2. Name of Unit	Location	EstablishmentHMCS Carleton	Ottawa	25Chippawa	Winnipeg	27Discovery	Vancouver	35Montcalm	Quebec	25Star	Hamilton	35Tecumseh	Calgary	30York	Toronto	35Donnacona	Montreal	30242(all ranks)No specific rank structure is	stipulated forindividual Naval	Reserve Bands. The rank	
structure of parent Naval Reserve Units is tied to the over-all rank structure authorized for the Naval Reserves.
3	and 4. While it is not the policy to employ members of the Reserve Forces for the entire summer, every effort is made to provide students in the Reserve Forces, who apply, with employment for as long a period as is feasible within the constraints of the training budget, and the capacity of the training facilities.
5. The limitation in the number of applications that can be accepted depends upon the number of billets available in the fleet, the capacity of the training facilities ashore, and the final constraints of the budget.


INFLATION-FEASIBILITY OF TAXATION INCREASE
Mr. Robinson: Has the federal government considered the feasibility of increases in taxation as a means of curbing inflation and, if so, what is the anticipated result?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Yes. For example, the 3 per cent surtaxes on individuals and corporations were introduced with a view to retarding the rate of price increase. The anticipated contribution of increases in taxes to the control of inflation depends on the state of aggregate demand in the economy. We do not feel that further increases are warranted at this time. The situation is, however, being kept under constant review.	.


EMPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS AS TEACHERS
David Walter Groos: 1. Funds are allocated for training Naval Reserve Forces


Mr. Yewchuk: How many American draft dodgers or deserters hold teaching positions at Canadian public and
June 3, 1970

Motions for Papers
secondary schools as well as at post secondary	SUBSIDY PAID TO TRANSPORTATION
educational institutions?	INDUSTRY 1960-69


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Since a person's military or draft status in his own country has no bearing on his admissibility to Canada, no information on this subject is requested or recorded on immigration documentation. The Department therefore is unable to provide any statistics in this respect.


AIRCRAFT CF5-AIRWORTHINESS OF PARTS
Mr. Gilbert: 1.	Is Canadair Limited of Montreal a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation?
2.	Does Canadair Limited receive its component parts and spares from General Dynamics Corporation?
3.	Do the component parts and spares supplied by General Dynamics Corporation to Canadair go into CF-5 aircraft for use in Canada and elsewhere?
4.	What measures does the Department of National Defence or any other government bodies take with regard to the quality of the component parts and spares and the general airworthiness of the CF-5 aircraft?


David Walter Groos: 1. Yes.
2.	In general, no, although there may be a limited number of cases in which this is so.
3.	No.
4.	In the case of components for the CF-5 manufactured in Canada, Quality Assurance is exercised by a Canadian Forces Technical Services Detachment, resident at the Plant. In the case of components manufactured outside of Canada, Quality Assurance rests with the Government concerned which is provided under STANAG 4107 (Mutual Acceptance of Government Quality Assurance).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacLean: What is the estimated expenditures to be made by the federal government in cost-sharing programmes with the Government of Prince Edward Island during the fiscal year 1970-71 other than under the Development Plan for Prince Edward Island?
Return tabled.

Question No. 1,415-Mr. Robinson:
What was the total subsidy paid to the transportation industry during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
Return tabled.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have a question, No. 1,480, which has been on the Order Paper for three months. I would ask the Minister of Transport to expedite the answer.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Speaker, I have had question No. 1,120 on the Order Paper since February 6, and it could quite easily have been answered long before now. I should like somebody on the other side to tell me what is the target date for answering this question.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 351, 380 and 461 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motions Nos. 351, 380 and 461 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ALBERTA NEWSTART CORPORATION FINANCING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 351-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Alberta New-
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1970
Motions for Papers
start Corporation regarding the extent of financing by the Department for the Newstart project for the period January 1, 1968 to January 21, 1970.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. .380-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the research consultant's report undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question 1,323 of the past Session excluding confidential reference to individuals or individual firms.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 461-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Canada Land Inventory (ARDA) Survey of the Elk Valley region of British Columbia completed in August, 1969.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 233, 367, 382, 410 and 451?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



WATER RESOURCES AND POLLUTION-PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 233-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Gaston G. Chamaillard, undertaken for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, regarding a Canada-wide survey of public information, educational activities relating to water resources and water pollution, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this report was prepared for internal working purposes. It contains information obtained on a confidential basis and must, therefore, be treated as privileged. In the circumstances, I respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I call for a vote, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



PHOSPHATE CONTENT OF DETERGENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 367-Mr. Anderson:
That an Order of the House do isue for a copy of the inter-departmental committee report which lists the phosphate contents of detergent products sold in Canada.
Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources knows of no interdepartmental committee report of the nature referred to by the hon. member. I would, therefore, request withdrawal of this motion.


Mr. Anderson:: As the information I
requested is available to me through the good offices of a United States senator, I am quite willing to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PEARSON STUDIES OF FRED ADMINISTRATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 382-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the unspecific studies of Mr. Pearson relating to the Administration of the FRED program undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session excluding confidential references to individuals or individual firms.
Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on February 18 last, in reply to a similar motion, No. 234, by the hon. member, I drew to the attention of the House that the services of Mr. Pearson were retained for general advice on FRED administration problems and that there was, therefore, no study which could be tabled. At that time the hon. member withdrew his motion. I respectfully ask that he again agree to do so.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, if the information is not available, I can only agree to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF CANADIAN MINING INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 451-Mr. Salfsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the studies undertaken in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on the degree of foreign ownership and control of the Canadian
June 3, 1370	COMMONS
mining and mineral processing industries as indicated at page 33 of the 1968-69 Annual Report of the Department.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: 1
move the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Waterloo.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary investigations on foreign ownership, referred to on page 33 of the 1968-69 annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, are continuing. They have not yet reached the report stage. It is anticipated that one phase will be completed for publication within the next few months. I would, therefore, ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the motion could stand. My reason for asking that it stand is the statement that the studies are not yet completed. The motion can stand until the information is available.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



REGULATIONS ON OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF URANIUM INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 410-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and industry in Canada since January, 1970, regarding regulations on the ownership and control of the uranium industry in Canada.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Waterloo.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that correspondence received from uranium producing and exploration companies contains information specifically requested by the government and given with the assurance it would be treated as confidential. In view of this, I trust the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	7675
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the minister has received the interim report of the LeDain commission on the non-medical use of drugs, can he inform the House when this report will be made public? Also, can he assure the House that publication and tabling of the report in the House will not be held up because of any differences of opinion that there may be among his colleagues with regard to the implementation of any recommendations contained in the report?


John Carr Munro: As far as any differences among my colleagues are concerned, this is strictly hypothetical. I have not brought the matter before my colleagues in the government for consideration with regard to publication or any other matter connected with the report.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister not agree, in view of the intense public interest in the subject of the report and the great public need for information and discussion of the subject as has been emphasized by the minister himself from time to time, quite apart from the fact that the public is paying for the study, that it is urgent that the report be tabled regardless of any previous discussion taking place?


Mr. Speaker:: I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the question as asked is in an argumentative form. The Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the minister does not agree that in view of certain circumstances the report should be tabled. That is obviously an argument, and the question is not acceptable in that form.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question and ask the minister whether, in view of the considerations outlined in the improper question I just asked, he will not table the report immediately?


John Carr Munro: I am sure that some of the observations the Leader of the Opposition has made will be considered by the cabinet along with other factors when a decision is made.
7676	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In view of the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, would the Prime Minister now advise the House whether he and the government are prepared to make public the LeDain report on the nonmedical use of drugs in view of the remarkable series of public hearings at which individuals with practical, scientific and psychological knowledge and experience produced opinions and evidence upon which certain recommendations were made which are gradually leaking to the public and the press and are becoming known anyway?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question sounds to the Chair more like a speech. However, perhaps the Prime Minister might like to reply to the hon. member's representation.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I cannot be very helpful. I note the representation of the hon. member, but I agree with what the minister just said that he received the report very recently in both languages. With my agreement he will bring it to a cabinet meeting in the very immediate future. At that time the cabinet will decide whether it should be published before a government statement of its position is made or whether the government position regarding the report should be made public at the time we table the report. However, I can assure the hon. member that the cabinet will be considering it in the very immediate future.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the financial statement of the Bank of Montreal which shows that for the six month period ended April 30 their profits increased some 27.6 per cent over last year, and last year, of course, showed a very substantial profit increase. In view of the fact that the Bank of Montreal, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Bank of Nova Scotia have shown substantial increases averaging out at some 22 per cent, are the minister and his department or the Prices and Incomes Commission looking into these very large profit increases to see whether or not they comply with the government's price stabilization policy?
IMr. Munro.]
DEBATES	June 3, 1970


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The banks have complied with the criteria established in February as to service charges, interest rates, etc., and there is no evidence that they have not. If there were any such indications, the Prices and Incomes Commission would, of course, be interested in examining any breach of those criteria. In so far as the general performance of Canada's chartered banks is concerned, that is a question which could be more properly directed to the Minister of Finance who has the responsibility for the Bank Act and to whom the Inspector General of Banks reports.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the criteria that affect the banks require them only to keep the deposit and lending rates at a constant ratio and in view of the fact that these profits would indicate that these criteria are no longer adequate, is the minister prepared to reconsider the criteria which are used with respect to the banks in carrying out or policing a policy of price stabilization?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The commission is constantly interested in seeing that the criteria are as effective as possible, but of late it has been directing most of its attention to setting some criteria on the cost and wage side of the economy for the people for whom the hon. member usually speaks so irresponsibly.



MANPOWER


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I shall put my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Considering that customs officers at the Montreal international airport are working to rules to protest against the hiring of university students for jobs which, according to them, require ten years' experience, could not the minister intervene to make the customs officers remember that a few years back they were inexperienced students themselves and were proud to find a summer job?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that it is very difficult to accept the question as asked. Perhaps he would like to rephrase his question.
June 3, 1970


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to make the employees who are working to rules understand the importance of accepting university students as temporary workers during the summer?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the importance of the matter brought up by the hon. member, but as this problem has more to do with labour disputes, I believe that the Minister of Labour could probably answer the question more adequately.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Labour like to answer this question?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have no answer to this question for the moment.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can he advise the House whether the situation at the Windsor customs port has been rectified?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: At the Windsor port, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the walkout that took place two week ends ago. Sure, it was rectified.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the unscheduled absence of the Minister of Finance and even of the Minister without Portfolio attached to the Minister of Finance I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has noted that in order to compensate for the floating dollar the Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited, one of the largest pulp exporters in Canada, has established effective immediately a Canadian currency equalization surcharge of between 5 per cent and 8 per cent on all its foreign sales of pulp? Would the Prime Minister take this into account and have a reply prepared indicating what counter-measures Canada will have to take in order to prevent resort to this sort of thing and to protect Canadian business?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance I will take notice of that suggestion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who took the trouble to explain to me last evening that he would be unavoidably unable to be in the House today but that he will be here tomorrow, I think I should say that on his behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would first like to commend the minister on his speech to the Algoma Liberal Association-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot himself make a speech. He has the floor for the purpose of asking a question.


Jack Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of his comment in that speech that justice delayed is justice denied, would he advise the House when we can expect the report on social legislation, particularly in so far as it includes war veterans allowances and disability pensions, and will he assure the House that it will be presented before the end of this session?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, so far as war veterans allowances and disability pensions are concerned I will leave that question to be answered by my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. So far as the other aspect of the hon. member's question is concerned, I have indicated to the House on several occasions that I expect the white paper will be brought before the House before the end of this session.


Jack Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to have clarified who is responsible for war veterans allowances and disability pensions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that this is not the occasion to achieve this kind of clarification.
7678	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the greater fiscal freedom that Canada will have under the floating exchange rate, will the minister explore with his colleagues the possibility of tabling at an earlier date than has been planned the white paper on social security?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated and I say again that I expect the white paper to be before the House prior to the end of the session. Precisely what date that will be I cannot say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister not make that a day prior to the adjournment of this part of the session rather than the end of the session in the fall?



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, Mr. Speaker. What steps does he propose to take to protect Canadian exporters of frozen groundfish who are suffering the consequences of the action of the government in floating the Canadian dollar?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, exporters of frozen groundfish today are getting prices about one-third higher than this time a year ago. The change in the exchange rate is unfavourable to them, of course, but on balance they are better off than a year ago and the prospects of further price increases are good.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to use the provisions under the Fisheries Prices Support Board to indicate to the exporters of frozen groundfish the intent of the government to protect their interest on the United States market because they will suffer the consequences of the 7 or 8 per cent increase in the cost of the Canadian dollar?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. A meeting is planned for tomorrow with the industry. Our representatives on the board will be meeting the industry in Halifax.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is more like it.


John (Jack) Davis: I should tell the hon. member that within the last few days the board has offered its services but the markets are so good the industry was not interested in its
offers.



POST OFFICE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the statement made yesterday by the mediator, Mr. Carrothers, means an end to negotiations between the Treasury Board and the postal employees' unions or whether there are further meetings scheduled, particularly with Mr. Carrothers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Dean Carrothers stated publicly that he would be glad to come back at any time his services would be useful and would be prepared to do so if he received an assurance from both sides that his presence would likely lead to some kind of conclusive agreement. With a view to taking advantage of this offer the Treasury Board is now endeavouring to have further meetings with the Council of Postal Unions and today is trying to establish a time for the next meeting.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's answer obviously means that no meetings are scheduled yet. May I ask the minister to clarify to the House an obvious difference in the statement of Mr. Carrothers yesterday when he said that neither side was prepared to make accommodations-those are not his exact words but they are the effect of what he said-whereas the chief negotiator for the Treasury Board suggested that the Treasury Board had moved in order to find accommodation? One or the other statement must have been wrong, so perhaps the minister could inform the House, the postal employees and the people as to what the situation really is.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I cannot assume responsibility for the interpretation which the hon. gentleman puts on Dean Carrothers' remarks but I can assure him that the Treasury Board, in discussing the outstanding issues, did propose accommodation and will continue to actively seek a settlement of this dispute.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. June 3, 1970

Speaker. In view of the credibility gap that obviously exists in the minds of those who heard the statement of the mediator on the one hand and that of the representative of the government on the other, will the President of the Treasury Board indicate the general position adopted by the government representatives? For example, did they advance as far in general terms as the position of Judge Lippe, the Chairman of the Conciliation Board?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will be aware that the government and Judge Lippe were, with the exception of two issues, in agreement, and if there is to be an advance in this respect we would expect the advance to be made on the side of the postal unions, because the government has agreed with Judge Lippe on all except two issues.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are they? Working conditions and salary?

Inquiries oj the Ministry signal to the postal employees' unions that it is not the intention of the government to move on these two points? If so, what kind of negotiations are now possible?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman recollects the terms of the Conciliation Board report he will see that the two issues that separated the government's nominee, Mr. Campbell, and Judge Lippe were longevity pay and hourly rates, and these were the two issues on which no progress was made. I would not wish the House to interpret my remarks as a signal to the unions that the government is not prepared to make any move at all and that consequently further negotiations are completely fruitless. That is not the case.


David Lewis: That is the way the minister sounded.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the comprehension of the hon. gentleman is so limited in this respect-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The advance perhaps should properly come, if advance there is to be, on the side of the Council of Postal Unions. We quite naturally hope for this and are looking for further meetings with them to see if further progress can be made in this respect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the President of the Treasury Board has said, is it not clear that Dean Carrothers was correct in his statement that the government had not made any significant advance? I must say that, unless the President of the Treasury Board is able to indicate to the House what advances have been made, there is obviously a very serious credibility gap between the position taken by the representatives of the government and that of the mediator, which the President of the Treasury Board has done nothing to remove this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this is debate or argument and not a question. I believe that the hon. member for York South wishes to ask a supplementary question.


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question arises out of the answer the President of the Treasury Board has just given. Does that answer mean that the two items on which the government negotiators did not move from the position of Keith Campbell toward the position of the chairman are wages and job security? Also, does the minister's answer


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -but I wanted to correct any misapprehensions he may have had.


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not related to the minister's remark about my comprehension or lack of it. That is irrelevant to this point. I rise on a point of order which I submit is an important one. Time and again the minister has said that he cannot negotiate publicly, that questions are improper, out of place, premature and so on; yet every time he wants to make clear that the government is going to stand pat by its wage offer and make negotiations impossible and fruitless, he finds a way of doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious doubts whether that is a point of order. I am sure the hon. member will find it difficult to indicate what Standing Order I ought to refer to. I bring to the attention of hon. members that we are running short of time. I see a great many hon. members who want to ask questions. Many are called but few will be chosen, I am afraid. I have seen at least 75 hon. members standing. Again I say that many will be disappointed. I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a supplementary-

-and I will then give the floor to the hon. member for Shefford.
June 3, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Would he request a transcript from the CBC in order to familiarize himself with the differences expressed by the mediator and the government representative?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of reading the text of both.



FINANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: In the
absence of the Minister of Finance, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Days before unpegging the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar, the government has allegedly consulted with the Internationa] Monetary Fund authorities. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government also consulted the heads of other countries such as the United States, or the Federal Reserve System authorities.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not know about the mafia, Mr. Speaker. As far as the United States and other countries are concerned, consultations did take place.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I am talking about the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary question.


David Réal Caouette: The Prime Minister visited Malaysia.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the matter of the international exchange rate is much more related to the Federal Reserve System than to the mafia, American or Canadian.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government, when it unpegged the Canadian dollar from a fixed exchange rate, acted primarily to improve the competitive position of American industries?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that his question is argumentative. I feel that this argument was heard last night, in the course of the long debate.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the policy of the government to place all armouries in Canada on maximum security, as was done in the case of the Ontario Regiment Armouries in Oshawa last night? If so, would the minister give the reason for so doing?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my information is correct and what happened last night was an exercise. We were testing the system.


Norman Augustine Cafik: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was this exercise prompted in any way by any threatened or attempted thefts of arms from armouries in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we do these things periodically. It so happens that the hon. member was informed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-fings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has he looked into the report coming from Montreal that 5,000 aircraft workers in the vicinity of Montreal are to lose their jobs owing to an imminent slowdown in the aircraft industry? If so, is he doing everything he can with his colleagues to see that this industry is kept going so that this catastrophe will not take place?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was informed this morning by the department of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of this new development, which falls particularly under his jurisdiction. The Minister of Labour is limited primarily to the settling of disputes and the avoidance of disputes and is not so directly concerned with the particular problem of unemployment, but as a member of the cabinet I am equally as concerned as the hon. gentleman.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to
June 3. 1970	COMMONS
the Minister of Supply and Services. In light of the difficulties apparently developing in the aircraft industry in Montreal, will he give some assurance that before the repair contracts affecting Argus and Tracker aircraft are renegotiated every effort will be made to make sure that that business stays in the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the repair and overhaul of the Tracker and Argus aircraft will be placed either by the company that takes over the Fairey Aviation Plant or, if that negotiation is not successful, this repair and overhaul work will be placed elsewhere.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Is the National Film Board office located in Brandon, Manitoba, and serving western Manitoba scheduled to close at the end of the month? If so, is it the intention of the government to discontinue this service in rural Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this very important question normally should be placed on the Order Paper. If there is urgency, as there appears to be, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: With respect, Your Honour, this matter has been raised from time to time in the House and questions have always been allowed. The service was discontinued last January and was reinstated, and the urgency arises from the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member argues that there is urgency. That is why there is a rule in the Standing Orders providing that when there is urgency the matter can be given priority and discussed at the time of adjournment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that ten days have elapsed since the minister promised action on the refusal of his counterpart in British Columbia to give 22375-68
DEBATES	7681
Inquiries of the Ministry social assistance to those who are unemployed by reason of strike or lockout, and in view of further written evidence that government officials there are still receiving instructions to refuse such assistance, can the minister say what action he proposes to take to provide these men and their families with the help to which they are legally entitled?


John Carr Munro: We have just about completed our assessment of the information we have. Once this assessment is complete, if we find there appears to have been a breach of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan I shall take the matter up with Mr. Gaglardi whom I hope to meet in the next week or so.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but we are running short of time' and I suggest that supplementaries might be held in reserve until tomorrow.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitl (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. It concerns a project in Toronto known as project metro in which the CBC is reported to have a part. Can the minister tell us whether the CBC has in fact decided to take part in this project and, if a decision has already been made, whether or not the delay in beginning this work is due to the fact that his cabinet colleagues have not decided to grant the money necessary for this arrangement?


Hon. Girard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to secure information on the specifics of this question before I answer the hon. member.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is of concern to his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the statement of the
7682	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry chief of the northern health services, Dr. Butler, that he would not recommend the consumption of leaf vegetables grown in Yellowknife because of dangerously high arsenic content levels, is the department taking any action to warn the public in Yellowknife and elsewhere and, in addition, to determine the cause of the contamination?


John Carr Munro: I am interested to hear of this situation. I was not aware of it. I will certainly look into it right away.



POLLUTION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Since an analysis by the Fisheries Research Board's Freshwater Institute has revealed a surprisingly high mercury content in samples of meal made from beluga whales taken in the Hudson Bay area, has the government established the extent of mercury content in the bay and has the source of this mercury pollution been determined?


John (Jack) Davis: The whales were caught at the mouth of the Nelson River. We have no samples from farther afield in Hudson Bay to indicate that the pollution is more widespread. The belief is that the source is the same as that which polluted the Lake Winnipeg waters. We are pursuing these matters, but we hope the source has been identified.



SHIPPING


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Transport or his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the reported statement by Dr. McTaggart-Cowan that the safety standards on ships flying flags of convenience are disgraceful and that if similar standards existed with application to aircraft there would be a crash a week, I would ask the minister whether his department has laid down any regulations with respect to standards applicable to ships operating in Canadian waters, especially for those ships carrying cargoes such as oil which would cause serious environmental damage should a sinking occur?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question should be placed on the Order Paper.

DEBATES	June 3, 1970



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Richard Russell Southam: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On May 4 and May 20 I directed questions to him in relation to a communication sent to him by Mr. Roy Daniels, President of the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, alleging that polluted water had caused the death of several adults and children in the community of Rae. The minister answered on May 20 that he would direct his officials to look into this matter. Is he now in a position to report on the result of this investigation?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I am still awaiting the report. I expect to receive it any day.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It is related to his comments a few moments ago regarding the settlement of disputes. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to bring the House up to date with regard to the towboat strike in British Columbia and, hopefully, on the progress which has been made?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was talking to my representative, Mr. Kelly, a few moments before the sitting began. The dispute is now centred on two or three basic issues. At the beginning of the week there were many more. Presuming there is good will on both sides, and hoping they understand the tremendous strain this strike is placing on the economy of British Columbia, I believe that with a proper degree of flexibility on both sides the strike could be over very shortly.


Robert Muir: supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will have noticed that the Chair is attempting to recognize as many members as possible and it has been suggested that sup-plementaries might wait until tomorrow.


Robert Muir: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am very willing to accommodate you at any time but I might
June 3, 1970	COMMONS
point out that the minister will not be in the House tomorrow and that under the crazy set-up introduced by the Prime Minister he may not be back for a week or two. So when do we have an opportunity to ask the question?



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Andrew B re win (Greenwood):	My
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I do not often question him. In light of the deplorable state of Lake Erie and the need for environmental rehabilitation, and having regard to the fact that the people of Ontario are being barred from using the beaches on Lake Erie, will the minister give consideration to the development of an East Erie national park?
Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there is urgency, which is not apparent to the Chair, this question can be discussed at the time of adjournment.



ASSISTANCE IN DEALING WITH CRISIS AT BANFF

Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the Banff Advisory Council asked for his help in dealing with the drug crisis currently being experienced at Banff and, if so, has his department made any arrangements to work on the problem in co-operation with the Alberta Department of Social Development?


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no request in that regard. The drug problem at Banff comes obviously under the administration of justice, and the question might perhaps be directed to the Solicitor General.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether, when he had a private meeting with the Ontario and Quebec premiers, Monday night, at the Queen 22375-681
DEBATES	7683
Inquiries of the Ministry Elizabeth hotel, the matter of the transfer of the family allowances plan to the provinces was brought up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member say that I attended a meeting? If he did, I must say I was not at such a meeting. Even if I had been, I would probably not tell the House, but, as I was not, I did not, of course, discuss that matter.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


J. Michael Forrestall: My question is for the Prime Minister. Is Canada giving consideration to increasing the Canadian contingent in Cyprus?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should
like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having regard to the findings of the recent report on manpower which indicates an accute shortage of doctors and a galloping increase in requirements in the next five years amounting to more than 50 per cent, would the minister state what plans are being prepared to meet this situation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may be aware that four new medical schools have recently been opened. One school graduated its first class this spring, two others have already taken in first-year students, and the fourth will probably take its first students in the fall. We have also had a very favourable rate in terms of immigration of doctors to this country, and emigration of doctors has declined significantly. Lastly, the hon. member knows that the health task force report went into ways and means by which we can co-operate with the provinces to increase the efficiency of doctors and take part in a program to provide doctor's assistants.
7684	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


SPEECH BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES IN DENVER-GOVERNMENT POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G, W. Baldwin (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in order to get around the ruling that Your Honour made yesterday-legally, that is-I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement on motions indicating the extent to which the government accepts the policy laid down in the Denver speech, "the" speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and do the government and the Prime Minister encourage the making by individual ministers of belligerent and narrowly chauvinistic speeches to gain temporary political advantage?
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that the first part of his question might have been in order but I am afraid it degenerated somewhat.


Mr. Baldwin:: I would withdraw the degenerative part.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that Canadian consumers, in particular low-income consumers, will be seriously affected by the move taken yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to curb the importation of low-cost shirts, may I ask the minister whether he was consulted about this decision and, if so, whether he agreed with it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the announcement that was made yesterday was, of course, an announcement by the government of Canada, of which I am part, and it represents a very nice balance between the interests of domestic manufacturers, Canadian consumers and our international obligations. I noticed with interest that the spokesmen for the two opposition parties, unlike the hon. member yesterday, took no account of the consumers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate.
[Mr. Munro.l
DEBATES	June 3, 1970


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question. Earlier in the afternoon he indicated that the Prices and Incomes Commission was now preoccupied with studying what he said was the wages and salaries aspect of inflation. Are we to assume from this that the Prices and Incomes Commission is in the process of preparing a new proposal in regard to wage restraint or something of that order? If so, when might this be expected?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with its terms of reference the commission is exploring a number of initiatives that might prove useful. When it is appropriate to make an announcement, one will be made in due course either by the government or by the commission.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that men who are on strike in Cornwall, Ontario, have been refused welfare assistance by the director? Since this seems to be very similar to the policy that has been followed in British Columbia which the minister is presently investigating, may I ask the minister whether he has looked into this allegation, whether or not it is true and, if it is true, what action does he propose to take with regard to it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have not been advised by my officials in the Cornwall area of this particular situation. If the leader of the New Democratic Party so advises me now, I will be pleased to look into it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the
June 3, 1970

Minister of National Defence. In reply to an earlier question concerning the Rivers air base the minister stated that he hoped to be able to announce some good news by the end of May. Is the minister in a position to announce this good news concerning the expanded role of this base?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said at the time that I hoped to be able to announce the news, meaning the decision, not necessarily good news. The fact that I have not announced the news yet may be a good sign.
I know that, as in the past, I am again in default on this particular subject, but this is because of the fact that I am trying as best I can, grasping at all possibilities and trying to explore all measures in order to achieve what the hon. member desires, which is the maintenance of the base. I am now depending on two reports which I have not yet received, and it is the reports that are delayed, not my answer. I was expecting the last one on May 25, but I have not received it yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please. The hon.
member is rising on a supplementary but he will have noticed that a number of supple-mentaries were refused. I apologize to hon. members but I have tried my best to recognize as many members as I could. Perhaps we will continue our efforts tomorrow. Orders of the day.


Mr.   La Salle@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, as the oral question period is rather short and as the members of the Mouvement de liberation du taxi in Montreal held new demonstrations last night, asking for the immediate publication of a report on the taxi situation which was to be submitted in April, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport if such a report will be tabled soon?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member to make direct representations to the minister. He can easily get in touch with him.
Inquiries of the Ministry
If the question period seemed short to him it always seems long to the Chair.
Is the hon. member for South Western Nova raising a point of order?


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the first opportunity to rise on a question of privilege.
I notice that the Minister of Finance is not in the House at present. My question of privilege is related to an answer made yesterday by the minister to a question I asked him on May 19.

This is a matter that came up yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I was not here. On May 19 I asked the Minister of Finance whether the officers in his department would be controlling more stringently importation of textiles into this country, and as reported at page 7065 of Hansard the minister replied:
I can assure the hon. member that my experience has been that these regulations have been enforced to the full. Where there have been allegations that they have not been enforced, it has often been because individual firms in Canada have not provided evidence of dumping so that the dumping could be investigated by the Department of National Revenue.
Yesterday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made a statement to the House. I must say the statement was a welcome one and I congratulate him for announcing a surtax on the import of woven shirts. I should like to quote something that is relevant to my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member is coming to his question of privilege. Nothing that he has said yet resembles very much a question of privilege. I invite him to get to his point as quickly as possible.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of conflicting statements made by two ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for telling me immediately what he wants to do. If he thinks that he can raise as a question of privilege conflicting statements between ministers, I must advise him right now that there are many precedents that would indicate that this cannot be the basis of a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monieiih:: There are plenty of conflicting statements from this government.
7G86
June 3. 1970

Water Resources Programs


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members seem to suggest that perhaps we would have too many questions of privilege. I have not suggested that, but I would suggest to the hon. member that he may have a grievance. He does not have a point of order or a question of privilege, and I really cannot agree that he should pursue the matter.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I suggest to Your Honour that the Minister of Finance on May 19 was misleading the House, and this is where my question of privilege arises. If I might be permitted to continue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to continue. This is not a question of privilege. In any event, if the matter arose before, according to the rules, which he knows very well, the hon. member should have given written notice. It is no excuse for a member to say that a matter has just been brought to his attention. The matter could have been brought to his attention beforehand and he should have followed the rules which require that a question of privilege be raised in the usual way by giving written notice to the Chair. The hon. member has not done this. Therefore he cannot at this time raise a question of privilege which I have ruled is not a question of privilege.


Louis-Roland Comeau: On a point of order, I tried to get the attention of the Chair to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue today which might have cleared up the matter. This is why I was waiting for an opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: 

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 2, consideration of Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization I Mr. Monteith.]
[Stage Direction]
of water resources, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Randolph Harding: That Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding thereto, immediately following clause 31 on page 26, the following section:
"32. If any six persons make a complaint to the Minister of an offence under this act, the Minister shall investigate the complaint and make public his findings, and if there is prima facie evidence of an offence under this Act, the Minister shall institute court action."
and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has asked me to speak to the amendment in his name. The amendment is self explanatory. It provides for adding to the bill a new section which would provide for a minimum of six members of the general public who could institute a ministerial inquiry into any alleged offence under the act. It provides for publication of the minister's findings. It also provides for institution by the minister of proceedings in the courts if a prima facie case is made out.
The amendment is modeled on similar provisions in the Combines Investigation Act. Its purpose is to involve the public in the policing and enforcing of the act and in protecting Canadian waters against pollution. Most members of this House, certainly those who follow this subject, are aware of the fact that there is a tremendous public interest in this question of pollution. There is a new conscientiousness about our environment, particularly our waters being polluted, destroyed, made worse than useless in so far as any satisfactory way of life for our people is concerned. The public are interested. They want to know what they can do about this problem. The amendment introduced by my colleague provides part of the answer. It involves participation of the public and it involves their concern regarding pollution. I venture to suggest that if the public become disinterested, apathy and indifference will return. The main force behind the enforcement of this act will no longer exist.
I am convinced that the secret of dealing with pollution is adequate enforcement. I do not believe that in the past the problem has been inadequacy of the laws available to deal
June 3, 1970	COMMONS
with the subject. I think the problem has been inadequacy of public interest on the one hand, and inadequate enforcement on the other. If this amendment is passed, the responsibility for action will remain with the minister. The minister will be politically responsible to the public and his constituents, if there is a public complaint, to institute an inquiry. The minister will be required to make public reports of his findings. He will be answerable for these reports. He will be responsible for the enforcement of the act.
I cannot conceive of any good reason why this amendment should not be accepted. There is ample precedent in the Combines Investigation Act and in the laws passed by this Parliament in the past. It is a direct effort to involve the Canadian public in this extremely important matter of the enforcement of this act.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reinforce what the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has said and to make an additional argument to those he presented. As the hon. member noted, the amendment before us calls for the minister to investigate any complaint of violation of this act submitted to him by any six persons. Upon such application the amendment suggests the minister must investigate the complaint and make public his findings. Should there be definite evidence that an offence under the proposed act has taken place, that is, that some person or organization is carrying on activities which will result in the pollution of our waters in contravention of the provisions of the act, the minister must institute court action against the offenders.
This amendment would incorporate into the Canada Water Act a provision identical to that already included in the Combines Investigation Act. The suggestion is, therefore, not without precedent. To me, the existence of a precedent is not the most important factor. I only mention it because there seems to be on the government benches a sizeable number of members who have a horror of trying anything new. What is important is that we accept this amendment because it provides a highly effective method of policing and enforcing the measures for controlling pollution contained in this act, however inadequate they might be in some particulars.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the need for adequate policing and enforcing procedures. Time and again throughout this debate, and in the hearings of the committee which
DEBATES	7687
Water Resources Programs studied this bill, hon. members and witnesses have drawn our attention to the fact that if existing federal, provincial and municipal legislation designed to control pollution had been properly policed and enforced, we would not today be confronted with a crisis in respect of pollution. We would not be worried to the same extent about the possibility of irreparable harm being done to the ecological balance in this country.
This amendment would allow every citizen of Canada to act as a watchdog, a guardian of the future of this nation. This amendment would provide every citizen of Canada with an effective means of drawing to the attention of the appropriate authorities any action which he considers constitutes a danger to the continued existence of unpolluted and therefore productive, useful, beneficial and aesthetically pleasing bodies of water in Canada. Past experience must have taught us that this kind of vigilance and surveillance is an essential prerequisite for the efficient operation of the mechanisms provided in the bill for the control of pollution.
There is one further, and perhaps an even more socially significant, reason for this House to support the amendment before us. We have seen among the people of this country, just as we have seen in other areas of the world, a growing restlessness. To a large extent this restlessness, and the disorder which it has produced, the social dislocations which, if allowed to continue unchecked, it presages, is the result of individual frustration. The frustration is the result of the individual everywhere and always being confronted by vast seemingly immobile organizations whose method of operation he can never influence. In the face of big government, big business and big unions, the individual citizen of Canada feels that he is virtually incapable of directing his own life or even having some influence over what happens in respect of some of the non-essential details of his life. You cannot even find the proper person to complain to when you have a shirt button torn off in a laundry.
It is this phenomenon which has produced the sense of what sociologists are pleased to call alienation and anomaly in modern industrial states and which in turn, if I may be totally irrelevant, has helped to produce as a compensatory mechanism the numerous movements of national particularism which characterize our world today, even our own nation. I believe it to be important, therefore, that we as legislators ensure that the laws we

June 3, 1970
Water Resources Programs make should contain, without exception, means of enabling the individual citizen to feel that he is, once again, able to influence the course of events. We must ensure that the individual citizen is able to regain his fast disappearing respect for the democratic process by ensuring that at least his objections to what is happening around him can be heard and acted upon.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In this regard I should like to quote a brief passage from Bertrand Russell's book "Authority and the Individual". Mr. Russell writes:
We know too much and feel too little. At least we feel too little of those creative emotions from which a good life springs. In regard to what is important we are passive; where we are active it is over trivialities. If life is to be saved from boredom relieved only by disaster, means must be found of restoring individual initiative, not only in things that are trivial, but in things that really matter. I do not mean that we should destroy those parts of modem organizations upon which the very existence of large populations depends, but I do mean that organizations should be much more flexible, more relieved by local autonomy, and less oppressive to the human spirit through its impersonal vastness, than it has become through its unbearably rapid growth and centralization, with which our ways of thought and feeling have been unable to keep pace.
This amendment is an attempt to accommodate the wholly understandable and completely desirable need of individual citizens to know that they count for something in the scheme of things. It is a step toward the flexibility and the local autonomy of which Mr. Russell writes.
In summary, I ask hon. members to support this motion, both because it is essential to the effective operation of the proposed legislation and because it represents a highly desirable technique of social reform.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Hardy) negatived.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (24) That Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada Including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by (a) substituting for the reference to section 34 in line 1 on page 28 a reference to section 37, and (b) by striking out lines 6 and 7 on page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"eorporating the agency or in respect of its operating expenses or make loans to any agency in reseptc of capital costs incurred by it; and"-


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


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I should like to say a few brief words of explanation with regard to this amendment. It is part of the package which enables loans to be given to water quality management agencies for capital works. Hon. members will recall that earlier we made provision whereby loans might be made to water management agencies for the purpose of such capital works. This particular amendment extends the power of the minister, with approval of the Governor in Council, to make such loans to these particular agencies.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: merely rise to say that this amendment is in line with recommendations that were made from our part of the House on second reading that the federal government should become involved in some capital costs and loans. We agree with the amendment.


Randolph Harding: would like to indicate that we endorse the amendment before the House. We pressed very vigorously for changes in the financial structure under the bill during the committee hearings. It is apparent that the government recognized the weakness of their original draft and accepted the improvements which were recommended by the committee members. I should like to point out that the financial aspect is still one of the major weaknesses of this bill, or rather the lack of a definite financial formula to help provincial governments, municipalities and even these agencies all across Canada. The fight against pollution will founder as a result of the lack of finances to take care of the pollution problems.
However, this amendment is an improvement. It means that water quality manage-
June 3/ 1970

ment areas will be able to obtain loans under this clause. We have no hesitation in endorsing it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 24 agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the deferred divisions in respect of several of the motions to amend Bill C-144. In view of the fact that there is agreement that there should be a recorded division first on motion No. 6, I will ask that the members be called in.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the members having been called in:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is on Motion No. 6, in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) and it reads as follows:
That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding thereto a new Clause 5A to read as follows: '5A. No inland waterways shall be diverted for the purpose of exportation without the approval of Parliament'.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 25, in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Mc-Cleave), which reads as follows:
That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by inserting a new clause 37:
'Construction
37. This Act shall not be construed to authorize any treaty or convention with respect to exporting the water resources of Canada, and no treaty, convention or agreement with respect to such export shall be binding unless authorized by the Parliament of Canada.'
and by renumbering the subsequent clause accordingly.
All those in favour of the motion will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 25 (Mr. McCleave) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 4.


Mr. Louis-Roland  Corneau@South Western Nova: (4) That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by inserting therein, next after clause 2 thereof, the following:
"Ministerial Responsibility
3. The duties, powers and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters
(a) not exclusively assigned to the legislatures of the provinces or by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada that relate to the control and management of the water resources of Canada and to the preservation, improvement and restoration of the quality of the national environment by the prevention, elim-

ination and limitation of the pollution of water resources and the pollution of any natural element that in any way might or does pollute a water resource; and
(b) necessary or incidental to such duties, powers and functions although so assigned." and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a question of privilege, Your Honour. I did not hear my name called by either the Clerk Assistant or by the Clerk and I wish to verify that I voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that the hon. member's name is duly recorded.
The House will now divide on motion No. 7. The question is as follows: Moved by Mr. Comeau:
(7) That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding a new clause 6A as follows:
"6A. (1) Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister, shall establish water quality standards for all classes of water in Canada.
(2) No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters in Canada that fall below

June 3, 1970
Division


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Harding) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 8. The question is the following one. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) moves:
That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out clause 8 on page 9 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"8. No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The Chair will now call Motion No. 14. The question is the following one. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) moves:
That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding immediately following the word "prescribing" in subclause (1) (a) of clause 16 on page 18 the following:
"from time to time specific water quality standards and levels applicable to all bodies of water under the jurisdiction of the Canada Water Act for the folowing."


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.

June 3, 1970

NAYS Messrs:
Division
waters or in any place under any conditions where such waste or any other waste that results from the deposit of such waste may enter any such waters."


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Aiken) negatived.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 11. The question is the following one. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Musltoka (Mr. Aiken) moves:
That Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out lines 22 to 25, both inclusive, page 16 thereof, and substituting therefor in clause 13(3)
"(c) undertake the collection of effluent discharge fees prescribed to be payable by any person for the deposit of waste in those waters but in no case shall an effluent discharge fee be collected for the deposit of waste in respect of any project commenced after the establishment of the agency."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The Chair will now put Motion No. 9. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) moves:
That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out clause 8 and substituting the following:
"8. Except in quantities and under conditions prescribed with respect to waste disposal in a water quality management area, no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste of any type in any

June 3, 1970
Macquarrie,
McGrath,
McKinley,
Marshall,
Mather,
Matte,
Mazankowski,
Monteith,
Moore,
Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys), Muir (Lisgar). Nesbitt,
Nielsen,
Noble,
Nowlan,
Orlikow,
Peddle,
Peters,
Ricard,
Ritchie,
Rodrigue,
Allmand,
Anderson,
Badanai,
Basford,
Bechard,
Beer.
Blair,
Blouin,
Borrie,
Breau,
Buchanan,
Caccia,
Cadieux (Labelle). Cafik,
Chappell,
Chretien,
Clermont,
Cobbe,
Comtois,
Cote (Richelieu), Cote (Longueuil). Cullen,
Cyr,
Deachman,
De Bane,
Douglas
(Assiniboia),
Drury,
Dub6,
Forest,
Forget,
Foster,
Francis,
Gendron,
Givens,
Goyer,
Greene,
Groos,
Guay (St. Boniface) Guay (Levis), Guilbault,
Hopkins,
Howard (Okanagan Boundary), Hymmen,
Isabelle,
Jerome,
Kaplan,
Kierans,

Division
Rondeau,
Rowland,
Rynard,
Saltsman,
Schumacher,
Scott,
Simpson,
Skoberg,
Skoreyko,
Southam,
Stanfield,
Stewart
(Marquette),
Tetrault,
Thomas
(Moncton), Thompson (Red Deer), Winch, Woolliams, Yewchuk-79.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Laflamme,
Laing (Vancouver South),
Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt), Langlois,
Laniel,
LeBlanc (Rimouski), Lefebvre,
Legault,
Lessard (LaSalle), Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean), Loiselle,
Mackasey,
McBride,
Mcllraith,
Mahoney,
Marchand (Langelier), Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo),
Noel,
O'Connell,
Olson,
Orange,
Osier,
Otto.
Pelletier,
Penner,
Pepin,
Perrault,
Pilon,
Portelance,
Pringle,
Prud'homme,
Richardson,
Roberts,
Rochon,
Roy (Timmins), Smith
(Northumberland-Miramichi),
Smith
(Saint-Jean), Stafford,
Stanbury,
St. Pierre,
Sulatycky,
Thomas
(Maisonneuve), Trudeau,
Trudel,
Turner (London East), Turner
(Ottawa-Carle ton),
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Baldwin
Barnett
Beaudoin
Bell
Benjamin Bigg B re win Broadbent Burton
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)
Coates
Comeau
Crouse
Dinsdale
Dionne
Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Downey
Flemming
Forrestall
Gauthier
Gleave
Godin
Grills
Hales
Harding
Harkness
Horner
Howe
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Wahn,
Walker,
Watson,
Whelan,
Whicher,
Whiting,
Yanakis-100.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert (Bellechasse) Lambert (Edmonton West)
Laprise
MacDonald (Egmont) MacEwan
Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) Maclnnis (Mrs.) MacLean Macquarrie McGrath McKinley Marshall Mather Matte
Mazankowski Monteith Moore
Muir (CapeBreton-The Sydneys)
Muir (Lisgar)
Nesbitt Nielsen Noble Nowlan Orlikow Peddle Peters Ricard Ritchie Rodrigue


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to Motion No. 15. The question is the following one. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) moves:
That Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by numbering clause 18 to read 18(a) and by adding the following subclauses:
"(b) After January 1, 1971, no person shall manufacture for use or sale in Canada any cleaning agent or water conditioner that contains any phosphates or other prescribed nutrients.
(c) After January 1, 1972, no person shall sell in Canada any cleaning agent or water conditioner that contains any phosphates or other prescribed nutrients."


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion lost.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you go on to the next order

Water Resources Programs of business may I ask the Prime Minister when this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's remarks are premature. There are still two votes to be taken.
The Chair will now call Motion No. 17. The question is the following one. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) moves:
That Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding a new subclause 19 (a) (iii) to read as follows:
"(iii) Labelling on containers of cleaning agents and water conditioners, listing percentage contained therein of phosphates or other prescribed nutrients:"


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 17 (Mrs. Maclnnis) negatived.
The House will now consider Motion No. 18. The question is the following one. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) moves:
That Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by renumbering the present clause 19 as 19 (1) and adding the following:
"(2). Before any such regulation is made, the minister shall first give notice thereof to the provincial governments, representatives of any industries directly affected, and such organizations of citizens as the minister deems appropriate.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Aiken) negatived.
7696	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the Water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of Water resources, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time, now?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we think the government should at least have one night to reflect on its errors in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time, at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) wishes to rise on a point of order which we should perhaps hear now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the reported divisions have taken practically three quarters of an hour, perhaps the House may agree to give consent to allow me to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when the government will get around to installing electronic voting systems in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize perhaps that this question should be more properly directed to the Chair. The Chair has noted the hon. member's comment.



ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-202, to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
[Mr. Speaker.1
DEBATES	June 3, 1970
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That Bill C-202, an act to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic be amended by adding thereto, on page 13, immediately after clause 13, the following:
"14. The Governor in Council shall cause to be undertaken by such agencies as he deems appropriate continuing programs of research directed to furthering the objectives of this Act." and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it now seems quite some time since we had in this House what one might call a rather ringing debate at the second reading stage of this bill. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House will recall that we had a rather unusual vote on this bill when we had a unanimous recorded vote of members of the House. I refer to that in introducing this amendment because I want to say that, in my view, the consideration of this bill in the standing committee, by and large, bore out the view that was held in the House at the second reading stage. In other words, I feel that in the standing committee there was essential unanimity on the purposes of the bill as we examined its details and as we heard some of the expert witnesses that came before the committee. It is therefore, evident that the debate at the report stage of this bill is not likely to be as prolonged as it was on the bill with which we have just dealt in the numerous recorded votes a moment ago.
The purpose of my amendment, stated very briefly, is to strengthen the bill in its operation; in other words, to ensure that the purposes on which we were all agreed on second reading are fulfilled in a more adequate manner than I believe they may be without the amendment that I proposed. It was with that in mind that I decided to bring this amendment forward for the consideration of the House as a whole at this stage. There was some debate on the substance of the amendment in the committee, and various aspects of it were discussed there. I do not intend to repeat here, in the brief remarks I wish to make, all of the discussion that took place in the committee.
However, I think it should be obvious to hon. members that the essence of this amendment is based on the additional appreciation of the need to preserve the basic ecology of the north from harm, an appreciation which developed not only as a result of debate in the House on this and other bills in recent
June 3. 1970	COMMONS
weeks but as a result of debate in the committee both on this bill and previously when the committee presented a report on the question of the Arctic and the preservation of its ecology. In the same committee only last night during discussion of the bill which has to do with territorial lands in the Arctic, the whole question of the necessity for protecting the delicate ecology of the north was once again to the fore. So, for a number of reasons, the bill would be strengthened and improved by the inclusion of this particular provision in it. I would like to point to one or two of them.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One of the factors that has influenced me in considering this to be an appropriate amendment to put forward is that this bill does not, as is usually the case with bills, designate any particular minister of the government as the responsible minister. We know that the bill was introduced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and, in some respects, I assume he will have responsibility for its administration. However, as the discussion developed in the committee, it became apparent that in effect this is a bill involving multiple jurisdictions. It was made apparent that not only the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), to name only two others, will be involved in certain aspects of the bill's implementation. This makes it evident that there can be some confusion with regard to the direction of any appropriate research programs that are required to implement the purposes of the bill.
It was argued in the committee that the government is doing research in various fields relating to the Arctic, and some members in the committee suggested that this amendment was not necessary. But I suggest this amendment would simply give a direction to the cabinet as a whole, which is responsible for this bill in a way that it is not responsible for the administration of many bills, that it should so arrange the research programs of the federal government as to make sure that an adequate proportion of them are specifically directed to the various aspects of the problems that will arise from the dangers of pollution in the Arctic as our exploitation of its resources increases, and as the number of people travelling over its land, waters and ice, increases.
That is one very legitimate reason for having this kind of proposal mentioned in the
DEBATES	7697
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act bill. It is drafted, and it was deliberately put in this way, so as to enable the government to use not only all of the research facilities that are directly under the jurisdiction of the federal government but also those that are available in universities and other institutions across the country. I am sure the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot quarrel with that aspect of the proposal because he, himself, has indicated to us, in connection with the bill we have currently under discussion in the committee, the fact that he did draw a team of researchers from various universities to advise him in setting out the ecological boundaries of the various regions of the Arctic.
I could mention that the standing committee, in its report to the House, specifically recommended that an appropriate program of research be undertaken by the government in connection with Arctic problems. This has been referred to a number of times in discussions and debates in this House. I will not go into the details of the committee's recommendations because I am sure the minister and other members are well aware of what they are, but I do think this is another reason why it is appropriate to propose that a specific reference to research be put into the bill.
We have a number of research agencies within the ambit of the federal government. I think the existing body which is most pertinent, when one considers the question of maintaining the ecology of the waters of the Arctic, is the Fisheries Research Board. There are other areas, such as the transportation aspects of the bill, where this Board would not be appropriate. But none the less, Mr. Speaker, I mention this because I think we have in existence a long-standing example of what a specific research body, attached to a certain aspect of the activity of the government, can accomplish. More than once in this House I have made reference to the kind of effective work that has been done by the Fisheries Research Board, and how it has increased our knowledge of what is required for the proper management of our fisheries resources. This I suggest, Mr. Speaker, provides a very good example of what is required in respect to the effective implementation of the aims and purposes of this bill.
I have proposed the insertion of this clause in the bill in this particular place for a particular reason. If this amendment carries, it will immediately precede the portion of the bill which has a heading "Pollution Prevention Officers." These will be the people in the
7698	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act field who will determine whether or not this bill really means anything. All oi the high sounding oratory that has been uttered in the House about it, and the high aspirations that have been expressed by the government for its ultimate success, all of the declarations that have been made in respect of the position taken by the United States, really mean nothing unless the people who are on the ground have, as I have put it, the tools to do the job. When a pollution prevention officer goes about his work in the field he is not only being trained for the immediate technical aspects of a particular job of inspection but he should have behind him an increasing body of knowledge which will keep him constantly appraised of the developments that are taking place in technology as well as the increasing scientific knowledge that is available to help him in understanding the purpose of his job.
It is for that reason I proposed that this clause be numbered 14 and that the following clauses be renumbered. It did seem to me that it was the most appropriate place to emphasize this point so far as the actual order of the bill was concerned. I think the text of the amendment is self-explanatory. I do not feel I need to expand on it ad nauseam. I would just like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by actually reading the text of my amendment which says:
The Governor in Council shall cause to be undertaken by such agencies as he deems appropriate continuing programs of research directed to furthering the objectives of this act.
This is an amendment which provides the flexibility which is required, and at the same time would constitute a specific direction by Parliament that such research work as we are doing from time to time be directed, in an appropriate proportion at least, to the furthering of the aims and objectives of Bill C-202, an act to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the amendment, I believe that in the preamble to the bill and in the bill itself, the powers and regulations granted to the Governor in Council will allow the government to provide research facilities if they do not already exist.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is no quarrel at all
there.
DEBATES	June 3, 1970


Steven Otto: There are powers in the bill to insnect ships, to set standards for the type of containers to be used and for the type of construction, etc. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not too urgent.
I should like to speak partially on the amendment as related to the bill. In this respect, I really should be debating with the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) and not the minister, with all respect to the minister. It was the hon. member from Coast Chilcotin who, almost singlehandedly, drafted this bill. Back in February 1968, the minister and many others took part in a certain meeting where the member for Coast Chilcotin mentioned this great problem of the forthcoming visit of the Manhattan. At that time we did not know if this was a soft drink or a hard drink, in fact nobody paid particular attention to it. He brought it up again and again. With all respect to members in the committee, I have no doubt that it was he who kept plugging and promoting the report of the committee and, subsequently, the bill which is before us now. I always like to give credit to a back bencher who has been singularly successful in his endeavours. If the hon. member achieves nothing else in this House, he will have done a great service to Canada through the presentation of this bill.
I hope that the sovereignty of the Arctic is not a topic to which one cannot address oneself with some humility and perhaps some humour. Of course, we voted unanimously for the bill. This great subject of sovereignty has come to us as a revelation-


Mr. Benjamin:: It has with the Liberals, not with us.


Steven Otto: Surely, the hon. member is not suggesting that he is not in favour of the bill. He voted for it. In fact, the NDP is not really concerned about the sovereignty of Canada so much as plucking the feathers from the eagle south of the border at every opportunity. They can no longer twist the tail of the hon. so now it is the eagle. If it were not for the United States ships, the Russian ships or some others, they would have voted against the bill-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Liberals just found out about sovereignty.


Steven Otto: When the bill was discussed in the House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) addressed himself to it. It was a defensive measure. Instead of saying "We are right in declaring sovereignty because we will and

June 3. 1970	COMMONS
must control possible pollution in the Arctic", we went about it the other way and said, "We are right because there are certain precedents we can follow". In other words, no one can prove us wrong; it is not so much that we are right as that no one can prove us wrong. An examination of international law will not justify our position and it is useless to try to show why we think we are right when others will not acknowledge it. There was comment about unilateral law or unilateral action. Unilateral action by a powerful nation is law, but unilateral action by Canada may not be law.


An hon. Member:: Oh?


Steven Otto: It is questionable whether or not it will be law. But that is not the point of my argument, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying whether it is going to be law or whether it is unilateral or, in particular, whether it will be supported by the international convention on international law; we are going to do it because it is right and we have to do it now. The United Sates is taking the same tack in its affairs. In that way, we will lead from a positive position instead of from a defensive position.
I decry the speeches of cabinet members who spoke on this bill from the defensive position. They indicated why we were justified in doing this instead of saying, this is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to proceed with it. The member for Coast Chileotin did not justify his apparently negative stand. This bill is necessary now because of the curious problem of transportation in the Arctic-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What do you think of the motion?


Steven Otto: The hon. member wants to know what I think of the motion. I think if the sponsor had read the preamble of the bill he would have realized there was no necessity for the amendment. I assume he put it in to allow me the opportunity of debating the bill, so I am taking advantage of it.
There are some particulars upon which I would like the minister to comment. The first is really a quasi-legal problem. If I am correct the bill represents a complete change of law, including international law. There is no longer any emphasis on negligence. I believe clause 6 or 7 states that wherever an accident occurs there is automatic liability with or without negligence. Throughout the common law and in the business world there is and always has been the principle that where
DEBATES	7699
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act there is an element of negligence compensation goes to the person injured. The bill spells out the type of liability and the preference that law shall bear in court, saying that negligence or lack of it is of no consequence at all. This is a change even from international law.
I wonder how that provision will be adjudicated, especially since all of the structures, the equipment the ships or wells, are approved by our own government. If there is an accident those involved could say, "I gave you, the government of Canada, all the plans and you approved them so you are a joint tort-feasor; you and I are together in this mess, so why should I have to pay unilaterally?" If it is a case of liability, none the less, I think there should be greater emphasis in the bill on an insurance fund which does not bring in the question of sovereignty for sovereignty's sake without a practical solution. It could be an insurance fund built up by all the shippers for the payment of liability.
Another aspect of this bill that I would like to discuss is that we seem to depend greatly on the seizure of equipment. That is to say, wherever damages are caused and wherever people have claims, the government can seize the ships. I do not know what they will do with them, but out of that resource we are supposed to pay the claims. It should be brought to the attention of the minister that just a short time ago a $600,000 claim was filed against a ship in the St. Lawrence. The ship was taken to harbour, thus incurring a further $200,000 expenditure. The total sale price of the ship was $6,000. There are not many customers for ships, Mr. Speaker. We could be faced with a consortium of ship owners saying to each other, "Don't buy any ships that I have lost or that have been seized on my behalf." The government may find itself stuck with ships or equipment and without a market for them. I think it is fallacy to rely upon seizure as is imposed in clause 23. It just will not work. I do not think that enough ship owners will wish to see this work. What is to happen if a bunch of ships becomes involved? I do not see what can be done about the matter of liability, unless a reserve fund is established out of which liability claims can be met.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I also wish the minister to say something about the following point. Let us assume that the government's right to pass this bill is recognized. I think it will be recognized. How, then, are we to enforce it? Suppose that the ship of a shipowner who has not received
"700	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1970
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act clearance, and whose plans have not been approved, is suddenly discovered in the Arctic. What shall we do? Shall we send an icebreaker after it with a gun?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That seems to fit the government's thinking.


Mr.   Oiio@: Can you imagine the case, at 2i miles an hour. The ships will be almost like turtles going through the ice.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We might be able to stop the other ships that way.


Steven Otto: Hon. gentlemen opposite are laughing. But do I not portray a rather ridiculous scene? How are we to patrol these waters and enforce the law?


An hon. Member:: Let the minister pull the trigger.


Steven Otto: I wish the minister would answer these questions, in order to give us an idea whether this bill constitutes merely a declaration of sovereignty. If it does, I submit it will not serve much purpose. If the bill has a definite purpose, then we should understand clearly how it will be administered. How is the law to be enforced, not in those cases where everything is done legally, but in those cases where there is an infraction of the law. How do we enforce it? We may not wish to be nationalistic in the enforcement of this law; but how will we make an individual shipowner who does not wish to go through all the rigmarole involved, and who may not wish to spend money repairing his ship and putting it into proper condition for the Arctic, obey this law?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We tell him he cannot go, and that is all.


Mr.   Oiio@: I think that amendments such as the one we are considering will, if accepted, do more harm than good. I think it is better to consider these matters as the need arises. The preamble of the bill alludes to research. If we ask agencies of the government and our universities to undertake research, the Governor in Council and the minister would need to authorize the spending of money. I suggest that the conditions under which such work is to be undertaken could be spelled out in the regulations on the basis of knowledge that is acquired by appropriate departments of government without the necessity of the amendment.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the amendment now before the House. I certainly endorse it. I think we should include in the act provisions which would allow continuing programs of research to be directed to furthering the objects of the act, which deals primarily with our Arctic areas. I disagree with the previous speaker, who suggested that this aspect of research is included in the bill. He talked about regulations. Regulations can be made and changed, without doubt. Unquestionably, if the need for such research were to be spelled out in the act itself, that research would go forward.
We have heard about the research into oil pollution problems being undertaken in Canada today, and some research is currently being carried out on the east coast of Canada as a result of the unfortunate sinking of the Arrow. It is tragic that there should be an oil spill off our east coast before this type of research is thought to be necessary and is carried out. It could have been and should have been undertaken long ago, because oil pollution is one type of pollution in particular that we need to prevent. May I point out that pollution of any type in the Arctic brings a far more serious threat to both the ecology and wildlife of the area than does pollution in the temperate zone.
On August 14, 1969, Dr. Richard E. Warner of the Memorial University of Newfoundland presented a brief on the environmental effects of oil pollution in Canada, and this brief shows excellent reasons why amendments such as this one ought to be included in the act. One of his fields of study has been the Arctic, and we need only look at some of the pages of this fine report to realize just how serious are the potential oil pollution problems of our Arctic areas. May I put on record some of the points he has raised in his brief to show how desperately needed is a great deal of research, and how oil spills in the Arctic will affect our ecology? Oil spills will affect not only the Arctic, but all of northern Canada drastically. In the bottom paragraph on page 12, he talks of the extreme urgency of precautions being taken against oil pollution hazards in the Canadian Arctic, and then says:
The Toronto Globe and Mail recently reported (16 July 1969) that the first of a proposed series of 15 exploratory wells on Melville Island being drilled by Panarctic Oils Ltd. of Calgary, had suffered a gas blowout (from a split in the casing) about midnight of Sunday, 13 July and had been out of control ever since.
June 3, 1970	COMMONS
I point out that this brief was presented on August 14, 1969. It continues:
According to that source, the specialist brought in by the company to stop the blowout reported that a routine approach would not be feasible because of the almost impossible working conditions on and around the rig. Had this blowout been oil instead of gas, Canada would at this very moment be deeply embroiled in the most massive case of oil pollution in her history.
I think every one knows that where you find gas you frequently find oil, and vice versa. The brief continues:
One has but to reflect on the widely documented recent oil blowout of a well offshore of Santa Barbara...to realize the potential magnitude of such a disaster. And since the Canadian Government owns 45 per cent of the stock of Panarctic Oils Ltd___the Government may therefore find itself in the most unenviable position of becoming a major polluter of the environment while simultaneously trying to curb pollution by others.
The brief then refers to oil pollution problems in Cook Inlet, Alaska. It says:
[DOT] (5:00p.m.)
The pattern of oil pollution of Cook Inlet, Alaska, can be utilized to evaluate some of the potentials of Canadian Arctic oil development activity. Oil was discovered in Cook Inlet in 1962. Today there are 13 giant drilling platforms in upper Cook Inlet, each one valued at $12 to $15 million. Wells are drilled through the platform legs, and the oil subsequently pumped from them passes through concrete-encased underwater pipelines to storage tanks on land. Tankers then receive the oil and transport it south. Approximately 116 miles of these underwater pipelines are now in operation, some of them extending for several miles on the floor of Cook Inlet. There are conflicting reports from the oil industry as to whether the lines are equipped with automatic shut-off devices, but apparently they are not. It will be recalled that a report is at hand indicating destruction of such pipelines by ice action at a water depth of 250 feet.
This underlines the need for research projects to be carried on. I quote further.
An extraordinary series of oil pollution incidents followed the discovery of oil in Cook Inlet. These incidents now average 1-2 every fortnight; their severity ranges from modest to extremely destructive. Tens of thousands of seabirds and waterfowl have been killed by this pollution, and even the commercial species of fish and bottom-dwelling crabs have been affected.
Concern is growing for the welfare of the mammal populations of the region, including the beluga whale, seals, sea otters, bears and furbearers.
In April 1968, the then U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, called for an emergency control program for Cook Inlet oil operations, and for more conscientious efforts by industry. The comments he made at that time are most appropriate to the present discussion. He stated, in part:
"During recent months I have received well-substantiated evidence that exploration and develop-
DEBATES	7701
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act ment activities in Cook Inlet have resulted in a recurring series of pollution incidents. Between June 1966 and December 1967 there were some 75 incidents of oil pollution in Cook Inlet reported by federal and state agencies responsible for the conservation of natural resources in the area."
One report available to the Secretary revealed that nearly 100 pollution incidents were recorded in Cook Inlet, Alaska, between March 1966 and April 1968.
This unenviable record of environmental contamination produced by the oil industry in Cook Inlet is in part the result of inadequate controls, in part the result of attempting to exploit oil resources in a difficult and poorly understood environment. Cook Inlet is, climatically, no more difficult-and probably considerably less difficult- than the Canadian Arctic slope and Beaufort Sea.
And since Canadian environmental protection legislation and regulations governing oil activities are considerably more lax than those of the U.S., there is every reason to expect that Canadian Arctic oil activities will be at least as destructive as those in Cook Inlet. Add to this probability the results of ancillary terrestrial activities-roads, pipelines, settlements, storage facilities and their relevant construction and maintenance activities-and the prediction of impact upon the fragile Arctic environment is not an encouraging one.
That is the end of the quotation. Since this brief was written, some legislation has been presented to the House to tighten up the regulations applicable to the oil industry in the Arctic, but I should like to point out that we have leased many hundreds of millions of acres in the Arctic covering not only the mainland but some of the islands and the waters in between. Oil drilling is taking place and the number of wells drilled will increase. Further oil discoveries will be made. There is no doubt about this. We shall encounter problems similar to those which have been discussed in the brief from which I have just quoted. This is why there is such a need for an amendment of the kind now proposed. A guarantee of protection is needed and the greatest measure of protection which could be afforded to Canadians today is the certainty that adequate research into our Arctic ecology would be carried out.
I have gone through a large number of pamphlets and booklets on the work done by various nations in northern regions. Canada is not in the forefront of research. We have done some, but the amount has been limited. Over the years we have been reluctant to pump money into research projects which are desperately needed in these areas. As I say, there is no doubt that oil will be discovered. The problem of transporting the oil from the islands to the mainland and thence to various depots in the south will have to be met. There is talk of a pipeline south. There is talk of
7702	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1970
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act transporting the oil by means of huge tankers which will break through the ice to bring the oil to the markets of the world.
One of the most recent publications to reach me deals in part with the tremendous difficulties which would accompany the building of a pipeline over the permafrost. For obvious reasons, the oil would have to be fairly warm in order to move rapidly through the line, and the heat generated would gradually thaw out the permafrost upon which the line itself rested. Those directly concerned have some idea as to the magnitude of these problems. The depth of thaw to which the permafrost would be subjected over a period of time has been calculated. But we in Canada have done no research along these lines. We do not even understand the effects on the Arctic ecology of allowing machines to run over the delicate surface of the land. The tracks of vehicles and machines which were used decades, even generations ago, still remain to be seen after 70 or 80 years. The Arctic is not a temperate zone. Most of our planning is temperate zone planning; it has never been geared to the Arctic. This is why my hon. friend moved his motion urging acceptance of an amendment which would guarantee continued research into Arctic conditions. I trust the minister will accept the amendment and thus assure the Canadian people that research will go forward.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the arguments put forward by the hon. members who have spoken. This amendment was put forward in the committee, was debated by the committee and voted down because it was judged that it was a frivolous amendment, that it was really just the expression of a wish. I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has had many occasions to express his concern. Indeed, we also are concerned about research in the north and we moved forward a long time before this amendment was moved in the committee or in the House.
The Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development yesterday discussed at great length some of the aspects of the research program, the involvement of various people, conservation groups, the oil industry, and so on, in order to find ways and means to make sure the north is developed properly and that errors made south of the 60th parallel are not repeated. I do not think that an
June 3, 1970	COMMONS
amendment that expresses the wish of some members of the House in regard to this bill should be introduced at this time. As the hon. member for York West (Mr. Otto) pointed out, this question is covered in the preamble to the bill.
In addition to that, I think it would lead to duplication. Many committees have been formed comprised of all sorts of people. My own department is conducting research. The hon. member should know that there is very extensive research being carried out at this time at Inuvik, where an experimental pipeline has been built from which all sorts of data have been obtained. Last week I was in Washington discussing the situation with U.S. authorities, and I found them very impressed by the way we are tackling this problem in Canada, and by the fact that we are doing our homework.
I heard my good friend from the Prairies talking about horses getting out of the barn. I do not know this expression in English, though we have similar expressions in French. Last summer the Manhattan sailed into northern waters, and we welcomed the ship in the north because we felt it important in terms of seeing whether it was possible to develop the north economically. The Manhattan tried again this year and the experiment has made new progress in terms of knowledge. However, this voyage was subject to conditions laid down by this government. When I visited the Manhattan about ten days ago, I was happy to see the ship flying the Canadian flag. I was watching the situation and was delighted to notice that.
I think this bill covers all of the aspects raised by the hon. member. I appreciate the concern of hon. members who contend that research should be conducted in the north. My reply to them is that I feel we are doing lots of research now. All sorts of agencies of government are involved. If we were to pass this amendment, it would create pressure to set up some other body which would perhaps duplicate work being carried out at this time. It is quite possible for hon. members to question the officials of my department or of other departments about the research program when the departmental estimates are discussed by the various committees. All of the information in connection with research is available.
I do not want to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, but this amendment was debated in committee. A majority of the members who were considering this legislation, and were con-
DEBATES	7703
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act cemed about the work of the government in the north, voted down the amendment, and for the obvious reason to which I have referred. I appreciate very much the words of wisdom of the hon. member and of those who supported the amendment. I can assure them that the government will take note of their wishes and preoccupations, which are very much in line with our own preoccupations. But I suggest that the amendment is not needed and that the House should not accept it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister answer a question? He referred to the experiments being conducted by the Manhattan. Is he able to advise that the knowledge that is derived from these experiments, and the research conducted by the Manhattan crew, will be made available to the government of Canada without restriction, and will the government of Canada be free to pass on the benefit of that knowledge to other organizations and corporations that might be involved in the development and exploration of the north?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the way we cope with this problem is this. All of the data that the experts on the Manhattan trip are gathering at this time will be made available to the Canadian government. I think there is an arrangement whereby the private sector may acquire the information from the Humble Oil Company. I understand it is available to interested Canadians, Americans and Europeans. However, they must deal directly with Humble Oil. The data is available free of charge to the Canadian government.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: I appreciate the information that the minister has given. I would like clarification of the latter part of my question. When this data is made available to the Canadian government, is it on terms which compell the government not to pass it on to others in the private or semi-private sector?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This data is available to the Canadian government. If the private sector is interested in this data, they must deal directly with the Humble Oil Company.


Gerald William Baldwin: In other words, the Canadian government is not free to pass on this data to anyone else.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I explained the situation quite clearly.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why I put it that way.
7704	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3- 1970
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the minister permit
another question? Does the minister think we would have available the information dealing with crude petroleum in waters, which information I understand is being produced under the direction of Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan, if it had not been for the fortuitous accident of the Arrow in Chedabueto Bay? Would the government have undertaken that kind of research program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I cannot speak about research being carried out in the Maritimes by the Department of Transport. We are now negotiating and consulting with the private sector and the National Research Council to carry out special experiments to clean up or regain oil in northern waters. This program will be developed off Alaska next summer. They have permitted my department to be present and take notes of what will be happening. They are willing to make the information available to my department.
We do not know what will happen if oil is spilled in cold water. Some say it could be easier to clean in Arctic waters because by some chemical phenomena it will become more solid. However, there are other problems. If the oil gets under the ice, it would create a hell of a difficulty to clean. We need to know more about that. There will be experiments in the waters off Alaska and Canada. It makes sense that we exchange information. The sooner we have this information the better off we will be.


Mr. McCutcheon:: The minister in his
remarks, at least as I interpreted them, referred to an increase in research in protecting the environment. He did not give the impression that it was a certain percentage more than prior to these disasters occurring. I wonder if the minister could enlarge and tell us how much more research is going on and what greater percentage is being spent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I cannot give that information in terms of dollars. I know that we have increased the number of personnel who are now spending much more time on these problems. Unfortunately, I cannot state the amount of money that my department is spending on research. I stated earlier that research committees were formed. They are now working in two or three different fields. I also refer the hon. member to the ALUR program, the pipeline study in the Inuvik area and the two or three other experiments with oil to be conducted in the Arctic next summer.
The voyage of the Manhattan is of great value. This step will probably open the North for easier development in the future. When I visited there ten days ago, I was quite impressed to see the icebreaker Louis St. Laurent operating in six feet two inches of ice. I was amazed at the facility of this ship, the best Canadian icebreaker that has been built.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wish to ask the minister about the exchange of research and data. Is there any arrangement now for exchanges of information or will the minister consider attempting to reach an agreement with other Arctic countries such as Scandinavia and the Soviet Union who have undoubtedly done a great deal of work in this field? Is there a possibility of an exchange of information with those countries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I believe so, Mr. Speaker. I was gratified by a meeting I had two months ago with the Minister of Technology of Russia. He was very keen to exchange information with Canada. I was invited to that country to see their development. I was delighted to accept the invitation. Although I do not know when I will be able to visit that country, I hope that it will be sometime this summer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Before putting to the House the motion to be proposed by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I might suggest that there is a question in the mind of Mr. Speaker with regard to the acceptability of the motion. The motion seems to be in the nature of a sub-

June 3, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	7705
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
stantive question that may be beyond the scope ol the bill. However, I will put the motion to the House, but without prejudice to a subsequent decision of the chair with regard to the motion. Meanwhile, I suggest that the debate can proceed.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how we can debate a motion that, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, may not be order. I think that this amendment is completely out of order because it is not related to the bill. The bill deals with pollution and it seeks an extension of the power of the government in connection with a specific responsibility. I think the amendment goes much beyond the scope of the bill. I believe this is something which should be considered at this time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, you have already suggested a course of action and you have indicated that Mr. Speaker has some doubts about the validity of the amendment which he wishes to consider. I understood that that was the procedure we would follow. In other words, you would place a caveat on whether the amendment should be voted upon but, in the absence of Mr. Speaker himself, you suggested that the argument on the motion be proceeded with and that a ruling could be made at a later date.
However, apparently the minister does not find your suggestion acceptable. I was going to suggest that I have some remarks to make on the amendment. However, on the procedural point alone, I would bring to Your Honour's attention-and I put it on the record so that Mr. Speaker may have an opportunity of considering it-that the amendment I have proposed to this bill contains the exact words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who spoke on second reading of this bill and expressed himself in this way. He is a very senior minister of the government and he suggested, in the very words of the amendment, that this bill should be without prejudice. In other words, I am merely citing remarks made on behalf of the government by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Apparently, neither he nor the government thought those remarks were out of order. So, I fail to see how the amendment could be considered to be out of order. But that, of course, is up to Mr. Speaker when he makes the ruling.
I certainly feel very strongly that we should proceed with the debate on the
motion. If Mr. Speaker considers it proper to rule on the amendment at a later date, then of course it will be perfectly appropriate..


Gerald William Baldwin: I was only going to indicate that I would be prepared to present an argument on the question of the acceptability of the motion, but I did not want to interfere with the very useful and eloquent statement which I am sure is going to be made by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). If Your Honour now indicates that your original ruling will prevail and you will entertain an argument on the merit of the motion, I will not intervene now but will say something later on the question of order. But if Your Honour feels you want to hear argument on the point raised by the minister, then I will make my contribution now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I have said earlier that the Chair had rather serious reservations as to the validity of the motion proposed by the member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). This is why I have suggested that the motion be debated, subject however to the caveat that I have first pointed out, so as to allow hon. members to discuss this question which is more serious than one might think and which might have some bearing upon amendments to other bills presented to the House.
I am, however, prepared to listen to hon. members in connection with the procedure so that the Chair might be better informed when the time comes to rule on the validity of the motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: The very useful, and what we regard as very essential, amendment which has been offered in the name of the hon. member for Oxford is, in our opinion, quite valid because it fulfills that condition precedent to an amendment, namely, that the objective of it is to effect such an alteration in the question as could obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon. That is as set out in citation 201. It is all very well for the minister to talk about, pollution, but I should like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to one or two parts of the bill. For example, clause 3 states:
Except where otherwise provided, this act applies to the waters (In this act referred to as the "Arctic waters") adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic-
June 3, 1970
7706	COMMONS DEBATES
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
The Canadian Arctic is nowhere defined. It is the opinion of this party, which has been trying to prompt this government to make a declaration with respect to what is the Canadian Arctic for some time and finally was successful in kicking the Prime Minister and the government into making some progress along these lines, that the Canadian Arctic has a very specific meaning and interpretation. It is quite wrong and most improper to put in a bill the words "the Canadian Arctic" without being precise as to the definition of these words.
What the hon. member for Oxford has done in a very simple amendment is to point out that the extent of the area to which the proposals in this bill shall be applied must be taken as being without prejudice to the right of the Canadian government and the Canadian people to maintain the claim to sovereignty which has been made over a great many years. We recognize that this is a bill which does not per se deal with the question of sovereignty. But in order to indicate the extent to which the provisions of this bill will apply, the government has ventured into the area of the Canadian Arctic.
There is a very simple proposition of common law that sometimes when you mention a specific area to be covered, failure to define it with precision means that you may well be abandoning claims that you have heretofore made. What we fear is that, not knowing what international problems lie ahead because there is another companion bill which is, as a matter of fact, subject to the procedures of international law and other legislation may well be enacted later, by failing at this time to reiterate with determination and vigour the claim of the Canadian people as to what is the Canadian Arctic, a term used in this bill, we might well be held to have abandoned the claim which has been made over so many years.
Therefore, without in any way putting ourselves in the position where we are objecting to the principle of the bill, we are saying that the bill is in the form which is acceptable to us when it contains a saving clause which provides that nothing in this act shall be in any way construed to be inconsistent with Canada's rightful claim to sovereignty in and over the waters, islands and land areas of the Arctic regions. What that might be is something which may well have to be discussed and fought in other areas and courts. But we are saying that to the extent there is and there has been a claim, this bill shall not be

construed as abandoning that claim. We feel that without this clause the government is taking a very doubtful step because the failure to include the fact that this is without prejudice to maintaining our claims of the past could constitute an act which other interested nations could say is an abandonment of what sovereignty we have.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If the hon. member's motion were to say that we are claiming sovereignty over certain parts of Greenland, over certain waters in respect of which there had never been any claim before, and we specified what they were, then I think the objection of the minister would be a proper one. I would have to agree with him. But I ask Your Honour to read over the wording of this amendment carefully. It says:
-to be inconsistent with Canada's rightful claim of sovereignty in and over the water, ice and land areas.. .between the degrees of longitude 60 and longitude 141.
In other words, whatsoever claims Canada would have prior to the enactment of this bill will be maintained. Therefore, this is a principle which we feel must be introduced into the bill in order to make it acceptable to us, and yet not constitute the type of amendment which has to be made on the report stage where we try to amend a specific clause. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this is not without difficulty. We are probably breaking new ground. Hard facts sometimes make difficult law. This government proposal is an unusual and unique proposition, and it certainly poses problems for the Chair. However, I think that this is an occasion when the Chair, because this is an innovation, should say that an amendment of this kind, one which is essential in our opinion to preserve Canadian sovereignty, should be allowed to be put so that members could express their viewpoints and come to a decision as to whether or not this legislation should be passed without the addition of this saving clause.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the argument of the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Baldwin), I must say I feel the bill defines very clearly the limits we want to impose with regard to pollution areas.
The member claims we must define the boundaries of the Canadian territory. I feel Parliament defined them a long time ago. At
June 3. 1970	COMMONS
the turn ol the century, we occupied in fact all the islands in the Arctic. North of the 60th parallel, the Canadian government has been present continuously on each of those islands, and its presence has never been challenged. We are present on each and every Arctic island, for officials of my department, R.C.M.P. officers and officials of the Department of Transport employed in meteorological research centres are stationed there.
In addition, for a long time now we, in Canada, have adopted legislation that applies to all the Arctic islands and to the whole continental shelf within the Arctic.
For instance, I have in mind the legislation governing the granting of permits for oil exploration. In fact, in the Northwest Territories, the government has granted permits to American, French, Japanese, German, British or other foreign corporations which have interests in the area, which means that the effective control of Canadian lands north of the 60th parallel, has been established for a very long time. I cannot see how this amendment which deals with Canadian lands could then be in order in view of the circumstances.
It is a bill, as I said earlier, which deals with pollution and which provides that Canada must assume specific responsibilities with regard to the artic waters, even beyond Canadian territorial waters.
My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has introduced a bill which was passed in this House and the purpose of which was to provide that our territorial waters would extend to a limit of 12 miles off the coasts of Canada:
The bill under consideration goes a little further but it assumes only part of the jurisdiction, that is to say that because of our direct responsibility in the field of ecology in the North, we have chosen to prevent risks of pollution. In fact, as giant tankers could some day sail through northern waters, we have decided to take unilateral action so as to prevent pollution because, in our opinion, international law was developing much too slowly. We have had experiences in that respect. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) right here in this House said on that subject: "First, we must have consultations with the United Nations. Then, he went to New York last September, I think, to discuss this problem with U Thant, the Secretary General to the United Nations, and his visit was followed by the Brussels conference on the law of the sea. The results of this conference indicated clear-
DEBATES	7707
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Aet ly that we could not get, in the near future, an international pollution control scheme oh the high seas because often during those international conferences on the law of the sea, countries having ships or fleets are the ones that are most interested rather than those with coasts to protect, which is something entirely new nowadays. A few years ago, protecting coasts against pollution was not a problem but today it is a very serious one.
I am no expert in procedure like my hon, friend, but I believe this amendment goes far beyond the scope of this bill, which already received unanimous approval from the House. Now we are told today that what was unanimously approved a few months ago is not valid anymore and that we should amend the bill all over so that it would not only deal with pollution but would control many fields already controlled through other statutes, for instance the one concerning territorial waters as well as the one controlling oil and mineral research in the North.
For those reasons I contend this motion is probably out of order, as the Chair had suspected it to be, and I cannot see why we should engage in a long debate on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the piece of legislation now before us.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the minister a question? Does he not realize-I am very serious about this-that by accepting this amendment, which in effect says that the bill is not in any way deemed to be an abandonment of any claims to sovereignty which did exist, this House is strengthening the arm of the government in all of these international negotiations and discussions which may be taking place? When it comes to talking to the United States or to the United Nations, does the minister not realize we are strengthening the government's hands in these negotiations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the substance of the point of order that is being discussed, it is whether this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. As the minister quite properly suggested, the title of the bill indicates that it is an act to prevent pollution of the Arctic waters. No one is quarrelling with that as being the main thrust and purpose of the bill. However, as the hon. member for Peace River quite properly observed, if this amendment purported to constitute an addition to this bill, if in effect it made a declaration of our sovereignty in a certain direction, I think it would obviously be beyond the scope of the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, if I may suggest, that is not what the amendment proposes.


Gerald William Baldwin: I did not say that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I may not have heard the hon. member correctly but that would be my view.
I discussed at some length with my colleagues the question of whether we should consider moving an amendment which would clarify the question of our sovereignty, but we decided we could not do this within the scope of the bill.

The subject of this amendment certainly was the object of considerable discussion in committee. If I recall correctly, without having the second reading debates in front of me, questions surrounding our sovereignty, whether the bill involved our sovereignty and in what way it involved it, were very much to the fore. Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs involved himself in that aspect of the debate.
In committee we listened to testimony from people who are presumably as knowledgeable as any on questions of international law. Precedents were cited to us and it was stated that this bill did not in any way affect any rights or claims to sovereignty that Canada has or has declared itself to have in the past. As I read this amendment, in effect it says exactly what the experts told us was the case. Even though a declaration of jurisdiction as distinct from sovereignty is involved-a declaration of jurisdiction over an area out 100 miles from Canadian land with respect to pollution-this bill does not in any way affect any existing claims to sovereignty.
All that this amendment does, in effect, Mr. Speaker, is to add the weight of the expression of Parliament to the professional opinions given to the committee. In other words, the amendment says the same thing that the experts stated was the case, except that in my view it would verify the fact that Parliament agrees with their opinion. In my view, this is all that it does. It does not add anything to the bill but simply makes a declaration.
As the minister has quite properly observed, the bill does not deal with sovereignty; it deals with the matter of establishing a regime of pollution control in an area beyond that which has been traditionally accepted by the sea powers of the world. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, I feel the amendment is not beyond the scope of the bill but rather it is simply saying that this bill will not affect any matters that lie beyond the scope of the bill.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member who has just spoken,
I think that if the Chair allowed this amendment to be introduced, this would bring into the bill now before the House a new and irrelevant factor.
June 3. 1970
We are now considering Bill C-202, an act to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the main land and islands of the Canadian Arctic.
If we look carefully at the whole of this bill, we realize that it applies to the safety zones and to the regulations that apply to the people who are developing the North, to the buildings which might be erected and to the vessels likely to sail on the waters of the Arctic areas.
The amendment, Mr. Speaker, reads as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall in any way he construed to he inconsistent with Canada's rightful claim of sovereignty in and over the water, ice and land areas of the Arctic regions between the degrees of longitude 60 and longitude 141.
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
This means that a new factor is going to be introduced, that of sovereignty, which is not the purpose of the bill. It is a new factor which is not in accordance with the objects of Bill C-202. I would particularly like to refer the chair to citation 203(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which states, and I quote:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



^ '[DOT]* * *	
i- *
'' : [DOT] * *

i
.*
...

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
			
			
			
			
			
			
			


Thursday, June 4, 1970