1970-06-04

MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 INDUSTRY NEED FOR MEASURES TO CURB IMPORTS OF SHOES

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, with the support of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 to discuss a specific and important matter concerning the very difficult situation of the footwear manufacturing industry of Canada.
This important and urgent matter is the pressing duty incumbent upon the government to take forthwith the necessary measures to restrict imports of footwear into Canada and thus favour Canadian industries.
The present situation in the footwear industry leads to short term unemployment and to the closing of an alarming number of factories in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond has given the chair the required notice under Standing Order 26.
The problem brought up by the hon. member for Richmond is certainly of national importance and worries several of his colleagues as well who have already shown, by means of repeated representations during the last weeks and months, that they are equally interested in this matter.
However, it seems to me that this very important problem drawn to our attention by the hon. member for Richmond does not have the urgency and immediacy required under Standing Order 26.
With the hon. member for Richmond and his colleagues, we must admit it is a problem national in scope, but it is important that a matter brought up under the provisions of Standing Order 26 be of a new, urgent and sudden nature, otherwise we are not justified in implementing said order.
Under the circumstances, while acknowledging again the immediate and national importance of the problem raised by the hon. member, I respectfully suggest to him that it is not possible today to propose a motion asking for the adjournment of the House to discuss the problem which he pointed out.
The hon. member will perhaps find another way under the provisions of another standing order, so that the House may have the opportunity to discuss the problem to which he referred.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. As any programs to control inflation are unworkable without the active co-operation of organized labour, and as the answer given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that any efforts which the Prices and Incomes Commission may have made to obtain this co-operation from organized labour have been discontinued, would the Prime Minister now give serious consideration to calling a private meeting of the leaders of organized labour and use the prestige of his very high office and his not inconsiderable persuasive powers to convince these gentlemen that it is in the national interest and very urgent for them to give their co-operation so that a program to control inflation can be of actual practicality?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I will certainly consider it, but may I add that I do not think it is necessary to act in this regard today because a meeting is scheduled for tomorrow of the Ministers of Finance of the various provinces with the federal Minister of Finance. They will be discussing this problem, and I will then be given a report by the federal Minister of Finance. I will see at that time if there are further steps along
7712	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the lines suggested by the hon. member which could be taken usefully by the federal government.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister gave me the following answer to a similar question which I posed on January 23:
That Is a very constructive suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I will take it into consideration it it becomes apparent that a meeting would be useful.
That was four and a half months ago and the cost of living and inflation have gone up considerably and at an accelerated rate since that time. Unless something is apparent of which the rest of the House is not aware, I suggest that the Prime Minister call such a meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would not agree that the supplementary question directed to the Prime Minister appears to be argumentative. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question which I realize concerns a very serious matter.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister was kind enough to say some four and a half months ago that this suggestion was a very constructive one, does he not consider that the time has now arrived for him to take the chance of a rebuff and in the interests of the national economy and the country as a whole to call these gentlemen together and put it to them in a straightforward way, behind closed doors, away from press and radio, and see if he cannot persuade them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I merely want to refresh the hon. member's memory by pointing out that his suggestion, which I found to be constructive, was followed up by meetings I had with the main spokesmen for the two main labour unions in Canada. These meetings were held,
I believe, in late February or early March. Therefore they were held fairly soon after I told the hon. member that I would consider such meetings. They were held.


George Harris Hees: Publicly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Publicly.



INFLATION-PROPOSAL TO PROVINCES OF TAX ON WAGE GAINS IN EXCESS OF GUIDELINES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the Prime Minister's statement that the Minister of Finance will be commencing meetings

DEBATES	June 4. 1970
tomorrow with the provincial Ministers of Finance, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Canadian government intends to place before the provincial Ministers of Finance a proposal for imposing a federal tax on wage gains in excess of the guidelines set by the Prices and Incomes Commission of something between 5 per cent and 6 per cent per year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can seriously be expected to answer a question in the House at this time relating to what would be a budgetary measure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Prime Minister regarding a budgetary matter. I am asking the Prime Minister whether the government of Canada intends to place before the provincial governments a proposal for a tax on any wage gains in excess of the guidelines set by the Prices and Incomes Commission, whether the Canadian government is proposing such a move, and whether it is going to be discussed with the provincial governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what extent the meetings to be held tomorrow will be in camera. I believe they will be in camera, and I believe the practice is that federal proposals, provincial proposals and the reactions thereto are made the subject of a communique at the end of the day. If so, this would be the case after the meetings in Winnipeg.



INFLATION-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES OF IMPOSITION OF WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to hold discussions with the provincial governments, having in mind the constitutional problems involved, to secure by way of delegated authority or otherwise any scheme for imposing wage and price controls, either solely on the part of the federal government or jointly with the provincial governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only answer in hypothetical terms, Mr. Speaker. If it were our intention to have wage and price controls we would obviously be discussing with the provinces the best ways to go about it.
June 4, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister the simple question: is the government now contemplating this move?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has said many times, we are contemplating all possible moves which might help to contain inflation. We have studied this measure as well as the one suggested by the leader of the New Democratic Party and many, many others, but the time and place for presenting such moves are announced by the government at these meetings or to the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Temiscamingue wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On Tuesday last-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might allow me to complete my sentence.

I wanted to point out to the hon. member for Temiscamingue that I must interrupt him, since the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands is rising on a question of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last, as recorded at page 7596 of Hansard, I put this question to the Minister of Finance:
May I ask the minister if it is his intention to ask the provincial governments to co-operate with the federal government in imposing restraint on wages and salaries, and if it is the government's intention in that case to cover the entire field of other incomes, particularly profits, interest, rents and prices?
The minister's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, I had not thought of making that request of the provinces.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the fact that statements are now emanating allegedly from persons in high office in the government, as reported in last night's issue of the Toronto Star, to the effect that the Minister of Finance is going to place such proposals before the provincial Ministers of Finance, I suggest that this House has a right to know whether the minister's statement on Tuesday was a correct statement of the fact or whether these reports allegedly emanating from his department are correct reports? The Prime Minister's statement today certainly does not shed any light-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member raises this point as a question of privilege. The Chair has to decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege and whether this matter should be pursued further. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands might have a supplementary question or a point of order but I doubt very much if his privileges as a Member of Parliament and his rights in the discharge of his duties have been affected in these proceedings in such a way that there would be a legitimate question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member has a supplementary question. I would be pleased to recognize him in just a moment. Perhaps I might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue and then I will return to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



TAXATION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Did he read the statements made yesterday by Mr. David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank, the most powerful financial institution in the world, who said that the white paper on taxation is more susceptible to prevent investments in Quebec than separatism itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I saw the headline just before coming into the House today. That is all I know.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister comment on the statement tomorrow if he has the time to read it today?
7714	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have better things to do than comment on all the statements published in all the newspapers, especially when they originate in the United States.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My supplementary question is addressed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement of the Minister of Finance to which I have just referred, may I ask the Prime Minister now if he can assure the House, as the Minister of Finance did, that the government has no intention of making any proposals to the provincial Ministers of Finance regarding the imposition of wage controls or the imposition of any tax on wage gains to keep them in line with the guidelines set down by the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would save a lot of his time and the time of the House if he were to take the word of the Minister of Finance against that of a canard.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Finance is so flexible from day to day.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister indicate today approximately when he intends to introduce the legislation on cigarette advertising control and whether he is prepared to make a statement at that time?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As I indicated to the House a while ago, Mr. Speaker, we are now formulating our policies based on the committee report that is now before the government and receiving consideration. When that process is completed, if there is legislation I would anticipate it would be introduced in the next session.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: should like to ask a supplementary question

DEBATES	June 4, 1970
of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Is his department taking a look at the excessive promotional advertising compaigns being conducted across the country by tobacco manufacturers with a view to checking into false and misleading advertising and excessive promotion?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is no law against excessive promotion and, with reference to the same story that the hon. member refers to, I think the indications are that some of the tobacco companies are increasing their promotional advertising in anticipation of legislation preventing it. I think that is a most deplorable development on the part of the tobacco companies. With regard to misleading advertising laws we have one of the leading companies before the courts in Alberta for what we allege is misleading promotion. If we obtain evidence of misleading advertising by cigarette companies, we will prosecute them in court.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the recent earthquake in Peru where victims would number close to 50,000, does the Canadian government intend to imitate other countries and take the necessary measures to help the stricken country?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that this question was asked yesterday and that the Prime Minister answered it.



TAXATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance. In his absence and in the unfortunate absence of the Minister without Portfolio, may I direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the government now producing drafts of legislation based on the proposals in the Minister of Finance's white paper on taxation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is not the
June 4, 1970

minister's day in the House. I did not take note of the question but I will look it up in Hansard and refer it to him.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Could he inform the House what are the duties of Mr. Robert Lindsay who has been seconded recently from the Department of Justice to the Department of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question should be placed on the Order Paper or, if there is urgency which is not apparent to the Chair, it should be debated or considered at the time of adjournment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps the minister can tell us about the cost of breathalyzers.



BARLEY-AMOUNT STORED ON FARMS

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the setting of the unusually high quota for barley of 16 bushels per acre and the apparent slowness of supplies coming forward to fill this quota, can the minister inform the House whether this indicates that the amount of barley stored on farms has been grossly overestimated?


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that I have some reservations about this question. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion whether prognostications have been right or wrong. I would not think that the question as asked is in order.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Considering the continuing disruption of the postal service and the apparent deadlock in the talks, can he advise what the government is now doing to bring to an end this problem which is already affecting the economy of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are doing nothing more than
Inquiries of the Ministry what the President of the Treasury Board said yesterday we were doing.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In view of the Prime Minister's answer and in view of the "negotiaphobia" existing between the Public Service of Canada and the government of Canada and the refusal to permit mediation of the dispute, is the government considering taking steps along the lines of those taken when similar labour problems regarding the railways arose and the country was threatened by strikes, in order to keep business and industry economically healthy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not with a view to immediate action, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Matane has a supplementary question.


Pierre De Bané: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the Acting President of the Treasury Board whether negotiations have taken place this morning and whether there have been developments that would be of interest to the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not his day in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question of the hon. member for Hillsborough which was answered by the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has said that the government is doing no more than the President of the Treasury Board has outlined and as the mediator who was appointed by the government has said that Treasury Board is doing absolutely nothing to bring about a settlement of this dispute, does the government intend to do absolutely nothing whatever and allow this country to become tied up by a disastrous strike? Is that what it intends to do? It must do something a lot better.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously an argument.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member threw you boys a long pass that time.
June 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



STATEMENT BY DIRECTOR OF SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, RCMF, REGARDING RECOGNITION OF COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a speech made last week by the Director of the Security and Intelligence Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in which he warned that recognition of additional Communist countries would increase the difficulties of guarding against espionage? If so, will the Prime Minister give consideration to the question of civil servants publicly expressing views on matters which are properly the responsibility of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon.
member is asking the Prime Minister or a representative of the government to express a statement of general policy which normally should be made by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask whether such a statement will be made.


David Orlikow: In view of the seriousness of the matter I have raised, will the Prime Minister give consideration to making an early statement on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. If it is as stated by the hon. member, I will discuss the matter with the minister responsible.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I wish to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that mercury contamination beyond the point of food safety has been found in flour and bread in Ontario and Manitoba, what action has the minister taken to protect the consumer?


John Carr Munro: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question yesterday. The Food and Drug Directorate has conducted intensive examinations of mercury levels in food. It was found that it was well below levels which could in any way be considered dangerous. These samples were

taken throughout 1969. The hon. member made reference to particular areas and particular foodstuffs. We are looking into this. I am advised that we are still satisfied that the mercury content is well below the safe levels.


Percy Verner Noble: A supplementary question. I wish to advise the minister that Dr. Jarvis found in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot advise the minister. He can only ask a question. Possibly he might put his advice in the form of a question.


Percy Verner Noble: Does the minister know of a doctor finding mercury contamination in bread and flour at a level of .35 in Manitoba and .15 in Ontario?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe that government officials have been in touch with this doctor. Prior to getting in touch with him I think the doctor advised that he had been misquoted with reference to that and was basing certain conclusions on one sample which were expanded in the interpretation of his remarks. We are looking into it.


Percy Verner Noble: A supplementary question.
Could the minister advise if in his opinion mercury found in any food in addition to fish is being permitted?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is very little or no tolerance for mercury. As I say, we are very satisfied that it is well below the five parts per million. In fact, all our examinations revealed only .02 parts per million in any foodstuffs last year. The particular allegations of Dr. Jarvis are being checked into. Our information is that the doctor has stated that he was misquoted.



YELLOWKNIFE-PRESENCE OF ARSENIC IN LEAF VEGETABLES

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare had an opportunity to look into the question concerning the arsenical content of leaf vegetables in Yellowknife? If so, has the public in that community been made aware of this? Also, what steps are being taken to eradicate it?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. After the hon. member for Yukon made reference to this yesterday I had the matter checked. I am advised that officials of my department are aware of the arsenic content in this particular area. It is well below any level that
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
could be considered dangerous. In view of the allegations or statements by Dr. Butler that it is particularly bad in the area now, we are conducting another study into the matter.



WHEAT BOARD DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT OF CASH ADVANCES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of letters being sent out by the payment department of the Canadian Wheat Board demanding immediate repayment of cash advances which are in arrears from the 196869 crop year, and in view of the fact that it must be obvious to the Minister without Portfolio that farmers will be unable to repay these advances until such time as they are able to deliver sufficient grain, will the minister instruct the Canadian Wheat Board not to demand repayment plus interest until the farmers have had an opportunity to deliver such amounts of grain as will repay the cash advances?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not given notice of the question. I have no knowledge of the particular letters to which the hon. member is referring. I will be glad to look at them with him and take up the matter of any specific letters with the Wheat Board, although, of course, the ordinary practice is that repayment of cash advances is made as grain is delivered.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Does the minister wish to leave the impression that he is unaware that the Canadian Wheat Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
A review of the cities included in the special area of the district of Quebec shows that the city of Montmagny has been left out. May I ask the minister whether he would agree to study the possibility of including that municipality in the special area of Quebec?
DEBATES	7717
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would only look at the list, he would realize that hundreds of cities are not included in the special area of Quebec.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: My question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming statement made by a medical researcher in the city of Toronto that the birth control pill may be responsible for a 100 per cent increase in suicides among women, is the minister aware of this and what steps are being taken to combat it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to a study by Dr. Anderson comparing the suicide rate last year with the year 1959-60. The doctor stated this could not necessarily be connected to oral contraceptives. At the same time he pointed out that because of the use of oral contraceptives by women there is a considerable reduction in the number of deaths. This is because of pregnancies not occurring and the ill effects of premature childbirths.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question. I asked the minister if he is aware of this statement and if he is going to take steps to see that further studies are made?


John Carr Munro: The findings of this doctor were made known to the special committee advising me on this whole subject prior to his releasing it in the medical journal. We are studying the whole matter very seriously. The data which he used to found his conclusions will all be taken into consideration. The final report will probably be ready in four or five weeks.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. A. Percy Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry or his Parliamentary Secretary. Is he aware of a recent serious spillage of toxic substances from Heath Steel Mines into the Miramichi River? This is a
7718	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry matter of great importance because this river is the greatest Atlantic salmon and salmon spawning river in the world. If so, what is his department doing about it?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: We are
aware of this, Mr. Speaker. What happened was that during a cleaning process a pipeline accidentally burst causing a spill of toxic pollutants into the Miramichi River system. The damage to fish life in this area is quite serious. The situation is being closely observed. The company is working closely with the Department of Fisheries on an over-all program for pollution abatement. They have already spent $500,000 to control toxicity from plant waste.


Some hon. Members:: Read on.


George Harris Hees: Are you on chapter 2 yet?


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has completed his statement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate that a lot of serious work is being done on this problem. We are concerned about what the hon. member has said in connection with the Miramichi River. I am sure some members of the opposition are aware of this problem, even if the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is not.


George Harris Hees: He is now.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WALK-OUT BY LINESMEN AND DOCK WORKERS -ACTION TO RESTORE OPERATIONS

Mr. W. C. Scoff (Vicioria-Haliburion):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport 1 will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that no ships have been able to use the St. Lawrence Seaway since 10.15 yesterday morning owing to a strike by linesmen and dock workers, what action is the government going to take to restore the operation of the seaway?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had notice of this matter only about an hour ago and have not had time to ask the Minister of Transport whether any action has been taken. I know that the head of the seaway-


Mr. Forresiall:: Send them all to Halifax.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is right.

DEBATES	June 4, 1970



EXTENSION OF INCREASED BARLEY QUOTA TO ALBERTA TO PERMIT DELIVERY BEFORE END OF CROP YEAR

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board and pertains to the increased barley quota recently announced for Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the minister's reply that future good sales would allow similar movements from Alberta. Is the minister now in a position to assure the House that such sales will take place prior to the end of the current crop year, thus allowing the producers of Alberta equitable deliveries corresponding to those in Saskatchewan and Manitoba?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the previous statements which were made, not only the one referred to by the hon. member but the others associated with it, indicating that the quota in the eastern region of the prairies was also terminable as soon as adequate barley supplies came forward. The sales referred to are indeed frequently sales that have in fact been made, and it is a question of delivery times and of obtaining supplies for those deliveries.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the quota is terminable, which will in effect undermine the concept of orderly and equalized delivery, can the minister indicate to the House whether such provisions will become the pattern for future deliveries of grains throughout the designated region?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is generally understood that it is extremely important to move the appropriate grains required for market, and that that principle at times does take precedence over equality of opportunity of delivery among the producers at any given point in time.



ACTUAL SURPLUS IN STORAGE

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact that the members of the grain trade hold the view that all available stocks of rapeseed have now been committed to the export market, does the minister believe that this could indicate discrepancies in the forecasts of the surplus position of all grains in store in western Canada?
June 4, 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion on a certain matter, and as such I do not think the question is acceptable.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the ruling that you have just made about members of the opposition asking members of the government for opinions, does that same ruling not apply to the government when members of the opposition ask questions and the Prime Minister and other ministers get up and give opinions?


Mr. Speaker:: It applies to all members.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the city of Moose Jaw has proclaimed itself the band capital of North America, having conducted the largest band festival on the continent, would the right hon. Prime Minister accept a Bette Graham theme song record dedicated to that great city of harmony, and which I would be pleased to deliver to his office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the failure of the mediator to settle the postal dispute and since the leaders of the postal unions are prepared to resume negotiations, is not the Prime Minister of the opinion that it would be advisable for him to attend these negotiations so that an agreement can be reached as soon as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, the hon. member is inviting the government to express an opinion and I do not think that his question as worded is in order.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When does the minister plan to table the Willard report?
DEBATES	7719
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated on a motion to table this report that the government has no intention of tabling it because it is a confidential document. It was an assessment, as the House knows, of our policies on which we are basing the white paper which is presently being worked on by the government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question. Why does the minister speak in Algoma about the poverty-stricken and the poor when he has had this report before him for 16 months and we know that the cabinet has looked it over and that there are a lot of things that can be done for pensioners and the poverty-stricken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary is really an argument in support of his original question; it is not a supplementary question.



ACTION OF QUEBEC BOARD CONCERNING MOVEMENT OF EGGS INTERPRO-VINCIALLY

["Order, please. The hon. member realizes, perhaps even more than I do, that he can ask a question only to the extent that it relates to a minister's administrative responsibilities. I would not think that this question is acceptable."]
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and relates to a question asked him on May 28 concerning the Federation of Quebec Egg Producers, at which time he indicated that he would look into whether or not this body was legal. Bearing in mind that this matter affects interprovincial trade, is the minister in a position to answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister might be allowed to reply but only to the extent that the hon. member for Palliser is not asking the minister to express a legal opinion. As the hon. member knows, this is not in order.
Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of JusliceJ:
Mr. Speaker, within the limitations you have set for me may I say that I have consulted with the Minister of Agriculture, but I am not free, as Your Honour has suggested, to give a legal opinion in the House.



Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister
7720	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was stating government policy when he indicated that the Canadian government has decided to take effective action against South Africa because of its apartheid policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a statement having been made but I will look into the matter.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister after he has looked into the matter, would care to indicate what this effective action will be and, second, whether he would indicate that part of this effective action was the minister's refusal to drink South African wine?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is time for a question to be addressed to the Minister of Communications. In view of statements made about the minister in a book published yesterday by his friend Walter Gordon, does the minister plan to sue for libel, or does he accept the charge that in the 1963 budget crisis he was a vendu to American corporate capitalism?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member realizes, perhaps even more than I do, that he can ask a question only to the extent that it relates to a minister's administrative responsibilities. I would not think that this question is acceptable.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
The Quebec general industrial council, on the one hand, and economist MacPearson, on the other, have recently outlined a need for creating new jobs in the province of Quebec and have put forward specific proposals. Could the minister say whether he has instructed his staff to proceed with a special study on the basis of their conclusions?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, to create
IMr. Yewchuk.]
DEBATES	June 4, 1970
jobs is the very object of the department. I believe that our initial performance has been good and we intend to speed up the pace in that direction.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the minister indicate the approximate number of jobs which will be created in the province of Quebec between now and the end of 1970?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will take the trouble to read the reports tabled in the House, he will find, each month, which plants have been established in the province of Quebec, as well as the number of jobs that have been created.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. What does the right hon. gentleman think are the implications for Ottawa-Paris rapprochement of the refusal of France to grant overfly privileges to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, otherwise known as White Heron in single but diverted flight, Mark II.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is another canard which has no foundation in fact. I am sorry the House is constantly being misled by erroneous press reports. In this particular case there was no request made of the French government that this overflight take place.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister regarding his use of the word "canard". In answer to a question earlier the Prime Minister said the House should take note of what the Minister of Finance said rather than the canard, a story which appeared in the Toronto Star. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance said on Wednesday that the government was not considering placing the Canadian dollar on a floating rate and then on Sunday it was, does the Prime Minister really think we can have any confidence in the statements of the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: There is no answer.
June 4, 1970


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that during the past three weeks members have been unable to obtain copies of Bill C-197 because of the great demand by the public for copies of this bill, would the minister use his good offices to try to bring about a further printing?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to ascertain whether there has been this great demand, to whom it has been directed and whether or not the supplies have run out. It is not the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture or any other department to supply copies of bills. This is done through the distribution office and the Queen's Printer, as hon. members opposite know, but I shall check into it.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the supply ran out three weeks ago. I know it is not the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, but I think the Minister of Agriculture should want not only members of this House but also the public to have copies of this bill available to them.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this matter is also partly the responsibility, as has been suggested, of the distribution office. I understand that efforts are being made to obtain copies from the Queen's Printer.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it because the minister intends to withdraw Bill C-197 that copies are not available.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. As soon as members opposite learn what the farmers think about this bill, they will be most anxious to pass it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This might be a good point at which to call orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the Acting House Leader about the business for

Inquiries oj the Ministry the remainder of this week and next week and whether the government has any idea how close it is to completing the business for this part of the session?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Today the House will continue the report stage of Bill C-202, the Arctic Waters Pollution Bill, and then proceed to the third reading of Bill C-144, the Canada Water Act. If this is completed we would deal with the report stage of Bill C-203 in respect of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. Friday and Monday will be allotted days. On Tuesday we would continue with any stages of the bills announced for today, if not completed, and if they should be completed I think the House would deal with Bill C-215 in respect of the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Government House Leader indicate whether the government intends to bring back Bill C-197 and, if so, will the government give an undertaking that if it gets to the committee there will be freedom of expression for interested groups and that no technical objections will be taken to amendments of substance which may be moved?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring this matter to the attention of the House Leader who should be returning to the House tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Can the Acting House Leader say that plenty of copies of Bill C-197 will be made available immediately so that members of the House will not have to rely on canards for their information?


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting House Leader. Can he tell the House whether it is the intention of the government to completely deal with Bills C-202 and C-203 before moving on to the Elections Act next Tuesday or whenever it is?


Yves Forest: Yes. Mr. Speaker; it is the intention of the government to complete all stages of these bills before proceeding to the Canada Elections Act.


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Acting House Leader if he would ask the House Leader whether he has any agreement with the opposition to stop filibustering Bill C-197?
7722	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, 1 feel that the statement made by the hon. member is not correct. We are prepared to proceed with this bill but would like the government to give an undertaking that it will listen to the representations of interested groups.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has called orders of the day.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member rose on a supplementary question. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period ended some minutes ago. The hon. member for Peace River obtained the floor for the purpose of inquiring about the forthcoming business. I suggest to hon. members that points of order and questions of privilege raised subsequently might well be kept for later consideration. Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for Huron rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. McKinley:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be brought to the attention of the House and the people that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) spoke unexpectedly on the last night this bill was before the House and that helped to prevent the bill going to the committee on that day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we are going beyond the bounds of usual debate. I ask the co-operation of all hon. members. The Chair has called orders of the day. The hon. member rose on a point of order and he made his point. If we were to continue along this line I suggest we would achieve nothing at all except further disorder in the House which I suggest is not acceptable. It is certainly not acceptable to the Chair. The hon. member
IMr. Pringle.)
DEBATES	June 4, 1970
seeks the floor on a further question of privilege. It would have to be a new question because the hon. member did not have a question of privilege in the first instance.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of personal privilege. I suggest that an allegation was made here which imputed motives. I would like to say that this bill, which I have been accused of holding up, has been before the House seven times and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the Day.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is an entirely different matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to hear that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A serious matter has just been brought to my attention, and I would like to obtain the consent of the House to ask the Minister of Justice a question about it. I am told that the police of the city of Montreal and of the province of Quebec are unable to obtain information from the RCMP regarding the serious bombings that are taking place in that city. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he would look into the allegation because of the serious nature of the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put the question and I am sure the Minister of Justice, who is present in the House, has taken note of the hon. member's question. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 3, 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
June 4, 1970
[Stage Direction]


the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the motion of Mr. Barnett.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if hon. members might not pursue their discussions outside the House.
When the House adjourned yesterday, the Chair was hearing representations on a point of order. I wonder if the submissions have now been completed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have had some private discussions regarding my amendment to Bill C-202 and I would be prepared to withdraw it at this stage to save the time of the House and Your Honour. I may perhaps move this amendment at another stage of the bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking unanimous agreement to withdraw the amendment. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division in respect of the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) to amend Bill C-202.
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.
And more than five members having risen:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Was not this vote ordered yesterday? Is it necessary to defer this?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following one. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) moves:
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.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that 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, be concurred in.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: At the next sitting of this House.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



WATER RESOURCES


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 [Mr. Speaker.)
DEBATES	June 4. 1970
relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as we enter the third reading stage of this bill on water resources management, it is time to review our progress and assess our present status. Bill C-144, an act for the management of the water resources of Canada, has been before this House and its committees for almost seven months. We had several days of debate on second reading on the general principles of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Don't hold the bill up.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: From February to May, the Standing Committee held 36 hearings and listened to dozens of expert witnesses. That committee made more than 20 significant changes in the bill and introduced a completely new section on the control of nutrients. Again, in this House, during the last month we have had several more days' debate on 25 motions to amend Bill C-144. In addition to these formal proceedings, we have held numerous discussions with the ten provincial governments and the act was a principal subject of discussion at the February Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers. The minister and I have had many discussions with industrial leaders. Our officials have held broad interdepartmental discussions on all aspects of the bill and, in addition, we have received and answered hundreds of letters from concerned citizens of every walk of life from across the entire land.
Seldom in the history of this House has a piece of legislation been so thoroughly analysed, so carefully debated and so methodically amended by the parliamentarians themselves. It is fitting that we have taken this bill so seriously and devoted so much time to it, because we are considering here the most important piece of resource legislation ever to come before this House. But, just as important, we have been debating all this while the basic strategy by which we must combat pollution, surely the most insidious and cancerous by-product of civilized man.
I must confess that occasionally I have been impatient with our progress, for our deliberations have sometimes seemed interminably long. But I know, Mr. Speaker, in retrospect, that the gravity of this problem and its importance, not only to water resources but to environmental problems generally, has
June 4. 1970	COMMONS
necessitated the careful scrutiny we have all given this bill since last November. And to what have we agreed?
First of all, there was quick and I believe unanimous consent on the need for broad water resources legislation and for a vigorous attack on water pollution. There is general agreement, too, that we had to recognize the role and responsibility of the provincial governments and share our endeavours with them. There has been broad acceptance of the advantages of a management approach and the importance of public involvement in the planning process. We have agreed on the need for greater clarity in the process of joint action with the provinces and several amendments were introduced in committee for that specific purpose. We have also agreed that existing provincial agencies should be used whenever appropriate. We have clarified that we intend pollution control measures to apply to government agencies as well as to the private sector and, while adhering to the concept that the polluter must pay, we have also assured ourselves by a series of amendments that we do have the capability of providing loans for waste treatment plants. And lastly, we have concurred in the need for close control of nutrients entering our waters from cleaning agents, particularly detergent compounds and water conditioners.
These and other lesser amendments taken together are an encouraging advance. They are testimony to your careful analysis of the need for this legislation, for its administrative processes and for the policies it represents and the programs that will ensue.
Even though we have taken a major step in agreeing to these measures, I would be misleading this House and the public if I were to gloss over areas of disagreement. We have said, on this side of the House, that the river basin approach is essential to good management, and not all of you have agreed. But we believe the experience of the British with such rivers as the Thames, the long experience in Germany on the Ruhr River and in France on the Seine, all recommend this approach. Moreover, the experience of the Australians on the River Murray and the success of the Americans with the Tennessee, the Delaware, and the Ohio Rivers seems to us to constitute overwhelming evidence that the river basin is indeed the proper unit for planning and development.
I must confess I find it difficult to understand the resistance to this approach, mild though it is, because it is widely acclaimed by
DEBATES	7725
Water Resources Programs almost every water expert, including those of the 18 countries of the water management research group of the OECD.
Having accepted this approach as a doctrine of sound water management, we have also said in this bill that we should have optimum development in each river basin because the aggregate of such optimum developments will, surely, maximize the benefits from our water resources. It follows from this approach that we must have optimal water quality standards for each river basin.
There has been a great deal of debate on this important point. At first we understood some to be demanding a uniform national standard, which was clearly inappropriate; but in recent motions by the opposition there has been a demand for uniform standards for each class of water. Although we are not still fully agreed on this point, certainly we are no longer diametrically opposed. To repeat our position, we firmly believe that the optimal level of water quality based upon the mix of uses and the physical nature of each stream is, by definition, the one level of quality that would provide the greatest net returns. In our view, optimal water quality levels and maximum net benefits from a river system are two sides of the same coin. We propose, therefore, to provide a set of guidelines in regulations to be used in every major river basin when determining such optimal standards. We would expect that identical rivers with the same mix of uses would have equal standards. If some wish to construe this to mean equal standards for equal classes, then perhaps our disagreement is more a semantic than a substantive one.
We have said that the bill is for water resources and not for the entire environment and we have resisted its expansion beyond water. But we by no means want to leave the impressions that the protection of the environment is not crucial and critical for us all. Indeed, we feel our responsibility as trustees of the environment very deeply indeed. What we are saying is that the federal jurisdiction over water is not the same as it is for air and soil. One cannot glibly gloss over the realities of the BNA Act and simply extend the heads of the constitution relating to water to the other environmental elements. We have proposed, after exhaustive analysis, an approach for water that is compatible with the constitution, with today's federalism and with modern management methods. We admit that some similar approach must now be taken for air and soil, and that a co-ordinating umbrel-
7726	COMMONS
Water Resources Progravis la is necessary for all three. We are taking the first initial step today here but it would be retrograde to oversimplify the process, in my view, and extend this legislative measure to cover the whole environment, for it would have doubtful constitutional validity. Moreover, the management elements, so vital to success, are not the same for water as they are for air. For example, water courses are defined and so are their in ter jurisdictional aspects, but air sheds have fluid, ill-defined boundaries.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
On the same vein, much has been said in this recent debate about the relationship between the Canada Water bill and the Fisheries Act. Let me repeat that they are each, in their own way, an assertion of the federal jurisdiction carefully phrased to be compatible with respect to the areas of application and to the time sequence in which they would be employed. The Canada Water Act is a very broad legislative vehicle for managing water for all uses, based upon full provincial cooperation. It will provide the entrepreneur with very explicit effluent standards fixed by approved water quality management plans, for optimum benefits of the entire river by all users. We leave it to the entrepreneur to devise the most efficient methods to meet those standard, but meet them he must or face heavy penalties.
The Fisheries Act, on the other hand, is the assertion of a single head of the constitution. It does not require extensive planning nor does it rely on provincial co-operation to the same degree. It is immediate, but at the same time it is based on one single use. It does not set optimal standards and it relies on negotiations with major industrial plants to make "in plant" changes. We propose that the Fisheries Act be our immediate weapon against water pollution everywhere in Canada where there are fish, and we are strengthening that act for that purpose. But the management approach, which is admittedly slower to implement, will reap greater net benefits through its joint planning process and its greater use of the ingenuity of the entrepreneur in a free market economy. As quickly as possible, we shall employ that broader approach in every major river basin across Canada. Together, these are realistic and practical assertions of our jurisdiction and our responsibilities.
There have been frequent jibes thrown at us, Mr. Speaker, for using these two acts in this war against water pollution, but in our

DEBATES	June 4, 1970
view this is an eminently sensible approach to gain both short-run results and long-term benefits. Together, these two acts provide a federal strategy that will protect our waters within the provinces everywhere now, and provide for their optimal development in the future. Other new acts will provide a similar safeguard for waters, in the Northern Territories and the Arctic Seas under exclusive federal control.
Not everyone in this House, Mr. Speaker, has fully agreed with the proposed employment of economic forces to add to the compulsive force of the prohibition. We have said, and we repeat, that effluent discharge fees added to effluent standards will provide a strong incentive for a constant improvement. Finally, we believe the experience in Germany and France and the advice of experts must be heeded on this score and we intend to do so.
There have been one or two areas of substantial but not total agreement. We believe that it might be useful to experiment with labelling of detergents to encourage voluntary control on phosphates until a near total ban on the manufacture of such detergents is fully effective. But we think that the provisions for labelling are more appropriate to legislation on consumer products. We also heartily concur that consultation is essential to the success of this bill. Rather than simply state that consultation must be undertaken when appropriate, we have made consultation and co-operation a basic characteristic of the entire bill. Co-operation with the provinces is mentioned in the preamble itself. The first operative clause, No. 3, is devoted entirely to the establishment of consultative arrangements with the provinces. All of the planning and implementation provisions are framed to ensure co-operative ventures.
The determination of water quality standards and effluent discharge fees by regulations are co-operative federal-provincial undertakings. We have provided for the use of provincial agencies whenever appropriate and we have said that all plans must be fully advertised before being approved. We have in addition provided advisory committees in clause 23 so that we can get advice from the private sector and universities as our policies and program are being developed. In fact, so extensive is the involvement of the provinces, the private sector and the public generally in all processes of this act that we have been criticized for having tied our hands. But in
June 4. 1970	COMMONS
my view such consultation, involvement and commitment by agencies and interested groups beyond this department are essential elements of water resource management. We have recognized this need in many ways. It is, indeed, the very spirit of the Act.
To demonstrate this spirit, even before this bill has been passed we have been establishing consultative committees across Canada. We have entered into joint planning arrangements with the provinces and we have consulted extensively with the industries immediately affected. And so, Mr. Speaker, we believe that we have gone far beyond the suggestions of the opposition in showing our intention, both by actions and in the preamble of the act, by providing the machinery for consultation and advice, and by being specific about the necessity for provincial concurrence at several important points in the process of management. I cannot recall any legislation before this House in which we have taken such great pains to ensure ourselves that in an area of divided jurisdiction we must and shall co-operate.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to put before Your Honour and this House a total assessment of our success to date in drafting this major piece of resource legislation. We believe we have hammered out through these many months a bill that is essentially acceptable to all parties, to the provinces and to the public. We believe we have come as close to shaping an effective bill as the process of debate by dedicated men and women permits. The time has now come to implement the legislation. If it is successful we can all take pride in our achievement here today. If our success is less than complete, then hopefully the experience gained will guide our hand more surely another day.
No man can foresee all the complexities of the problem, because nowhere at any time has man learned to live in harmony with his environment. We certainly make no claim to be the repository of special wisdom on this complex matter. But we have done the best that experience, expert advice and theory can suggest. Now, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to move the focus of action beyond this House and set in motion all the processes and precepts discussed here for so many months. As Parliamentarians, I believe our task has come nearly to an end on this matter. We must have the courage to turn the job over to those experts in the public and private sector across Canada in whose hands water resource management and specifically pollution control ultimately reside.
DEBATES	7727
Water Resources Programs


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I have looked at the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and I hope it does not come as a surprise to him that there are some procedural difficulties which I am sure he has himself suspected. It would be of assistance to me if he made an argument in support of the acceptability of the motion. My reservations and misgivings have to do, first, with the question of relevancy, and second, with the financial initiative of the Crown. I believe there are serious difficulties in relation to both aspects of the motion.
I know the hon. member has given the matter serious thought. Perhaps he would like to assist the Chair in reaching a decision in this regard.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: With regard to the two matters that Your Honour has raised, I did have some misgivings because it is the type of problem that we meet under the present rules and on third reading. Nevertheless, with regard to the propriety or relevancy of the amendment, what we are asking is not that any principle of the bill be changed, but merely that a parliamentary committee already in existence-it could be the standing committee on National Resources and Public Works-have under continuing scrutiny the operation of its act we are now considering. This will give us sufficient supervision over the management of the water resources since no other body is set up for the purpose. I think it is essential on this basis for the minister and the department to have some sort of guidance regarding the effect that this act will have, the regulations that are made under it and the general policy that is followed, in the same manner as various other bodies. Although we have tried to set up a separate commission or body outside the House in other amendments to this bill, they have been ruled out because further expenditure would be involved. In this amendment, we are merely providing for supervision within the House and I believe we are not altering the principle of the bill in any respect.
With regard to the financial implications, the amendment does not require the committee to report any additional expenditures unless a further recommendation is made by His Excellency the Governor General. This is exactly the procedure that has already been accepted in other provisions in the bill. As a matter of fact, we had to have about four recommendations of His Excellency the Gov-
DEBATES	7729
Water Resources Programs ernor General on amendments introduced by the government in the committee. At that time it was felt that the amendments could be moved if a new recommendation were made by the Governor General, and this was presented to the House along with the government's amendments to involve itself in additional capital costs or projects.
This amendment provides that the committee merely request a further recommendation by His Excellency the Governor General. This is surely within the committee's powers because a committee has already done it, not only in some other bill but in this bill as well. The bill was then amended and was brought back to the House at the report stage. There was no objection to this procedure because the amendment was one which we felt was in order, and we asked the government to involve itself in this sort of thing. I am merely saying that this precedent has already been established in the standing committee. If the amendment is accepted, as I am proposing that it should be, then the committee will have to re-consider the whole question of the scrutiny of the water resources of Canada, and in that case the recommendation would be made.
I have not referred to citations with regard to those two points because Your Honour is well versed on the matter of amendments on third reading, but I do believe that this is a form of amendment that could very well be accepted, particularly if the committees of the House are to have any relevance at all and any meaning.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might be allowed at this point to express my views. I respect the hon. member's knowledge of the rules and his understanding of procedure, and I always listen with every possible consideration and with attention to the views he expresses from time to time when procedural matters are raised in the House. This is why I hesitate at this point to disagree with the views he has expressed, but I have come to the conclusion that even in the light of the very strong and cogent arguments he has submitted for the consideration of the Chair it would be very difficult to accept the amendment which he proposes at present.
I have indicated to him in a summary way that there are two difficulties. One of them deals with relevancy. This, of course, has nothing to do with the new rules. It is a long standing practice that an amendment on third reading has to be particularly relevant to the
7730	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs terms of the bill before the House. I would like to refer the hon. member to citation 418 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the Committee of the Whole. All amendments which may he moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
I find it difficult to agree with the suggestion that the new rules have changed this requirement. I suggest to hon. members the rule is still in good standing that amendments which can be proposed on second reading can also be proposed on third reading, although there is a further restriction that they contain only items included in the bill before the House. In other words, an amendment proposed on third reading should not go beyond the terms of the bill.
Perhaps, if it is necessary, I should refer hon. members also to a citation from May's seventeenth edition at page 571, which reads as follows:
The procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to tire second reading, but the debate is more restricted at the later stage, being limited to the matters contained in the bill.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Then, the learned author continues for some paragraphs referring to a reasoned amendment. It may well be that the kind of proposition advanced by the hon. member for the consideration of the House could be acceptable from a procedural standpoint if it were in the form of a reasoned amendment rather than in the form of an ordinary amendment to the bill on third reading.
The second objection which the Chair has to bring to the attention of hon. members has to do with its financial implications, and the financial initiative of the Crown. Without reading the citations, I refer hon. members to citation 260(1) and 249(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. The hon. member suggests that no expenditure will be required, but of course in his proposed amendment he does refer to the fact that if there is any additional expenditure the committee would request a further recommendation by His Excellency the Governor General. I do not think it is possible in this way to do indirectly what hon. members cannot do directly.
It may be, and I have no evidence to this effect, that committees have tried to do this. However, I would not think if this kind of

DEBATES	June 4, 1970
amendment were put to the House for consideration, even though it might be accepted by the chairman and the members of a committee, that would automatically make it acceptable from a procedural standpoint to the Chair in this House. I have serious doubts about it. My understanding is that a committee will sometimes recommend that the government give consideration to the provision of the funds necessary for the financing of an amendment supported by the committee. I would not think a committee had the power to go further than that, and I would not think that in the House a private member, either on the government side or the opposition side, had the power to go beyond that. According to our long-standing practice the financial initiative belongs to the Crown.
It seems to me we would have a rather difficult situation if this amendment were accepted, if the bill went back to the committee and the committee gave it its approval, then this became law and we left it to the initiative and the goodwill of the government to accept or not to accept, or to proceed or not to proceed with the recommendation of the committee. I suggest that would make a rather unusual kind of legislative proposal. For this reason, and for the other reasons I have tried to expound, I would not think that the amendment as put can be accepted.
For the benefit of hon. members I would like to reiterate, if this can be of assistance, that this kind of amendment is much easier for the Chair to accept when it comes for the consideration of the House in the form of a reasoned amendment, but I regret it cannot be accepted in the form presented by the hon. member.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-144 in order to give the views of the New Democratic Party on this particular piece of legislation. I wish to make a few comments on the brief statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, who gave a general outline of the bill, and who dwelt at length on the period of time which the committee spent on this legislation.
I was pleased to note that the Parliamentary Secretary said the government is now thinking of setting guidelines and regulations for "similar river basins." This seems to be a change of heart on the part of the government, because this certainly was not indicated during the committee hearings. If this is a step toward national standards, something
June 4, 1970

long advocated by my party, we certainly welcome it. The bill itself does not mention national standards, and nowhere in our committee discussions was it indicated that there would be national standards. All the opposition parties strongly pressed during the committee hearings for the adoption of a set of national standards to deal with the various types of waters across Canada. In fact, both the Official Opposition and my party moved amendments to that effect in the House, urging that national standards be established to deal with the pollution problems facing our nation but those amendments were defeated.
We are not opposed to water basin management, but this is not spelled out in the bill. Members of the government talk vaguely about having water basin management. The bill calls for the setting up of water quality management areas, but such an area could cover just a small portion of a river basin. There is nothing in the bill to indicate that a whole river basin will be dealt with as a unit. An example which I have given on numerous occasions is the move to set up a water quality management area with respect to the lower Fraser River in British Columbia. It may cover only the last 30 miles of the Fraser before it runs into the sea. The entire upper stretch of that vast salmon River basin will not be touched. There is nothing in the bill to provide that the management area cover the whole basin. I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that it is no use trying to kid the people of Canada and the members of this House on that score.
I give another example with respect to Ontario. Again, I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say it is not a fact that you can have two rivers running side by side into the Great Lakes, with a water quality management area established for each river, and each such area allowed to set its own standards. This is what the big debate has been about for months. If this happens, such areas will become pollution havens for industry. Surely, members of the cabinet must realize this is the situation. These areas will compete with each other for industry. How will they compete, Mr. Speaker? They will compete by deliberately lowering their standards in order to attract industry to their own regions. That is why the New Democratic Party and the other opposition parties have called for broad national standards to stop the establishment of pollution havens, something which can and probably will occur under the provisions of the bill.

Water Resources Programs
Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that members of the government were now talking about setting up a set of guidelines or regulations for similar river basins. This is a step forward and we would endorse it. The members of the committee who are here today know that this was not the indication when the bill was in committee.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There are a few points on which I would like to speak generally, Mr. Speaker. I believe the pollution problem facing the entire world today is one of the most important problems we have. There is no doubt that it is a manmade crisis. We have so befouled our environment that the whole world is in trouble. We have reached the stage where our water, our air, our soil is so badly polluted that the existence of mankind is threatened.
I find it amazing that we are here debating the Canada Water Act, which partially deals with pollution, when we should be debating an environmental act. In this session we should have legislation dealing with standards for air and land pollution. Ecologists at the United Nations and in many countries have been warning governments that the problem should be tackled now, before it is too late. This government is going to delay legislation on air pollution until the next session of Parliament. This means the problem will drift on and on, and it is unlikely that action will be taken before the fall of 1971.
Air pollution is damaging the health of those who live in cities, in the vast urban areas of the world. It is threatening the very existence of human beings on earth. There is the problem of the motor car, the burning of fossil fuels, the increase of carbon dioxide in the air. Then comes the problem of pesticides and ddt. In Canada, there is a partial ban on ddt already. The ecologists of the world are warning us that the ecology of the oceans, the ecology of the rivers and lakes is being disturbed to the point where we are in danger of losing the oxygen producing sections of that ecology. But still we delay, Mr. Speaker, and take the easy approach. Don't hurry; take another year or two. What difference does it make as far as mankind is concerned. We find that there is hardly a square foot of the surface of the earth not affected by ddt. It is carried by air currents to the Antarctic, to the north, to the most remote islands in the ocean-there is not an animal, bird or human being that does not have ddt in its system.
7732	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs Yet, Mr. Speaker, this government waits for another session before bringing in legislation to deal with this problem.
I should like to outline some of the weaknesses in the Canada Water Act, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was an act to attack pollution, but really it is an administrative framework established in an endeavour to get the co-operation of the provinces. I endorse that because we need federal-provincial co-operation as never before. Even if only three or four provinces agree to co-operate this is better than none, and for that reason I suggest that the sections dealing with these co-operative bodies is good. But legislation is only good if it is enforced. We have enough legislation on the statute books of Canada dealing with pollution right now and perhaps if it had been enforced this problem would not be facing us. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has not enforced the legislation for which his department is responsible. In the last seven years, very few charges have been laid against industry for polluting the environment despite the existence of regulations. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder just how effective this proposed legislation will be.
I can assure the minister and the government that we are going to be asking questions at every turn if the propositions outlined in this particular legislation are not enforced at a very rapid pace.
What are some of the weaknesses in the bill? One is that there is no central organization. We brought in an amendment to set up a pollution control board which would coordinate all the legislation currently on the statute books of Canada. It would co-ordinate all departments dealing with pollution and co-ordinate the provincial and federal agencies currently engaged in pollution control. This is what we wanted but it was rejected. There is nothing in this piece of legislation to achieve this end, though numerous briefs to the committee suggested it was absolutely essential to the success of the fight against pollution. This is one of the weaknesses of the present act, that jurisdiction is fragmented. The bill proposes to set up water quality management areas, each with its own standards, which is a further fragmentation and there is no co-ordinating body to pull the pieces together. I have already dealt with national standards for the various classes of water so I will not repeat those arguments, though I think that is the second major weakness in the act.

DEBATES	June 4, 1970
The third major weakness is the question of enforcement. In my opinion, pollution should be brought under the criminal law; it should be a crime to pollute our environment. Canadians should enjoy clean air and clean water. These things should be guaranteed by our constitution. I think there is far more danger to citizens from the pollution of our environment than from driving with more than .08 alcohol in the blood, although this is now classed as a crime. If you can enforce one law you can enforce the other. We have urged that the act be enforced nationally.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I submit there is another reason for pressing for the national enforcement of the act, and it is this. Some provinces are apprehensive, lest in their fight against pollution they drive industries away to other provinces. Yet, if standards were nationally enforced, all provinces would be in the same position and no province would be afraid that industry would move away to another province. May I point out that this party tried to bring in an amendment which would have provided for national enforcement. We tried to bring in an amendment making pollution a subject for the criminal law, but that amendment was defeated.
Another weakness in the bill is that it provides for the payment of effluent fees. We think that is wrong. Industry will still be allowed to dump effluent into the waterways of this nation, and when that dumping takes place in water quality management areas, industry must pay a fee. We think that is the wrong approach. The government's approach would have been sounder if it had offered incentives which could have taken the form of tax rebates on anti-pollution equipment or rapid write-off through depreciation on such equipment. If a municipality were involved, the government could have provided for the payment of grants to act as incentives for the acquisition of such equipment. There are numerous ways through which industry could be encouraged to tackle the job of cleaning up pollution. But you can bet your life that once you allow industry to pay fees for dumping such effluent into a river, this abuse will continue for a long period because the incentive to clean up pollution will have been removed from industry. Our party looks upon this bill as being rather weak in that respect.
May I mention another point the previous speaker referred to, namely, the export of water from Canada. Our party brought for-
June 4, 1970

ward an amendment which would have provided that before water could be exported from this country, the matter would have to come before Parliament. That amendment was thrown out. And here we are, dealing with the Canada Water Act, yet we were not allowed to bring in an amendment which would allow Parliament to scrutinize the export of water. This is where such matters ought to be examined, so that the elected representatives of the people can debate the pros and cons of any water export policy which the government may wish to introduce.
Another weakness in the bill is that it does not provide for a national fund to be used in fighting pollution. True, we were able to persuade the government to amend a number of clauses. The government accepted a number of amendments moved by the opposition members and other members of the committee, and they strengthened the bill considerably. Yet one of its major weakness is that it provides for no clearcut federal financial assistance to the numerous levels of government involved in fighting pollution. Oh, yes, there are clauses dealing with this matter. One clause providing for loans to water quality management areas was brought in at the last minute because of pressure, mainly by opposition members. The government, in its wisdom, finally accepted our suggestions. But the bill is still weak. The federal government has no choice but to invest vast amounts of money if it wants to clean up pollution. I say that because the municipalities and provinces do not have the kind of money that is required to do this job. Until we are prepared to pump far more money than in the past into programs devoted to fighting pollution, the fight against pollution will not get off the ground.
We approve the part that has been added to the bill relating to phosphates. The government wishes to reduce the percentage of phosphate in detergents and ultimately almost ban their use, for the simple reason that eutrophication of some of the Great Lakes is going on at a rapid pace. Scientists have warned us that unless we act quickly, Lake Erie within a short period will be hurt beyond recovery. We pressed vigorously for the inclusion in the bill of the phosphate section. I point out to hon. members that there was no reference to phosphates in the bill we are currently debating until pressure was brought to bear in committee, and the government in its wisdom decided to bring in the phosphate provisions. Originally, it had no intention of including them in the bill. This, 22375-71
Water Resources Programs again, shows the value of our long and tough committee sessions and of the pressure which was brought to bear on the government by people all across Canada and by those who presented briefs to us.
May I mention one more point before closing? It seems to me that most nations in the world, including our own, have been most foolish in their over-all planning of resource development. Unquestionably, we have allowed resources to be developed for single purposes and very seldom have proper ecological studies as to the effects of the development been undertaken. Consequently, we are today reaping the whirlwind, if I may put it that way, resulting from our foolish methods over the years in resource development. The time is long overdue for all of us to insist on proper ecological studies and surveys being made before certain types of resource development are undertaken. This applies particularly to water. In the past we have built dams in all parts of our country without clearing the basins first, the result being that we have destroyed spawning grounds and laid the foundation in those basins for pollution which will last forever and a day. We permitted this type of development to go on because governments and individuals did not speak out against it. We only saw the need for more hydroelectric power, regardless of cost. People never looked at the tremendous cost that future generations would have to pay as the result of the damage done to our ecology.
There is an amendment that I wish to move at this stage. May I point out that the amendment I intend to move relates to a matter that was discussed in our committee and was brought before the House by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. I understand the report of that committee was a unanimous one. Unfortunately, the bill was brought in four or five days prior to this final report. When I tried to get this amendment on the Order Paper, it was ruled out of order because it had been brought in too late. This is the amendment I wish to place before the House. I move:
9 (4:40 p.m.)
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 not read now but be referred back to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works with instructions to insert after clause 25 the following clause:
"26. Any person who has been convicted of an offence under section 25 shall thereby become liable
June 4, 1970

Water Resources Programs for the total cost of cleaning up the water or waters whose quality has been degraded or altered by his violation."
and by renumbering the remaining clauses.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Possibly we might at this point entertain some discussion on the proposed amendment. I must say that I am having some difficulty with it. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will have some enlightening comments to make. I will be pleased to hear him.
I might indicate where my doubts lie. They lie essentially in the fact that it seems to me this is a new provision. In that sense, it is beyond the sphere of amendments on third reading.


Randolph Harding: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Before Your Honour considers the procedural aspect, I have a few remarks to make on this particular section.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Possibly we can allow the hon. member to continue his remarks. I did not realize he had further arguments to make. We can get into the procedural argument when the hon. member concludes his remarks.


Randolph Harding: I wanted to talk about the amendment. That was my object in moving it.
I thought Your Honour would rule on it first.
I would like to explain why I moved the amendment, and that might even be part of the procedural debate. This is an amendment from our committee. It appears in Votes and Proceedings for May 25, 1970. I wish to read into the record the report brought in by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. It reads:
Your Committee recommends that any person who violates the provisions of Clause 8 or Clause 18 of the said Bill be held liable for the total expense of cleaning up the damage caused by this violation, and that the government give early consideration to introducing legislation incorporating such a proposal.
The reason we were not able to debate this particular recommendation during the report stage was that the bill was reported four or five days prior to the tabling of this report. It was accidentally overlooked by the committee. I am convinced that the minister and his department did not have an opportunity to look at it or make a decision on it. We think the idea is important enough to have the committee endorse it. If the motion which I have moved were referred to the committee tonight, I feel it would be approved unani-


mously. It is just a matter of form. The committee would bring in this recommendation and we could continue the debate on this bill tomorrow. There would be no delay. It would immeasurably strengthen the act. My amendment provides that if someone has been convicted of an offence, which means he has been found guilty of breaking the law, then he must pay for the total clean-up. Why should the general public, the government of Canada, a municipality or a provincial government pay the shot? We say that once a person or a group of persons have broken the law, it is they whom we should ask to pay for the cost of cleaning up. The Minister of Fisheries has used the expression that he is going after the people responsible for mercury and other pollutants. We think this is a good precedent to follow. That is my submission.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Hymmen:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


Randolph Harding: If the Chair will accept it.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting that this recommendation was approved unanimously by the committee? If so, this is not quite accurate.


Randolph Harding: I understand that during the committee hearings there was no opposition to the principle and the committee agreed that a recommendation along these lines should go forward. I do not happen to have the minutes of the committee before me, but I am quite certain I could produce them to substantiate my statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
seems to me we are now engaged in a discussion about a matter which might be more properly the subject of a private debate between the two members. I am prepared to hear argument at this stage. I must say, however, that the presentation of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) confirmed my original doubt. I draw to the attention of hon. members that the citations referred to in the previous ruling by Mr. Speaker apply with equal force here. If one refers to May's or Beauchesne's, one will find that amendments must be amendments to the provisions of the bill. The remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West indicate that the reason he wants to refer the matter back to the committee is for the very purpose of including a provision which is not in this bill. That is where my difficulty tends to lie and
June 4. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	7735
may be now reinforced. However, I am prepared to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, not only for the invitation to contribute to this procedural discussion but also for indicating the point that concerns the Chair. This enables us to save time for it means that it is not necessary that we go over all the historical evidence in respect of amendments on third reading. Your Honour admits that amendments on third reading to refer a bill back to the committee which dealt with it for the purpose of reconsidering something are in order. The one citation to which you are drawing attention is citation 418 in Beauchesne's fourth edition which was read by the Chair when we were dealing with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). The particular sentence we must consider is the following:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
It is my submission that the amendment sought by the hon. member for Kootenay West is an amendment in the true sense of the word in that it seeks to qualify something that is in the bill. I admit that my whole case rests on that contention. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to clause 25 of the bill which states that any person who violates sections 8 or 18 is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 for each offence. I notice also that the next subclause of that clause says that it is a separate offence if you keep doing it day after day. If one reads this in conjunction with clauses 8 and 18, one will note that both clauses 8 and 18 specify things which shall not be done. One is that one shall not pollute and the other is that one shall not manufacture or import a pollutant. The bill, however, not only says that one shall not do these things, it also says that if one does there is a penalty. The penalty is in clause 25. What my hon. friend seeks to do is simply to qualify, modify or enlarge that penalty.
I press the point on Your Honour that if there were no penalty provisions in this bill and the hon. member for Kootenay West wished to introduce some penalty provisions, you would be right in saying this would be importing something which is not already there. But, there are penalty provisions in the bill which relate to violations of clauses 8 and 22375-71J
Water Resources Programs 18. What my hon. friend is seeking to do is to amend the penalty provisions to provide that instead of a person having only to pay a fine or perhaps go to jail-I forget whether or not that is contained in the bill-he must pay the cost of cleaning up the mess that has been created. This is put clearly as an addition to alter or qualify the penalty for the offence. The amendment does not add any offence. It does not add a new idea in the sense that penalties are proposed when there were no penalty provisions in the bill. The penalties are already there. This is a proposal that the penalties should be amended as suggested.
I remind Your Honour that there are citations in Beauchesne's fourth edition about what amendments can do, such as having the purpose of altering a question so that it will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, would either vote against it, abstain and so on. In other words, they must be amendments which would change something that is already there. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I am repeating myself so I had better not do what the hon. member for Kootenay West did which was to direct Your Honour to the other side of the position. I contend that this is an amendment in the true sense. Penalties are already contained in the bill. This is an amendment to qualify or modify these penalties in order to make them more effective. It is on that ground I submit that the amendment of the hon. member for Kootenay West should be allowed. I could have taken the time to read other clauses in the bill. I mentioned clause 25 but there are also clauses 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 which deal with penalties. So, it is not a new idea which is being imported but is a modification of an idea that is already there, namely that those who pollute should pay a penalty. We simply want to add to that penalty and put a stop to polluting altogether.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, it is five o'clock and possibly we might continue this procedural discussion at eight o'clock unless hon. members wish to present their arguments now and then I would make a ruling at eight o'clock.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been some discussion and that there might be willingness on the part of the House to waive private members' hour in order to complete this discussion. I do not know whether the House would wish to do this after the consideration of two private bills which might sail through the House without debate.
June 4. 1970

Water Resources Programs


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to this but if Your Honour wishes a little time in which to study this matter, we would not want to cut you off. You do it to us sometimes but we would not want to do it to you, if I may put it that way.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: 
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Ralliement creditiste would also be willing to waine private members' hour to allow the House to settle this procedural matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I understand it then, we will proceed in this way: we will complete the procedural discussions on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), at which point, I take it, we will revert temporarily to private members' hour to deal with two bills, following which we will revert again to the consideration of Bill C-144. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer very briefly to the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this amendment is merely adding to or increasing a penalty and therefore is within the scope of the bill. I should like to state that what the amendment purports to do is to add a civil obligation. It is not a penalty. The amendment states that any person who has been convicted of an offence shall become liable for the total cost of cleaning up the water or waters.
That is a civil obligation, and if there is one thing that is clear in the law it is surely that a civil obligation and a punitive measure are two different things. The penalty under clause 25 referred to in the amendment states that if you pollute, you will be fined and will face all the penal consequences coming under the aegis of the criminal authority which is within the federal jurisdiction under the con-

stitution. What the amendment purports to do is to say that if you are convicted of this penal offence, you will incur civil liabilities, namely, the cost of remedying the situation, which is not part of the penalty. Penalties go to the Crown. They do not go to doing works or to remedying defects. Certainly, there is nothing within the bill which imposes civil liabilities, except under the authority of a water management agency, and certainly an offender within the ambit of the act does not incur civil responsibilities.
I would respectfully submit to Your Honour that this amendment clearly brings in a new aspect. It is clearly an attempt to do something that is not done under the bill, namely, impose certain civil liabilities upon people who are convicted under clause 25. Thus, it is very clearly something new and something different. It is a completely new principle that is not contemplated in the bill as it now stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Would he not agree that if this must be attached to civil remedies, there is already a reference to civil remedies in clause 31 of the bill. So in either case, it is not something new. It is either attached to penalties or to civil remedies.


John James Greene: I appreciate the fact that clause 31 refers to civil responsibilities, but the amendment is specifically tacked on to clause 25 which is the penal section, and then seeks to add civil responsibilities to the penal aspects of clause 25. Thus, I submit that the amendment as it is drawn-which is all we can go by-goes beyond the scope of the bill as it stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
a new clause, clause 26.


John James Greene: But it refers to clause 25.


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: May I join the debate, Mr. Speaker? I think we are overlooking a very basic rule of law as well as the BNA. Act that civil actions are created by the province. If we simply try to state that a person who has been convicted shall become liable for the total cost, we will create for ourselves many problems, and I suggest that some of them are as follows. First, we would not know who the plaintiff was in the action. It does not say whether the government has spent the money; it does not say whether it is a neighbouring property owner, or who it is. There is no way of knowing who would have
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
the right to bring the action. Second, although it is federal legislation, there is no indication what part the federal government would play.
I suggest that such legislation is not only ultra vires but is so obviously so, it would bring our legislation into contempt.


Mr. Thomas S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: In
reference to the remarks that have just been made, if that is to be considered as a sound argument it appears to me that the same violation of the BNA Act to which the hon. member referred is contained in clause 31(2). We are specifically providing there for a civil action and making people liable, at least in a general way, for the results of offences committed under the act. Despite the minister's suggestion that this is attached to clause 25 of the bill, I would point out to Your Honour that it is merely a matter of form rather than of substance that it be a new clause. How the minister can argue that it is attached to clause 25 any more than clause 31 I fail to see. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, from what you have said in expressing your doubts about the amendment, that you have been concerned much more with the substance than with the finer points of the form of the amendment. In other words, you are concerned whether or not it introduces a new element into the bill which, as has already been pointed out by Your Honour and also admitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, would make it out of order as an amendment on third reading. I suggest, therefore, that in the light of clause 31(2), both the arguments with respect to the constitutionality of the amendment and those advanced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources fall to the ground.


Hyliard G. Chappell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his contribution. I will allow him to speak if he proposes to ask a question.


Hyliard G. Chappell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The last speaker mentioned clause 31(2). I want to ask a question regarding the clause which reads:
No civil remedy for any act or omission is suspended or affected by reason that the act or omission is an offence under this act.
I ask the hon. member if he would not agree that that simply refers to any right already established under provincial law permitting one neighbour to sue another neighbour for polluting the waters. In other words, we would simply be saying that we do not interfere with the laws already established by the provinces.
DEBATES	7737
Water Resources Programs


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I readily admit that, to use the phrase we sometimes hear in the House, I am not learned in the law. But in my feeble layman's mentality it seems to me that clause 31(2) makes a person liable for civil action and for the cost that might be awarded in that connection. My understanding of the proposed amendment is that a person is liable for the results of the offence he has committed. I submit that on that count at least the two matters are on all fours. Without any reference to the particular variation in the details, I admit that the proposed clause 26 makes it more specific. That is its purpose and intent, but as far as the general principle of it is concerned it seems to me that the two are on all fours.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First of all, I want to thank hon. members for their contributions. As I have indicated, I have had some difficulty with this amendment. I might just read it again. I will read the proposed new section, which would be numbered section 26. It would read as follows:
Any person who has been convicted of an offence under section 25 shall thereby become liable for the total cost of cleaning up the water or waters whose quality has been degraded or altered by his violation.
As has been indicated to hon. members, the decision faced by the Chair is the following one: does this amendment add a new section to the bill, or a new proposition to the bill which is not there? The difficulty at third reading has already been outlined by Mr. Speaker in a previous ruling, but I might refer to May's citation on both pages 571 and 572, using key sentences. On page 571 I quote:
The procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to the second reading, but the debate is more restricted at the later stage, being limited to the matters contained in the bill.
Again at the top of page 572 of May's seventeenth edition, it continues:
As the debate on the third reading should be confined to the contents of the bill-
This, of course, would apply with equal force to amendments.
I would also like to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, particularly citation 418:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
After some thought and consideration, and after listening to hon. members' contributions,

June 4, 1970
Private Bills
I must say that I have to come down, possibly on the cautious side, with a decision that the proposition put forward by way of an amendment is a new proposition and cannot be allowed at this stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Too
bad.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Richmond I think the understanding was that at this point we would deal with two items under private members' business and then revert back to Bill C-144. Prior to doing that I might advise the House of the business to be dealt with at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-National Film Board-Inquiry as to closing of Brandon office; The hon. member for Richmond (Mr Beaudoin)-Agriculture-Dairy	Industrychanges in constitution to Control Production; The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Fisheries

Location of freshwater fish Marketing Corporation Plant in Winnipeg instead of Selkirk.
The House will now deal with Private Bills under Private Members' business.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West) moved: that Bill S-18, respecting Brunner Corporation (Canada) Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Gerald Givens: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia) moved: that Bill S-22, to incorporate National Farmers
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.!
Union, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert B. Douglas: that the bill be read a third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, be read the third time and do pass.
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in expressing the views of the Rallie-ment creditiste on Bill C-144 before it is passed on third reading.
To my mind Bill C-144 is somewhat lame in that it does not say much that is concrete. As it stands, it will be difficult to implement for it does not lead anywhere.
Even though the government has rejected all the amendments of the opposition which might have given the bill some value and indicated, once and for all, that the government wants to tackle water pollution in Canada, we will vote for Bill C-144 because we recognize that it is one step towards fighting pollution.
But what is the exact meaning of this bill? Nowhere does it say that the government will be able to penalize the companies or municipalities polluting our Canadian waters. In its present form, we will have to wait until the water of an entire area is polluted for the government to state that it is a polluted area and to take steps to clean it.
Because this bill cannot curb pollution efficiently, I blame the minister and the government for not accepting some of the amendments suggested by the opposition.
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Why does the government introduce a bill so incomplete and so weak? Is it because it would not want to assume all its responsibilities in the field of pollution?
One may wonder whether we really want with this bill to control something or get somewhere. It is true that it is only a beginning, and it is certainly a very small beginning. This is precisely why I blame the minister and the government for not showing a more positive attitude with regard to Bill C-144.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, before the motion on third reading is passed, I should like to make a few remarks.
Here again, we face a smoke screen created by this government. If the government had really wanted to do something to prevent pollution, it would certainly have accepted the amendments from the opposition, the object of which was simply to make the act more effective so as to prevent pollution.
If there is a subject of vital importance at the present time, it is surely water pollution. We enjoy a very large supply of drinking water, but at the rate things are going now, it will not be many years before water becomes polluted almost everywhere in Canada.
One realizes the importance and great value of water once one is deprived of it. And it would be regrettable if through the wavering of the government and the lack of measures to preserve all the drinking water we need, the Canadian people were deprived of a blessing with which Providence gratified them so generously.
It is unfortunate also-I think it needs to be said-that the minister, while on a recent visit to the United States, did not miss the opportunity of antagonizing our neighbours to the South as to our water resources. I believe the minister should have weighed his words so as not to antagonize our southern neighbours, for we have much to do in cooperation with them as regards the preservation and improvement of our waters.
On many occasions, members of the opposition have asked the minister and the government to state their intentions as regards giving teeth to the law. But it was impossible to have the minister state clearly that those responsible for water pollution would have to pay for the damage.
DEBATES	7739
Water Resources Programs
It is unfortunate, as I say, that the government should not have taken more drastic steps in order to put the onus of the bill on those who do not care about the preservation of our waters, for there must be a halt to this kind of pollution.
Though this measure is far from perfect and utterly devoid of any kind of provision likely to give it any muscle, still, I think it is a beginning. We should give the minister a chance to prove he really wants to achieve something. I therefore urge him to start talks with the representatives of the provinces whose cooperation he will certainly need if he expects this indispensable natural resource we call water, to be preserved and escape as far as possible the pollution caused by those who are indifferent to the common good.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few brief remarks on third reading of Bill C-144. In an interjection a day or so ago I said that those of us on the government side who had the opportunity to consider this important piece of legislation in committee were rather tempted to enter debate on the report stage of the bill. We have our opportunity now, and so I should like to make a few comments.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), in his very forceful but rather unconvincing manner, has time and time again stressed the objections of the New Democratic Party to this bill. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), on one occasion that I recall in committee, tried to obtain evidence from some of the witnesses that the bill was not worth the paper it was written on. I have said, and I do not know whether the minister will agree with me, that the present bill is not perfect. I wonder how many ministers of the Crown in the 27 Parliaments before this one felt that they had introduced a perfect bill.
From time to time in our changing society pieces of legislation have to be amended or superseded with new legislation. This bill meets our present situation in encouraging the necessary consultation, the planning and the co-operation with various levels of government and the general public to enable us to proceed toward the important goal we are seeking, which is just within our grasp.
In the recommendations of His Excellency in the preamble to the bill there are what I consider to be three important words- research-planning-co-operation. The feder-
7740	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs al government has an important role to play in the field of research. Under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Inland Waters Centre, which members of the committee had an opportunity to visit last year, is rapidly developing. It will be an important institution for continued research in the field of water and water management. There is the Bedford Institute of Oceanography which carries on studies through the cooperation of the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Defense Research Establishment. Then there is the exemplary co-operation of that very important Nova Scotia institution, the Nova Scotia Research Foundation.
It is no secret that this bill was drawn up with both eyes on the constitution. Whether the members of this House realize it or not, until the British North America Act is changed or rewritten, we shall do our best to abide by the constitution. But the British North America Act, the constitution, makes no reference to water pollution. There are, of course, references to federal jurisdiction on the questions of fisheries and shipping and the over-all questions of peace, order and good government.
In this bill, the responsibility which the provincial governments have accepted and closely guarded over the years is recognized. It is a co-ordinating piece of legislation to support, to back up and to co-operate with the provincial and lower levels of government, in order to proceed with the program planning to reach the goal I mentioned earlier.
Although the BNA Act made no reference to pollution, I find it interesting that the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 mentions pollution in Artical IV stating:
It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.
Over the years, the International Joint Commission has been given responsibility for the operation of the boundary waters treaty and has done an excellent job on an advisory basis.
One of the purposes of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is co-operation between the federal government and the provinces and with the government of the United States to provide planning and programming directed to cleaning up and to reclaiming the waters of the Great Lakes and many other inland waters.
[Mr. HymmenJ
DEBATES	June 4, 1970
9 (5:30p.m.)
I said earlier that statutes are passed, amended and finally withdrawn or superseded. The introduction of this bill will have that effect. Chapter 21 of the 1952-53 Statutes of Canada is entitled, "An Act to Authorize the Grant of Assistance to a Province for the Conservation of Water Resources." The act is known as the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act. This measure was brought in by a former, respected member of the House who was a cabinet minister, the late Hon. Robert Winters. It has been very important to my particular area of the country in the Grand River Valley because under it seven municipalities of the Grand River were given financial assistance as a result of which three dams were constructed.
That act is now to be superseded. However, the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act makes no mention of pollution, of consultation or of co-operation. I should like to know just how much co-operation and consultation will take place between federal, provincial and municipal governments and water agencies in the planning of these important projects which are anticipated under the Canada Water Act. Management agencies of a specific kind are to be set up under the bill. I wonder whether the project involving the Grand River, a tributary flowing into Lake Erie, will still go ahead under this bill. I hope that financial co-operation and assistance on the part of the federal government with respect to this project will still be possible.
The question of pollution is very timely. It is a subject of concern to many people. Many thinking Canadians, we might say, are downright afraid not only of the prospect of polluted water but of polluted air and of a polluted environment in general. We are considering an important piece of legislation which will assist greatly in our planning, with the full co-operation of the provinces, of water management programs for the future. Research has been mentioned. There are federal institutions devoted to research, as well as many universities which undertake research in matters involving water and water management. Being interested in this subject, I asked questions about it in committee.
In my hand I hold a clipping from the Engineering Digest of February, 1970, which refers to a grant awarded by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the Department of Chemical Engineering of McMaster University in the amount of $100,000, renewable for a period of five years.
June 4, 1970

The grant is to allow the university to look into new techniques and methods of handling domestic and industrial waste which ultimately, after treatment, goes into our waterways.
The public is concerned about existing antipollution measures. The control of pollution will be a very expensive proposition. The public must be dedicated to the anti-pollution fight and we shall need to search for ways and means of raising the finances necessary to carry out this program. Earlier the minister mentioned that under the general philosophy of the bill, the polluter must pay. Municipalities such as the one I represent have for 50 years been spending money to prevent pollution, while other municipalities even up to the present have spent nothing at all.
The question of effluent fees has been debated at length both in committee and in the House. I certainly support this concept which will allow us to raise the necessary capital to pay for treatment plants and their operation. This approach has been used successfully in the Ruhr Valley and is being considered by many of our municipalities. I said that the bill is not a perfect bill, and the question of effluent fees may need to be clarified. I feel that fees collected ought to be put into a fund and used to provide the necessary treatment facilities. Used in conjunction with money available to the municipalities, that money will provide capital and operating funds for the treatment facilities which are necessary.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a very important day. We are considering this piece of legislation for third reading. I certainly do not support many of the arguments of hon. members of the opposition who spoke before me.


Randolph Harding: Come on Keith.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: People generally are agitated about the question of pollution. They are concerned and upset. Having read many paperbacks which portray the terrible future facing not only Canada but the rest of the world if pollution is not curbed, I am happy to see these anti-pollution measures involving water being adopted. I hope that during the next session we shall deal with air pollution and environmental pollution in general in order that we may provide a proper environment for generations to come.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfew North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words before this bill finally passes. The committee sat for
7741
Water Resources Programs weeks and months. As chairman of the committee, despite all the differences that occurred in the process of our 36 meetings- and sometimes those sessions were challenging indeed for the chair-I thank the committee members for the fine education they gave me during the past few weeks.
I wish to comment on one of the basic principles of the bill, namely, the river basin water management concept. In the latter days of April the federal Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and the Ontario Minister of Lands and Forests made an announcement regarding pollution of the Ottawa River. It is anticipated that the Ottawa River will become one of the river basin management areas that are spelled out in the bill. In this House I specifically asked which part of the Ottawa River the ministers were referring to. The minister (Mr. Davis) is on record as saying that the polluted section was in the area between Ottawa and Hull and downstream. The news media carried the announcement but spoke about the Ottawa River in general being polluted. This information was carried by the news media across Canada. It was also carried by the news media on Canada's southern border and was picked up by networks in New York state and Ohio. The result was that the tourist industry in the Upper Ottawa Valley suffered a number of cancellations of summer registrations. Apparently people do not wish to come to these tourist resorts because they have heard that the Ottawa River is polluted. The news media carried the information in general terms only and did not specify those areas which were affected.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
My main reason for speaking today is to point out to the news media the great damage that was done to the tourist industry in the Ottawa Valley, particularly in my own area. I hope this will be corrected by the news media, particularly as it relates to New York state and other bordering American states. This river basin project is important. This is the point I have been making. Under the river basin management concept these waters will be checked on a continuing basis. There will not be a sudden flare-up with a river basin being polluted. It will not be necessary to stop fishing until it is checked. The important river basins covered under this act will be under constant study. This is very important.
June 4, 1970

Water Resources Programs
It has been said many times that those areas of Canada which are not covered by the Canada Water Act will be covered by the Fisheries Act and amendments to that act. It is important to note that under legislation prior to the amendments to the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry could not act to protect fish until such time as they were dead. Then he could act. Under this amendment the waters can be checked at any time. This is very important because with the river basin concept and the Fisheries Act the waters of Canada will be under constant scrutiny. Pure water will result from this far-reaching constructive program.
I have said many times before, and I repeat it, that if we are going to introduce constructive legislation such as the Canada Water Act and amendments to bills such as the Fisheries Act to combat pollution in Canada, and if the polluter must pay, we must have programs and research. At the same time we must decide whether the urban areas of Canada should be permitted to grow at the same pace as in the past. Canadians do not want Canada to become an urbanized area where everyone is crammed together. This results in greatly increased pollution in particular areas. If all Canadians are crammed into a few urban communities, where would the money come from to combat pollution? It would be much more costly to combat pollution. We would be better off to bring in other constructive programs in the future. This must be done with the co-operation of the provinces.
The money it will cost to combat pollution in urban communities, if we continue the way we are, could be used to build access roads and better communications to other areas of Canada. This would spread out the basic industry, the tax dollar and the economy. Canada would be a healthier country; the various parts of Canada would be economically sound.
I wish to pay tribute to our technical and scientific people working in the field of water research. Our committee had the pleasure and privilege of visiting the Bedford Institute of Oceanography approximately four weeks ago. We were all very impressed with the programs being carried out and the co-ordination that is evident among government departments and the provinces concerned. This is very important. Last year we visited the Inland Waters Centre at Burlington where a program in respect of inland waters is being carried on. The third one, which is in the making, will be in Victoria, British Columbia.

I compliment our scientists and others who are working on these various programs. Parliament should understand that if we want these people to do the job in the future, we must provide them with the necessary facilities and funds.
I congratulate the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on piloting this legislation through the House. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his co-operation in attending the committee hearings when the minister was unable to attend. I thank all members of the committee. As chairman of the committee I found it a very challenging and educational experience.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on that note I believe the House would agree to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m. e (8:10p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), who I understand is prepared to move the motion in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I must point out that I have some very grave doubts
June 4, 1970

about the admissibility of the amendment. In my view it goes beyond the scope of Bill C-203. But prior to making any definitive statement I am prepared to hear argument, if there is argument to be made.


Mr. Doug Rowland (for Mr. Brewin) moved:: 
Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) seeks to establish, by means of the bill under study, a pollution control zone related neither to the territorial sea nor to the fishing zones of Canada. Thus it amounts to an attempt to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act rather than the bill under study. For this reason alone, I do not see how it would be possible to entertain the amendment moved by the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contribution to the procedural discussion. I must say that despite the very persuasive arguments of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), I share the doubts of the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems to me that the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is not relevant to the subject matter and in fact goes beyond the scope of the bill.
The main provisions of Bill C-203 provide for a 12-mile territorial sea in substitution of a three-mile territorial sea, and for the elimination of contiguous fishing zones. It also provides that such zones shall be prescribed by the Governor in Council. The remaining provisions of the bill are subsidiary to the main provisions. The motion proposed by the hon. member deals with the question of pollution, which is foreign to the purpose and content of Bill C-203. I would remind hon. mem-
June 4, 1970
7744	COMMONS
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act bers of the following statement in May's seventeenth edition, at page 549:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill,
I suggest that the motion is a statement, as the hon. member for Selkirk pointed out, of a substantive and declaratory nature and it is not relevant to the purposes or the subject matter of Bill C-203. For these reasons the motion is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I can appeal to the House for understanding with regard to a difficulty that I think will be recognized when we come to the next motion in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). He is presently attending a very important meeting of the Indian Affairs Committee. If we stand that motion and proceed to Bill C-4, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), like other members who have moved amendments to that bill, is attending an important meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: All that is left is group singing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder if we could not have some community singing while we send for these members. I would go for them myself, but if I go the House might adjourn.


James Aloysius McGrath: You can lead us in song.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion that we should have community singing appeals to me greatly so long as I am not involved in directing or leading it. It seems to me that in the interlude we might turn our attention to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I have some procedural doubts. I do not know if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would care to utilize the interlude in defence of the motion while the member is being contacted in the committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are invited to make a speech, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One
thing I can promise not to do is to lead the singing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: would be run out fast.
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)


Mr. Walker:: You have unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think I heard my hon. friend, the member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), say there is unanimous dissent.
[DOT] (8:20p.m.)
Hon. members will be glad to know that I do not have to sing; here is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has arrived-


Mr. Bell:: Introduce him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I introduce my friend? He has just returned from being exposed to the "red paper". Perhaps the motion could be put in his name and I will be glad to second it, and if Your Honour still has some procedural difficulties we could deal with them. You are having quite a day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As has been indicated, the Chair does have some misgivings about the motion in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I will again suggest the areas of doubt so that the hon. member may compose some cogent and convincing arguments as to why the amendment should be put. Again, it seems to me that the proposal goes beyond the scope of the bill. I do not want to prejudge the question in a very definitive way, in the event that I might be persuaded to the contrary, but at this point I have serious doubts and I am prepared to hear the hon. member if he has procedural arguments to contribute.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That Bill C-203, an act to provide for the amendment of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, be amended in clause 2 thereof by deleting the proposed section 4. (1), and substituting therefor the following:
"4.(1) The fishing zones of Canada comprise all waters adjacent to the coasts of Canada, the natural resources of whose subjacent submarine areas Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit, and such other areas of the sea adjacent to the coasts of Canada as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council pursuant to subsection (1) of section 5a."
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to explain my view of this amendment. Incidentally, if I recall correctly, it was accepted by the Standing Committee without any question about its being in order. It makes explicit what is implicit in the bill as
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
it is presently worded. The clause which I seek to amend provides as follows:
The fishing zones of Canada comprise such areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council-
In other words, in the bill as it now stands, in theory the Governor in Council would have the power to consider that areas of the sea out to, shall we say to be absurd, a distance of 1,000 miles from our coastline were adjacent to the coasts of Canada. If that theoretical action were taken, the proposal in my amendment could in fact be regarded as in a sense restricting the bill rather than extending it. In other words, it simply makes explicit what is already in the bill by spelling out that part of the area adjacent to the coasts of Canada includes the area that is commonly referred to as the continental shelf. It simply gives the Governor in Council authority to go beyond that proposal as he sees fit. In other words, it suggests that specifically those areas are in fact adjacent to the coasts of Canada.
There are other reasons that I cannot very well go into fully on a procedural argument, except to say that the definition of the continental shelf is one which I have taken from another bill that has already been dealt with, namely, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention bill and is an area which in some respects is already recognized as being within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty in right of Canada, under international convention. It had not occurred to me that my amendment in any way went beyond the scope of the bill. It merely seeks to clarify and define what in my view is already implicit in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the hope that what you said a moment ago is true, that you might be persuaded, may I add a few words. It seems to me that there is a substantial difference procedurally between this amendment and the one that Your Honour ruled out of order a few minutes ago. Now that you have ruled the other one out of order I can admit that there was this against it, namely, that it provided for a category that was quite different from anything that was provided in the bill. The bill talks about 12-mile territorial sea limitations, and the amendment sought to talk about a 100 mile area with respect to pollution. In other words, there was a real difference. But in the case of the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) it accepts what the legislation is all about, namely, a new defini-
DEBATES	7745
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act tion of the fishing zones of Canada. It merely seeks to alter that definition. It is not bringing in a new kettle of fish, a new subject matter. It is simply altering a definition that is already there.
As I say, the bill does provide for a new definition of the fishing zones of Canada. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni feels that that definition ought to be altered, and it seems to me that there is really quite a substantial difference, speaking in procedural terms, between this amendment and the previous one. I would certainly argue that the fact you ruled the previous one out of order does not mean this one goes for the same reasoning.
I realize, sir, that what we do in this House is not to be governed by what happens in our Standing Committees. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that this amendment was proposed to the bill in the Standing Committee, and whether or not there was a procedural argument about it, at least it was voted on and defeated. I submit that the fact it was voted on supports the contention that at that point it was regarded as procedurally admissible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for that reason, which I admit is not one that is compelling so far as Your Honour is concerned, lout I think there is some weight to it, it might be accepted.
It seems to me that the thinking behind these procedural things we have around here would be the same, whether it is for the Chair or the committees, and I hope that will be considered. But mainly because this is totally different from what we had a few moments ago, I hope Your Honour will find this motion is in order.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the doubts you have expressed on the merits of the amendment, we on this side of the House are rather willing to hear your ruling and to reserve our rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I indicated at the beginning, I had some doubts about the admissibility of the amendment. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the arguments put forward, and I must say that I still have lingering doubts about its admissibility on the ground that it seems to provide for certain powers with respect to the disposal and exploitation of certain natural resources which it could be argued go beyond
June 4, 1970

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act the scope of the bill. But under the circumstances, and although this may be a dangerous precedent, I am prepared to yield to the arguments and give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and allow the motion.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In thanking you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to say that while there was some question in committee about the admissibility of the other amendment, in committee discussion certainly nobody, in the context of what was involved in the general purport of the bill, raised any question about the admissibility of this amendment. Obviously, the fact that it was brought forward by myself at the report stage in the House rather than as part of the committee report indicates that there was a difference of opinion within the committee on whether this particular provision should be included in the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
A very important question is involved in the amendment that I propose, Mr. Speaker. I think I can say, in his absence, that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is not opposed in principle to the idea that we should have some authority to conserve and control the exploitation of the fishing resources on the banks that lie off the Canadian coasts. In many statements in the House, in committee and in public during the last year or so the minister has indicated that he feels that in the interests of conservation of our fishing resources he must make some attempt to control the exploitation of the resources in the waters which lie above the seabed. International law recognizes that we, at least in part, have jurisdiction in these areas.
The Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1958 and another in 1960 made some very important decisions. They extended the whole question of the right to manage and control the resources of the sea and the seabed in areas commonly referred to as the continental shelf. The legal draftsmen who prepared the Arctic waters pollution bill, where we are asserting another type of jurisdiction in the field of pollution control, defined this as being:
-resources of whose subjacent submarine areas Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit-
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was dealing with this bill

at the second reading stage he said, as reported at page 6015 of Hansard of April 17, 1970:
The fisheries provisions of this bill will provide the government with greater flexibility for completing the delimitation of Canada's exclusive fishing zones in those coastal areas where straight baselines have not so far been drawn-
He went on to talk about the need to exercise control over the resources of the continental shelf and the adjacent coastal territories to a greater degree than in the original Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones bill as it stood in 1964. The bill of 1964 contained some flaws which, with the help of some of my colleagues, I attempted to correct. The government at that time would not agree to our contention. However, subsequent events indicated that the legislation was defective in some respects and that very important areas of water were not in fact brought under the jurisdiction of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. I refer particularly to such bodies of water as the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance on the Pacific coast.
It is the stated intention of the government, although there is no reference to this in the bill, to use the powers proposed in this amending bill to enclose, in effect, those particular bodies of water to which I have just referred. Within what are being referred to as fisheries closing lines, full jurisdiction will be exerted over them as far as the living resources of the sea are concerned. This is to be accomplished without bringing them within the boundaries of Canada's territorial jurisdiction either by making them internal waters or making them part of our territorial sea.
There is a difference of opinion on this aspect of the bill. Many of us feel that these historic waters should in fact be regarded as the internal waters of Canada and that our territorial sea, which the bill proposes to extend to 12 miles, should be measured outward from a straight line closing the gaps in the existing straight baselines. Still left out of the arrangement is the question of the resources lying outside the semi-enclosed bodies of water I have mentioned. In these areas a great portion of the fish resource, which in my view really is Canadian, is left beyond the stated intention of the government as the bill stands.
It was brought out in committee that the bill as drafted makes it quite clear that it confers upon the government the power to do just what my amendment is proposing.
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
Indeed, it was argued that in some respects my amendment was not necessary. But in view of the fact that it was not the stated intention of the government to take any action to bring under its control and management the resources of the sea on the continental shelf outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and outside the waters on the west coast lying between Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Islands and the mainland, I felt that I should put forward this proposal for the consideration of the House as a whole.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
While it might be argued that there is no precedent in international law established under an international convention for this sort of action, I should like to point out that some of the ideas implicit in this amendment came very close to receiving international acceptance at the last convention on the Law of the Sea. The idea is not completely new or original. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think there is quite a bit of evidence already that indicates that this proposal is fair and reasonable and that it is not something we should hesitate to take action on at this time, not only in the Canadian interest but in the interest of ensuring that these resources of our continental shelf are not raped and destroyed.
There is evidence that they are being destroyed at present. I have witnessed this happening in increasing measure on the Pacific Coast where there are incursions upon our continental shelf by the fishing fleets of the Soviet Union and Japan. There is an increasing possibility that other nations will be moving into these areas which have traditionally been regarded as Canadian fishing zones. There is an indication that Korea is seriously interested in establishing a high seas fishing fleet which will operate off the shore of the west coast. In the Fisheries Committee I listened to the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and other hon. members representing Atlantic provinces areas talking about the depletion of haddock as well as other species of fish which are to be found in the continental shelf areas off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. So, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the urgency for action is apparent; and, as I say, if Canada were to take this sort of action it would not be entirely unprecedented.
One of the documents presented to the committee by one of the witnesses appearing before it was a copy of a presidential proclamation of September 28, 1945, with respect to
DEBATES	7747
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act coastal fisheries in certain areas of the high seas. I think I ought to put the text of this document before the House for its consideration in relation to my amendment. It reads:
Whereas for some years the government of the United States of America has viewed with concern the inadequacy of present arrangements for the protection and perpetuation of the fishery resources contiguous to its coasts, and in view of the potentially disturbing effect of this situation, has carefully studied the possibility of improving the jurisdictional basis for conservation measures and international cooperation in this field; and
Whereas the progressive development of new methods and techniques contributes to intensified fishing over wide sea areas and in certain cases seriously threatens fisheries with depletion; and
Whereas there is an urgent need to protect coastal fishery resources from destructive exploitation, having due regard to conditions peculiar to each region and situation and to the special rights and equities of the coastal state and of any other state which may have established a legitimate interest therein;
Now Therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the following policy of the United States of America with respect to coastal fisheries in certain areas of the high seas;
In view of the pressing need for conservation and protection of fishery resources, the government of the United States regards it as proper to establish conservation zones in those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coasts of the United States wherein fishing activities have been or in the future may be developed and maintained on a substantial scale. Where such activities have been or shall hereafter be developed and maintained by its nationals alone, the United States regards it as proper to establish explicity bounded conservation zones in which fishing activities shall be subject to the regulation and control of the United States. Where such activities have been or shall hereafter be legitimately developed and maintained jointly by nationals of the United States and nationals of other states, explicitly bounded conservation zones may be established under agreements between the United States and such other states; and all fishing activities in such zones shall be subject to regulation and control as provided in such agreements. The right of any state to establish conservation zones off its shores in accordance with the above principles is conceded, provided that corresponding recognition is given to any fishing interests of nationals of the United States which may exist in such areas. The character as high seas of the areas in which such conservation zones are established and the right to their free and unimpeded navigation are in no way thus affected.
That proclamation, as I understand it, sets out exactly what my amendment proposes. I ought to point out that this proclamation by the United States was made at approximately the same time as the United States made its declaration of jurisdiction over the resources of the seabed to the outer limits of the continental shelf. As was pointed out by an expert
7748	COMMONS
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act witness before the committee, as a consequence of that proclamation by President Truman some of the Latin American countries took the declaration of the United States at its face value and declared fishing zones off their own coasts. Some of those countries, if I understand correctly, attempted to assert an additional jurisdiction which was specifically exempted in the United States declaration. They enacted laws making some areas of the seas which extended as much as 200 miles offshore territorial seas.
The bill before us makes no such assertion on the part of Canada. It merely provides that seas up to 12 miles offshore shall come under our jurisdiction, something which is well established in international practice as a result of the action of nations. It accepts and endorses the principle inherent in the proclamation which was made by the United States as long ago as 1945. Although there has been some dispute as to the jurisdiction of some South American nations which have made various assertions of jurisdiction, by and large many nations of the world recognize their claims that their fishing zones, in some cases, extend beyond the outer limits of the continental shelf. The whole area of the development of international law as a result of initiative of states in fields that they consider them legitimate interest is one that we considered exhaustively in the committee which dealt with this bill.
I feel confident that if my amendment were accepted, and if it were at the same time made clear that we are prepared to accept the right that other nations have obtained under treaties, this applying to the United States and France in particular and, for example, rights relating to the conservation convention of resources of the North Atlantic, we should not experience too much difficulty in achieving recognition of the principle enshrined in my amendment. It is true that the fishing fleets of the USSR have been exploiting the resources in these areas off the Pacific coast of Canada, as have the fishing fleets of Japan. But if one considers the position the USSR has adopted with relation to the areas adjacent to its coastline, it seems clear that that country could not seriously quarrel with the position Canada might take in asserting jurisdiction with respect to seas adjacent to our coastlines.
On the Pacific coast we have a reciprocal fishing arrangement with the United States, and the United States would not be directly affected if the amendment I propose were

DEBATES	June 4, 1970
adopted. I am sorry that I do not see in the House at the moment the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson). I point out to the House that since he is the sponsor of Bill C-91, which specifically suggests that the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act should be amended by extending our fishing zones to the edge of the continental shelf, he supports in principle the kind of amendment I have proposed.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He will vote for your amendment; there is no doubt about that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would not be surprised, if he were here. To indicate some of the growing weight of opinion behind the kind of proposal I am putting before the House by my amendment I point out that resolution No. 2 entitled "Management of fisheries resource" was approved at the recent annual meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada held in St. John's, Newfoundland. This resolution is well drafted and I wish to place it on the record for the consideration of members of this House. It reads:
Whereas the International Convention of the Continental Shelf form the principle of exclusive exploitation by a state of the seabed and subsoil resources of its adjoining continental shelf; and
Whereas the Convention of fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea establishes the principle that each state or nation has a special interest in the fisheries for a considerable distance off its shore; and
Whereas the continued decline in Canadian catches of most groundfish species and herring on Canada's Atlantic coast and several species on Canada's Pacific coast bears out previously expressed apprehension by the industry that the resource is being over-exploited by the large fleets of European and Asian fishing nations; and
Whereas It took several years of international negotiations and an attendant severe depletion of stocks of haddock on George's and Brown's Banks before agreement was reached to institute conservation measures as of January 1, 1970; and
Whereas It is in the best interests of the very important Canadian commercial fishing industry for the government of Canada to exercise some control over the exploitation of the fisheries off our Coasts; and
Whereas the only way for Canada to provide for this proper conservation and management is to have control of the fishing areas off the east and west coasts to its adjoining continental shelf and slope; and
Whereas continuation of the present rate of overfishing cannot be permitted without risk of serious damage to the resource for the years that will be required to negotiate international agreement in this connection;
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
Therefore be it resolved that Canada serve notice without delay that it intends to consider the waters off its east and west coasts to the limits of the continental shelf and slope as Canadian fishing zones for purposes of exercising management and conservation controls; and if a Law of the Sea conference would further this objective, that the Canadian government press for such a meeting at the earliest possible date; and
Be it further resolved that the government of Canada clarify the course which its boundaries take across the continental shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.
I am sure that hon. members who are familiar with the fishing industry of Canada recognize that the Fisheries Council of Canada is the official voice of the Canadian fishing companies. Over the years I have had experience in reviewing quite a number of resolutions passed at their annual meetings. I know that resolutions of this type are not brought forward lightly, but only after very serious consideration of all the implications. If I may say so, they tend to take a more conservative approach to some of these matters than other organizations in the fishing industry which I could name.
This resolution urges the immediate declaration by Canada of fisheries jurisdiction of the seas outward to the outer edge of the continental shelf and slope. It indicates a recognition by the fishing industry of Canada of how serious the situation is at the present time as far as this resource and its exploitation is concerned. Rather than follow the faltering and feeble course of extending our jurisdictional control over fisheries resources which was charted at the time the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was passed in 1964, with its deficiencies as far as concerns protecting our resources, this Parliament should take the course that anyone in the world who is concerned about the preservation of the food resources of the world could not help but agree is a sensible course.
We in this Parliament should not take a dog in the manger attitude toward this resource. I agree with the principle of international co-operation and international conventions for the orderly control and exploitation of resources of the high seas and, indeed, of the world as a whole. However, I have listened to experts in the field of international law and it has become very apparent, during the committee's consideration of this bill and the other one which has to do with control of pollution in the Arctic, how it came into being. Over the centuries international law developed as a result of states taking action in their own interest which at the same time was in the general interest. As those who
DEBATES	7749
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act have followed these matters pointed out, what now seems to be the ancient and traditional concept of the three-mile territorial sea developed in this way. Certain nations began to assert in their own interest that vessels of other states had to stay the distance of a cannon-shot from their shoreline. That is how the three-mile territorial sea developed.
In this bill we are moving to extend our jurisdiction to a 12-mile limit. Obviously, this is not to protect us from cannon-shots, but for pin-poses of navigational control. This amendment is vital to the future of Canada's fishing industry and the resources which are adjacent to our coasts. In former days these were under exploited by our own nationals and the nationals of other nations. However, with the development of modern technology these resources could be depleted overnight. I urge the House to provide this additional indication in the bill, namely, that we are serious about the conservation of the living resources of the sea.
I recognize that with regard to certain species of fish, salmon in particular, the proposals in this bill and in my amendment do not completely cope with the situation. A resolution of the annual meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada points out the principle that many of us have advocated for a number of years. I refer to the right of a nation that rears the fish which travel far afield in the oceans to feed, to harvest them when they return to the shores from which they came. That is beyond the purview of this bill and therefore I do not intend to explore that situation.
This proposed amendment is of the essence of the bill. It should be apparent and obvious to everyone, in light of what has been happening since 1964, that it is not enough merely to close those gaps in our existing system of straight baselines for fisheries purposes. A large proportion of the total fishing resource lies beyond that. This fishing resource really is part and parcel of the same fisheries on both the Atlantic and Pacific as those close to the coasts. Therefore, I hope members of the House will see fit to give general support to this amendment which I propose to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the proposed
amendment to the bill to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act would in
June 4, 1970
7750	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
effect extend the fishing zones of Canada to the outer limit of the continental margins adjacent to our coasts.
I feel that the proposed amendment is incompatible with the bill under consideration. The bill is enabling only, that is, it does not draw fisheries closing lines, but enables the government to do so.
The amendment, however, purports to create fishing zones. I must point out that the bill is so drafted that it would allow the government to create the kind of fishing zones suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).
The bill is flexible in this respect and of course it was intended to be flexible so that the government could respond to changing situations as and when it might become appropriate.
However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the House on April 17, that the new fishing zones would be established only where Canada's primary interests relate to fisheries and in areas where Canada has historic claims. He indicated also that the fisheries provisions of this bill will allow the government to determine exclusive fishing zones in those coastal areas where straight baselines have not so far been drawn from headland to headland, namely the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Bay of Fundy, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound.
There are geographic, legal and political reasons for this position at the present time. The government has emphasized that the bill as it stands is in advance of existing international law but is justified not only by the need to establish a rational system for the management and conservation of coastal fisheries resources but also by the fact that Canada has historic claims to the areas concerned.
A different set of considerations, however, arises in connection with the proposal to establish Canadian fishing zones out to the edge of the continental margins. Such action would obviously have an important impact on the interests and activities of other countries, which in turn could have an effect on Canadian interests. It would add unnecessarily to the already existing differences of views with other states concerning Canadian fishing zones.
Canada has already held negotiations with those countries which have traditional fishing 
practices in the existing Canadian fishing zones. The government intends to conclude these negotiations in the near future, both with respect to the existing fishing zones and the areas that will be enclosed within fisheries closing lines. It is desirable in the interests of good relations-not only in terms of good relations but in terms of Canada's own interests in continuing to trade with the countries concerned-to negotiate in this way.
The situation has changed very significantly since we began these negotiations in 1964. The 12-mile contiguous fishing zone which was controversial then is well established now, as is also the 12-mile limit for the territorial sea.
While the government's new proposals for fisheries closing lines give rise to differences of views, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) is controversial and could prejudice the Canadian position. We have come a long way with our negotiations and we believe that the end is in sight on the basis of the bill under consideration.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would prejudice the prospects for early and successful conclusion of these negotiations. It would do this because it would completely change the rules of the game in mid-play, because it would vastly extend the areas involved in the negotiations, and because far greater interests would be at issue on the part of the other countries concerned. From thsi point of view alone I do not believe that the proposed amendment is constructive or helpful or, indeed, justified in law.
Mr. Speaker, the government is deeply concerned about the need for conservation and protection of Canada's coastal fisheries. We have already taken an important step towards the achievement of these objectives. We agree, however, that more remains to be done with respect to the area beyond Canada's existing fishing zones and the areas to be enclosed within fisheries closing lines. We believe that in the next stage in the protection of coastal fisheries the special rights and responsibilities of the coastal state with respect to the fishery resources of the continental shelf will have to take a primary place. With respect to that area, however, the present situation obviously calls for multilateral action and an increased effort towards internationally agreed solutions.
I would remind hon. members that for more than two years the government has been
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
actively pursuing the kind of action recommended recently by the Fisheries Council of Canada with respect to the convening of a new law of the sea conference. It seems increasingly likely that such a conference may be held in the near future. The United States and the U.S.S.R. have made a proposal in this connection and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is now canvassing the views of member states on the desirability of holding a new conference. We have been engaged in a wide range of consultations with other states concerning the measures which might be adopted at a new law of the sea conference to give greater recognition to the special interests of the coastal state.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We have even done more than that. We have been pressing very energetically to obtain greater protection for anadromous species of fish, such as the salmon, which spawn in Canadian rivers and then roam far out to sea at recurrent periods of their life cycle. We have urged complete prohibition of high seas fishing for Atlantic salmon within the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. We have had a measure of success in our efforts and we will continue them until the desired results are obtained.
We will go to a new law of the sea conference with a strong position and with the assurance that everything possible has been done to rally support for our point of view. We believe that we can obtain a real and substantial measure of recognition for the special rights and interests of the coastal state at such a conference.
We note that in all the developments that are going on now, in connection with marine pollution, with fisheries and the territorial sea, the whole trend of the law of the sea is towards greater recognition of the special rights and responsibilities of coastal states. These are recent developments which have taken place thanks, in part, to the efforts made by Canada.
There can be no doubt now that the primary concern of all countries, whether they are coastal fishing states or whether they fish far from their own shores, is the problem of conservation. Present fishing methods no longer resemble a harvesting operation but are increasingly becoming a mining operation which threatens to strip and deplete the living resources of the sea. For this reason it is recognized that a rational world-wide system of fisheries conservation management
DEBATES	7751
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act and exploitation is essential in the common interest of all countries. Such a regime can only be achieved by multilateral agreement among all the countries concerned. At the same time, however, it can only be achieved if all states recognize the special rights and responsibilities of the coastal states.
We will go to any new law of the sea conference to urge this position. If we are not successful in attaining our legitimate objectives, we will of course have to re-examine our position and consider what other action may be required.
In the meantime, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is premature and incompatible with the imperatives of the present situation. Moreover, it is out of order.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
amendment is	negatived on	division.Amendment	(Mr. Barnett)	negatived.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-203, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, as reported (without amendment) from	the Standing	Committee on
External Affairs and National Defence, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-203, an act to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, deals with
June 4, 197a
7752	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
two aspects of Canadian sovereignty, the territorial seas of Canada and the fishing zones of Canada. It is not my intention to speak at any length on this measure this evening. I say this because the bill received a searching analysis when it came before the House for second reading on Wednesday, April 22, at which time I participated in the debate. It was referred to committee where it received clause by clause study and at that time all members had an opportunity to present their views on this legislation.
The bill proposes to extend the seas over which we have exclusive sovereign control from three miles to 12 miles. That declaration makes necessary the extension of Canadian-controlled fishing zones inasmuch as the proposed 12-mile territorial limit includes the present 9-mile fishing zone adjacent to the present 3-mile limit of our territorial waters. We in the official opposition are in full accord with the principle of this bill. We raised certain questions in the committee. We questioned why the declaration of what are allCanadian fishing zones must be left to the discretion of the Governor in Council. We questioned why the legislation cannot provide that certain waters are Canadian fishing zones subject to extension by the Governor in Council. Quite frankly, we received no adequate reply. Our concern is based on the fact that everything we have heretofore left to the Governor in Council with respect to our territorial waters and our fishing zones has been marked by timidity, caution and inaction.
Six years have passed since we authorized the Governor in Council to issue geographical co-ordinates from which our territorial waters and fishing zones might be established. At that time, if you read the debates and the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, you will see that we were promised this action within a year. We all know what happened. It is almost seven years later, and neither Canadians nor the rest of the world know where along our entire coastline are our territorial waters and fishing zones. The minister, or whoever replies, may say that this is not correct. I would have to agree that some of the baselines have been drawn and some of the areas have been defined, but the basic conservation areas such as the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence have not been sealed off, areas where the prolific herring run in the spring of the year followed by the groundfish and where foreign fleets gather in enormous numbers. Year after year 
ever since 1964 these fleets have depleted our fishery resources until today some species are almost extinct.
It has become necessary for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, in order to conserve one species-haddock, for example-to put in special fishing limitations on this species or else the well-known shore dinner of fin and haddie, as we know it in Atlantic Canada, would be only a memory. We were promised in the House that the government would phase out the fishing activities of the eight nations which claim the right to exploit Canadian fishing waters, namely, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Denmark.
e (9:20p.m.)
Have we seen this action, Mr. Speaker? Has anything been done? We who are directly concerned with and interested in the fishing problems of Atlantic Canada cannot help but wonder when some action will be taken on this matter. Over the years we have watched the fishing activities of these eight nations which claim the right to exploit Canadian fishing resources. In some cases we have watched them bring our fishing resources to almost certain destruction, and yet speaking on second reading of this bill in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) on April 17, as recorded at page 6917, of Hansard said:
Following the establishment of Canada's new fishing zones we intend to conclude negotiations for the phasing out of the fishing activities of the countries which have traditionally fished in the areas concerned, namely, Britain, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain and Italy. With respect to the fishing activities of the United States in these areas, it is intended that they should continue on the basis of the ad referendum agreement on reciprocal fishing privileges we have recently negotiated with that country. Apart from traditional fishing practices, the United States and France also have certain treaty rights off Canada's east coast, and these rights will of course be respected.
This is all very well, Mr. Speaker, but what of the rights of Canadian fishermen? Must they stand idly by every week, every month watching while our fishing resources are depleted? I wonder if the members of this House have any idea of the problems that these people face, problems which were compounded only this week by the announcement of the revaluation of the dollar. Here we have an industry almost entirely dependent on its exports to the United States and in many cases hanging on by a thread, paying substandard wages. Now the industry must try to
June 4, 1970

powers, particularly any involving Moscow and Peking, suggests there are many nearly insurmountable problems to be resolved.
Then there are likely to be loud cries from interested parties in the United States, as well as elsewhere. The U.S. petroleum industry, for example, is not likely to take kindly to the President's plan that the U.S. waive claims to the ocean floor beyond the continental shelf. The President's idea is that all the riches beyond the shelf, unquestionably greater than any "wealth of the Indies," should be preserved as "the common heritage of mankind."
The article continues:
President Nixon at the same time firmly backed a proposed Law of the Sea treaty that would set a 12-mile to territorial waters.
These are important proposals by the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker. While he was making them did we hear anything about this matter from our Secretary of State for External Affairs? Did he at any time indicate that the President of the United States was thinking along similar lines and apparently would be happy to co-operate in conservation and pollution control in matters which are obviously of vital importance to that country, according to this article? The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. We heard nothing from the Secretary of State for External Affairs about American proposals similar to our own. All we hear whenever a statement is made is that we are not getting agreement with these people, that we must take unilateral action.
It is getting to the point where we are a lone wolf in international affairs. We take action without consulting the International Monetary Fund, we withdraw from NATO and tell all our friends that we are no longer going to co-operate, and we take unilateral action all the time. We are becoming a lone wolf, but I wonder if Canadians are willing to follow this line. I think we should be following the other course if we wish to put people back to work and make this nation grow and prosper.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, another question comes to mind. Why were not the sovereign rights of Canada, or the provinces of Canada, as the case may be, over her continental shelf embodied in the bill? These rights are acknowledged in the 1958 Geneva convention on the continental shelf and extend to exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the shelf. Why were they not embodied in the bill, if for no other reason than to include our territorial water rights, our fishing zone rights and our continental shelf rights in one and the same statute? I ask
June 4, 1970	COMMONS
this question and I hope someone on the government benches can answer it.
This, then, is our attitude on this legislation. We fully approve the principle of the bill. We hope that its implementation will not require six more years. If it does, our fisheries resources will be completely destroyed by the overfishing of foreign fishing fleets.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak on second reading so there are a few things I should like to say with respect to Bill C-203. I say at the outset that I concur with the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) on second and third reading. Through him and through others our party has been, for many years, advocating a measure such as this. However, I doubt we would have gone about it in this way. We would probably have tried what we tried in 1960, when we failed by only one vote to reach agreement on proposals such as this. I think this is probably the attitude that we should have taken, without saying unilaterally that we declare this to be our territorial zone.
When we study legislation such as this, Mr. Speaker, we realize how effective we need to be in the Department of External Affairs. The hon. member for South Shore touched on this matter. Many nations are concerned about what we are trying to do here. We cannot afford to irritate any of them, because if we do we will have worse wheat sales and more export problems with textiles and oil. I understand that even tonight the United States has signed an agreement with Venezuela for oil. We will continue to have problems in many other sectors of our economy which are suffering, such as the electronics and footwear industries.
With this type of legislation we have to be very careful. We have to decide the course of action through international agreement. I agree that the areas we are trying to declare as belonging to us should belong to us, but I fail to see why this question has not been brought to the attention of any Law of the Sea conference in order to obtain agreement. If there is trouble with our economy today, the responsibility lies very heavily with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). We must have agreements with other countries on matters such as this.
The enforcement of this new act concerns me, Mr. Speaker. In a letter dated May 5, Mr. Gordon O'Brien, manager of the Fisheries
DEBATES	7755
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act Council of Canada, wrote to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry as follows:
The amendments to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act have our support. We have been advocating some such action ever since the bill was passed in 1964 and are pleased to see the present degree of determination to take action-
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am pleased to see the government's determination to take action. If one is to judge from the statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs made to the Fisheries Committee, this bill will merely give the Governor in Council power to make regulations, a power that has existed since 1964. Apparently, the 12-mile limit has been in force since 1964. I point out that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) said, as reported at page 412 of Hansard of November 3, 1969:
Those of you who are familiar with fisheries matters know that we have a 12-mile, limit. We have had a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone ever since 1964 ... Not only that, but we have a 12-mile limit extending seaward from the headland to headland lines, or baselines, which we have already published on our fisheries maps for all to see.
If the 12-mile limit has been in force since 1964, what is the purpose of this legislation? On April 17, 1970, as reported at page 6013 of Hansard, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in part:
I mentioned yesterday that we decided in 1964 that it was necessary to do it alone, and so we did, we passed the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act laying down the legislative basis for delimiting the territorial sea from straight baselines rather than from the sinuosities of the coast, and established a 9-mile fishing zone contiguous to our 3-mile territorial sea.
But we have not enforced this legislation which has been on our statute books since 1964. That legislation has not been effective. I have talked to my colleagues who were here at the time and who have followed this matter with interest, and they say it has not been effective in preserving our fisheries resources. I agree. If this bill merely does what the previous bill did, it will not be effective. If it will not protect and preserve our fisheries resources, particularly those within the 12-mile limit, it is useless giving this bill third reading. The problem of enforcement is a serious one.
As has been said this evening, the ships of seven nations, namely, Britain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain and Italy have fished in Canadian waters on grounds of historic and traditional rights. Although the ships of these nations have been permitted to
June 4, 1970
7756	COMMONS DEBATES
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act penetrate close to our land and coastline, Canadian fishermen have been excluded from those waters. If we restrict the fishing rights of our own fishermen, surely we should also restrict the fishing rights of ships of the nations I have mentioned.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Goyer) said this evening that we would be well prepared for the next international conference on the law of the sea.
Well prepared, indeed we are!
Several countries did not abide by the rules. In fact we can take them to task on several issues and I hope that, at the next conference, we will be able to tell them once and for all to acknowledge and respect Canadians laws in order not to ruin our resources, particularly our fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the United States Department of the Interior-I think I am referring to the right department-puts out a daily report of fisheries activity off the coast of Nova Scotia and New England. The report also covers George's Bank, Brown's Bank and the activities of vessels which sometimes fish inside the 12-mile limit. Not only do the fishing boats fish off the coast of Nova Scotia and off George's Bank and Brown's Bank, but in their search for fish they sometimes come within our 12-mile limit. One nation employs 70 boats, another 30 and another 29. It is ridiculous that these boats are permitted to come inside our 12-mile limit to fish. Legislation, it is said, regulating these waters has been on the statute books since 1964, but it has not been effective.


An hon. Member:: That law was part of the Pearson philosophy.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That law looked good on paper. It made great political headlines, but it was impossible to enforce and has never been enforced.


James Aloysius McGrath: We did not have the gunboats to enforce it.


Louis-Roland Comeau: My colleague says that we did not have the necessary gunboats. If that legislation has been on the statute books since 1964, why are we in need of the present bill? I am a bit mixed up. The bill we are considering merely allows the Governor in Council to draw up regulations to enclose some of our

waters such as the Bay of Fundy, Dixon Entrance, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Queen Charlotte Sound, and so on. What were we told on previous occasions? It is interesting to see this statement on page 2 of a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on Tuesday, April 21, 1970:
The bill itself does not draw fisheries closing lines but enables the government to do so.
The next part of the paragraph is stroked out and the words were not spoken before the committee. They are:
Bodies of water likely to be enclosed include the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.
That part was stroked out and was not delivered to the committee. Since we have been told all along that such bodies of water are to be enclosed under the regulations, I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not quote the rest of the paragraph. Does that mean that we cannot enclose those bodies of water? This puzzles me greatly. I understood that as a result of the passage of the bill many areas of water were to be enclosed. I do not want the Bay of Fundy to be excluded, nor those seas contiguous to the coastline of my constituency. It is imperative that we reach agreement with other nations on these matters because failure to do so may bring repercussions affecting the Canadian economy. It is imperative for us to make sure that once the law is passed, it is enforced. I sincerely hope we will be able to do that and protect the herring and lobster spawning grounds off our coasts. I am thinking particularly of the area I know best, off the coast of Nova Scotia.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have a hard time to enforce the laws we now have. As I stated earlier, we have legislation but it is almost impossible to enforce it. At least, we are not taking strong action to enforce it. We cannot even control the small lobster inshore fisheries. We cannot control illegal lobstering. If we cannot do that, how are we going to do anything with respect to the 12-mile limit? Let us get on the ball and protect, by international agreement, what is ours so that we do not have repercussions in other parts of the Canadian economy.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state the position of my party at the third reading stage of this bill. I hoped that the amendment I proposed
June 4, 1970

would be part of the bill at this point, but it is not. Despite that fact I want to make it clear that we are giving full support to the bill as far as it goes. We hope it will further the cause of protecting and enhancing the fisheries of Canada.
The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has just said that the present act is operative. In my previous remarks I pointed to some of the deficiencies in the 1964 act. I said that the jurisdiction which it asserts has been respected and has in fact been enforced. I am more familiar with the situation on the Pacific coast than that on the Atlantic coast. I can recall various reports made to the House by Ministers of Fisheries in answer to questions about excursions by other nations into our declared fishing zones. They said they had respected our laws and in fact had been prosecuted on a few occasions for infractions.
I remind the House, and in particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Whelan), who is the only representative of that department here tonight, that when asked a question as to when the closing lines proposed in the bill would come into force if this legislation is passed, authorizing them to be proclaimed by the Governor in Council, the Minister of Fisheries said "within days." I hope that once this bill has received royal assent the commitment of the minister will be borne out.
I wish to make one or two comments on the remarks of spokesmen of the official opposition. I have always been ready and willing to give full marks to the efforts that were made on the international convention on the Law of the Sea by the then Conservative administration, and to the imagination and initiative displayed by Hon. Howard Green when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs. When talking about international negotiations, some of the problems outlined by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) resulted from the failure of international negotiations in certain respects, particularly those related to fishing zones at the international convention on the Law of the Sea in 1960. Members of the official opposition outlined the sad state of affairs. What they say is true. However, I have listened in vain for them to come forward with any concrete proposal as an alternative. A short time ago I put an amendment before the House. For their own reasons, the official opposition did not see fit to support it.
DEBATES	7757
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act


Louis-Roland Comeau: We supported it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did not hear any yeas from that part of the House, Mr. Speaker. If I am mistaken, I withdraw those remarks. My impression was that my amendment did not have the support of the official opposition. However, if knowledgeable members say it had, I am very happy to know that. In listening to the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore it did not appear that he supported the concepts I was putting forward as to the necessity of the Canadian Parliament taking declaratory action. Be that as it may, I hope the time is not far off when there will be another international conference on the Law of the Sea. Perhaps some of the ideas discussed at the various stages of this bill will receive international blessing at such a conference.
I notice that Your Honour is eyeing the clock. I have concluded my remarks. I wish to say we support the bill at third reading stage.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, if the House will give unanimous consent to a few minutes' overtime, I wish to make a few remarks on the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not clear to the Chair whether there is agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) introduced this bill he had quite a lot to say about the treaties and traditional rights of certain countries that were involved in fishing activities off the east coast of Canada. He referred to these countries by name. They have already been referred to by my two colleagues who spoke earlier in the debate. They are Britain, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain and Italy.
I was interested in the comment of the minister with respect to the treaty rights of the United States and France. The minister said, as reported at page 6017 of Hansard for April 17:
Apart from traditional fishing practices, the United States and France also have certain treaty rights off Canada's east coast, and these rights will of course he respected.
Why should Canada respect a treaty that was negotiated by a foreign power-in this case Great Britain-in 1713, before Canada
June 4, 1970
7758	COMMONS
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was a country, which gave these rights to France? The treaty was renegotiated in 1904.
I am referring to the treaty of Utrecht. This treaty has no relevance to the present day. This treaty which was negotiated between Great Britain and France had no respect for Canada as it was then and did not anticipate Newfoundland entering into the Confederation of Canada. Nevertheless, this treaty was renegotiated in 1904.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This treaty today gives France not only territorial rights over the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon but it gives her the right to fish in our territorial sea and within the three-mile limit. Under this treaty France can fish right up on the shores of Newfoundland. The Parliamentary Secretary has said something from his seat. I suggest that he restrain himself and occupy himself with the history books in the library so that he may learn something about this treaty, because his minister is very concerned about it as he should be. This treaty makes a total sham of this legislation. In fact, this legislation is a farce so long as that treaty is not renegotiated by Canada and so long as there is not an understanding between Canada and France that certain aspects of it are no longer relevant and it must be renegotiated. I am a little sick and tired, as I believe many Canadians are, concerning the attitude of the government toward France.
Only yesterday the government of France refused to grant permission to our Secretary of State for External Affairs to fly over that country. This was an indignity for Canada. What about the situation in respect of the Marville air base? In understand this matter has not been resolved. A substantial amount of money, over $100 million, is owing Canada by France as a consequence of the takeover of this NATO Canadian military installation by the government of France. Yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs rises in his place in this House and says this is a solemn treaty and that Canada must respect it.
I say to the government that Canada should exert its sovereign right and say to France that we can no longer subscribe to the terms of this ancient treaty which is no longer relevant to the present day. We should say to France that we respect its territorial rights to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, but that we must renegotiate the fishing rights of that country within our territorial seas. Then if France refused to renegotiate, we should


exercise the right to take this matter to the International Court of Justice and ask that it adjudicate on it. If Canada is not able to obtain satisfaction from the International Court of Justice, we should exercise our right as a nation and say to France that we can no longer honour the commitment of this treaty which grants to France rights which are denied to our own nationals, rights which we deny to our own fishermen, to fish within Canada's territorial seas and waters.
We should settle for nothing less than a renegotiation of this treaty. Otherwise, the legislation to which we are now asked to give assent is nothing but a sham, because the area concerned is the most prolific fishing area off Canada's east coast, the southern area of Newfoundland, the Grand Banks. This area has already been referred to in great detail by my colleague the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I am only sorry that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), who is in his seat, did not see fit to participate in this debate in order to tell the House the difficulties he has as Minister of Fisheries in trying to enforce conservation and fisheries jurisdiction in the area of the south coast of Newfoundland and in trying to establish baselines on that south coast which, as he knows, is impossible so long as this treaty remains as it is today.
In order to set up such baselines one would practically have to go through the territory of France. Yet the government adopts the attitude that this is a treaty which cannot be renegotiated and is one which must be honoured. This is the treaty that was negotiated between Britain and France in 1713 and was renegotiated in 1904, which as it stands today represents a grave injustice to the fishermen of Canada. It allows the fishing fleets of France to violate our territorial sea and to ignore our conservation measures, and it makes this legislation to which we must assent nothing but a sham. I say to the government that they should heed the counsel of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry because I know he is concerned about this matter. He has expressed his concern.
Let the Secretary of State for External Affairs while he is in Europe take advantage of his presence there, which coincides with the passage of this legislation, to express to the government of France the concern of the Parliament of Canada and to ask the government of France if, in light of the legislation which we are now about to pass, they would be prepared to at least renegotiate the fishing
June 4, 1970

rights which France has under the treaty of Utrecht and renegotiate them in the light of present day circumstances.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised the question of the direction that is being taken by the National Film Board, particularly in respect of its distribution services in the rural parts of Canada. This is a subject that has been under discussion from time to time during the current session of Parliament. In fact, it was a subject of some controversy earlier in the year when the decision was made to discontinue the free distribution of the excellent films of the National Film Board. As a result of protests from schools which depend heavily upon this source of information on Canada, from public libraries and from the local film councils scattered across the country, the decision was reversed. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) indicated at the time that the service would be restored to the level at which it had been from the earliest days of the National Film Board.
My reason for raising the question again is that the distribution centre for western Manitoba located in the city of Brandon is closing at the end of the month, and I would assume that this is just one of several distribution centres which serve the rural parts of the country where, I suppose, it is reasonable to say that the heaviest use is made of this service. It would seem to be a decision on the part of the minister and the government to do by indirection what they are not able to do by direction with respect to the earlier decision to which I have already referred.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
It is an important issue because the National Film Board was the first information service developed specifically to fill the informational gaps so far as Canadian content, which is a popular phrase today, was concerned. It was designed to present information on Canada in depth through the film medium. It was educational as well as cultural. Anyone who has been connected with the work carried out by the local film councils will agree that it has performed a very useful function. I suppose one of the main reasons for inaugurating the work of the National Film Board was to offset the impact of Hollywood and the hucksterism which had predominated in Canadian film activities up until that point.
I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is with us tonight. Specifically I want him to indicate whether this is a discontinuance of the service to western Manitoba, rural Manitoba which, as I have indicated, is the greatest user of the service, or is it intended to try to carry out this type of service from a centralized office in the city of Winnipeg? Further, is it regarded as a part of the government's austerity measures? If it is regarded as an austerity measure, I think it is misplaced because it will be considerably more expensive to serve the rural parts of Manitoba, or any other rural areas of Canada where offices are closed, due to the greater distances and the mileage involved. In the long-run it will be a more costly service and it will not improve the cultural, informational and educational program that has hitherto been available from the National Film Board.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that it is a reversal of the course that the minister is following in other areas of informational promotion. Cultural programs costing many millions of dollars are now being promoted by the Department of the Secretary of State. Information Canada is spending $7 million during the current fiscal year in order to bring about a more co-ordinated and effective information service with a view to interpreting Canada to Canadians. Yet flying in the face of this new program we have a retraction of an informational service that has established itself every year in the minds of Canadians as a most useful source of information on Canada.
It is discrimination against rural Canada. This seems to be a general policy on the part of the government at the present time with the phasing out of rural post offices, another
7760	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion aspect of communications, which has deep underlying sociological implications. I trust that the minister in his reply will indicate a reversal of the decision that was made to discontinue this service. I hope we shall have the assurance that the excellent work of the NFB will carry on in its traditional style.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may rest assured that the NFB's distribution operations will remain efficient. Efforts have to be made to rationalize the distribution operations, and those efforts alone warrant that decision.
At the present time, the NFB has two offices in Manitoba to serve about one million people, of whom 50 per cent are in the city of Winnipeg.
Two officials are on duty at the Winnipeg office (one secretary and one clerk) while the Brandon office has one official in charge of the films and one part-time secretary. The Brandon office serves the southwestern and northern parts of Manitoba. That office gives a small free distribution service to the people in Brandon and the vicinity. It was realized, however, that there is not enough demand in Brandon to maintain a distribution service in that area.
However, films will still be available, through the film federations, the Natiional Film Board office in Winnipeg, and film libraries of the National Film Board which will continue to operate in the region.
It has therefore been recommended that the Brandon office be closed on June 30, 1970. The local representative, Mr. Gerry McLeod, will be transferred to the Winnipeg office, where he will continue to serve the same region, and he will require for their work the services of a secretary and a clerk in Winnipeg.
The closing of the office, on June 30, should in no way affect services (programming, film studio, training, etc.) offered by National Film Board offices, in view of the fact that Mr. McLeod, who has been working in Brandon, will continue serving the same region from Winnipeg.



AGRICULTURE-DAIRY INDUSTRY-CHANGES IN CONSTITUTION TO CONTROL PRODUCTION

Léonel Beaudoin: Last June 2, Mr. Speaker, I asked to the Minister
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
DEBATES	June 4. 1970
of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) the following question:
Does the minister deem advisable to have the constitution amended so that, at last, the federal government might have a better control over dairy production?
The minister was embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, but your intervention saved him. Indeed, you suggested that this interesting question might be put on the order paper. However, since I wanted a full answer to a relevant query, I was forced to bring it up on the adjournment motion.
I understand the minister, who is trying to justify the inadmissible and disastrous dairy policy of the government. He brought up the same old constitutional argument. In a recent speech at Richmond in the Eastern Townships, the minister stated:
The federal government is not empowered by the British North America Act to set production quotas for each farmer.
It is always the same old excuse. Such buck-passing between Quebec and Ottawa is getting on the nerves of all Quebecers, including the dairy producers, who are pushed around with impunity.
I ask the minister to be honest. His failure to find a solution to this problem means that the fate of the farm industry in Quebec does not worry him very much. The minister is stuck. The Canadian Dairy Commission has been set on a course that is now destroying and in the future will destroy to a greater extent the Quebec producers. The Commission wants to make dairy products scarce in the hope of solving the problem. This is inhuman, taking into account the needs of the people; they would use more dairy products if, at last, it was decided to increase their purchasing power; besides hundred of thousands of human beings die of starvation each day throughout the world. But that is another problem. Therefore, I should come back to the main point of my question: how the minister expects to settle the quota problem, if he cannot amend the constitution.
In view of the failure of the federal policy on industrial milk, does he not believe that the government should yield all jurisdiction in that area and leave to provincial governments the control of the entire dairy industry? Besides, it has been a basic mistake to divide milk production into these two sectors: fluid milk and industrial milk. Quality requirements are about the same today, more especially as cows do not care in the least what is the final destination of their milk.
June 4. 1970	COMMONS
Does the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) know that it costs as much to produce a hundred pounds of industrial milk as it does a hundred pounds of fluid milk? Nonetheless, in the first case the sale price is $3.65 per hundredweight and in the second one, $6.50. Does not the minister think that the solution is to allow the same provincial commission to exercise entire control? Thus, all fluid milk surpluses would go to the industry and we would be fair towards all producers.
[DOT] (10:20p.m.)
This is a logical and very sensible position. When no way can be found to deal sensibly with farm administration, when it becomes necessary to bring up the old constitutional argument, there is only one thing left to do and that is to quote the old saying which is especially true in the circumstances: Everyone to his trade, and the cows will be well looked after.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture was asked if he felt that the constitution should be amended in order to solve the problem of the dairy industry, I am under the impression that had the Chair allowed him to answer, he would not have evaded the question as my hon. friend has just said. Indeed, he would have merely announced or explained that, under the constitution, it is impossible to set a quota at the producer's level in a province or in an area.
The government cannot say to farmers: "You will do what I want you to do and produce the quantity determined by the state." Indeed, that would be violation of the British North America Act.
In setting forth the dairy policy, the minister also knew that for perhaps eight or ten years, agreements have been entered into with the provinces without upsetting anything. At times the constitution is amended in order to put farm organizations in a position to settle their own problems. As regards the Canadian Dairy Commission or the quota system, it would be impossible to do better than is being done now, as long as everyone is instructed on how to proceed. It is very encouraging at the present time to see associations and provinces become conscious of this problem and, without amending the constitution, do the impossible to settle it themselves. Negotiations are under way between producers of natural milk selling at
DEBATES	7761
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion $6.50-which price is not set by the government but rather by the consumer who is willing to pay $6.50-and the consumer who is willing to pay only $3.60 for industrial milk.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no points of order or question of privilege at this stage in our proceedings.


Mr. Cole (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I have not much more to say. My hon. friend will no doubt understand that even the farm associations in his constituency work hard since I met their representatives in order to solve the problem. It will not be necessary to change our constitution to do that. The idea does not come from the government nor from the minister: the idea is simply to rationalize agriculture as much as possible at the consumers' level and at the level of the surpluses that foreign countries will be willing to buy. Then, as my hon. friend pointed out, the cows will be well looked after. They seem to be doing quite well indeed, because of the government's policy.



FISHERIES-LOCATION OF FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION PLANT IN WINNIPEG INSTEAD OF SELKIRK

Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, on May 27 I asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) whether his department would re-examine the decision of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to relocate its processing plant in Winnipeg. The minister replied to the effect that he had no intention of so doing because the decision was the corporation's to make. He argued by implication that the location of the plant was a purely administrative matter and that he had absolutely no responsibility for the ultimate decision of the corporation and its potential effects upon the economic life of the interlake region of Manitoba. It is my contention that his actions in continuing the pretence that the matter is one for the corporation alone to decide represent a monumental avoidance of responsibility, a dereliction of duty unworthy of the minister and the government of which he is a part. I say this because there are definite and transparently obvious policy implications in the eventual decision.
7762	COMMONS DEBATES	June 4. 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement for the interlake area of Manitoba was signed on May 16, 1967. The preamble to the agreement states in part that the two governments "jointly agreed" that the "area have a comprehensive and co-ordinated development plan designed to protect its economic development." The agreement further states that its "objects shall be reached through cooperation between Canada and the province, through co-ordination amongst the parties hereto and their agencies, and by applying all other related or applicable programs and projects to the plan in the area."
Under this program the government of Canada committed itself to spend in excess of $49 million in the annual appropriation of contributing departments or agencies. The province agreed to contribute in excess of $35 million as its share of the cost of programs and projects. Surely those passages from the agreement which I have quoted and the sums of money involved demonstrate that the federal government has a responsibility to account for the actions of its agencies as they affect the interlake area. Moreover, the agreement states the following with specific reference to the fisheries:
The problems in the fishery are complex, deep-rooted and interrelated. Fisheries projects should be undertaken only as an integrated package in a comprehensive and carefully phased fisheries adjustment and development program.
That is the agreement, yet the minister argues that an action by a Crown agency which deals the entire plan a devastating blow is of no concern to the government. Surely, if such agreements for the revitalization of underveloped areas of the country are to have any meaning, if they are to be able effectively to deal with the problem for which they were devised, they cannot be subjected to distortion, dislocation and emasculation through the unilateral decision of one of the parties to the agreement.
I submit that is what will happen if the processing plant is moved from Selkirk to Winnipeg. If it is done, it will be against the express wishes of the provincial government, against the wishes of the town involved and against the wishes of the people of the interlake as represented by their municipal councils and their area development boards. It is because of the responsibilities of the federal government under the ARDA-FRED agreement for the development of the interlake, because of the total confusion surrounding the economics of the situation and because of the economic and social costs to the people of

the interlake and to the town of Selkirk in particular that the removal of the plan represents, that I argue the matter of the location of the plant is a proper matter for a policy decision on the part of governments and not a proper matter for an administrative decision by an agency which is simply a handmaiden of governments.
It is also a policy decision, because the location of the plant in Winnipeg directly contravenes efforts by the provincial government to decentralize industry in Manitoba with a view to revitalizing its non-urban areas. It is a policy decision which must be made. The minister must make that decision in consultation with his colleagues in the cabinet. He cannot simply tell me to go to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand). I have done that. That minister has done as much as he possibly can under the terms of the legislation governing the operation of his department. Only the cabinet has the necessary mandate from the people of Canada to decide questions of such magnitude.
Finally, the government has the responsibility, if it decides that the plant should be taken from Selkirk, to provide alternate means of employment for the people who would thereby be displaced and compensation to the town of Selkirk which has in good faith expended vast sums of money for a municipality of its size on the basis of undertakings contained in the ARDA-FRED agreements. The government can make such decisions; the corporation cannot. We have a right to expect such socially responsible action from our government and from the minister who represents the government in this instance. It is my contention that he is deliberately avoiding this responsibility. His actions in so doing are utterly deplorable.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) would like very much to have a fish plant built in his riding. He says I am not concerned about policy. The policy was clearly laid down when the Freshwater Fish Corporation was set up. That policy is to the effect that the corporation shall manage its affairs in such a way as to produce a maximum return for the fishermen of western Canada.
There are approximately 6,000 fishermen in western Canada. The hon. member for Selkirk is concerned about 100 or 120 workers in
June 4, 1970

his riding. As it happens, the one fish plant now being operated at Selkirk is getting all the business at the moment. There were three plants in Winnipeg all of which have been closed down. Therefore, the decision of the corporation to build its new plant in the greater Winnipeg area and not in Selkirk is not a diversion from Selkirk to Winnipeg. In years gone by the operation has been more in the Winnipeg area than in Selkirk.
Let me now turn to the main point. The corporation looked at the regional side of the question. It was offered approximately $1 million by our Regional Economic Expansion Department to locate at Selkirk. In reviewing the returns to the fishermen it found this was not enough. It found that it was only about
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion half enough. If the plant were located in Winnipeg on the main railway line, the transportation costs would be the minimum and a maximum return would be produced for 6,000 fishermen, approximately half of whom are Indian people, in western Canada.
I believe that as Minister of Fisheries I would be remiss in my duty if I were to turn my back on those fishermen in favour of an area of Manitoba which obviously is uneconomic. If the Manitoba government has its heart set on Selkirk, let it put up a few dollars. It obviously merely prefers to use words in this case, and its bluff has been called.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.



END OF VOLUME VII