1970-05-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the Special Report of the International Joint Commission on Potential Oil Pollution, Eutrophication and Pollution from Watercraft, which is also being released in Washington today.
This report by the International Joint Commission constitutes the third of three interim reports on water pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence River. These reports, together with the final report which is expected to be submitted to the two federal governments later this year, derive from a joint request from the Canadian and United States governments to the International Joint Commission on October 7, 1964, to investigate and report upon the extent, causes, locations and effects of pollution in the waters of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence River and to recommend the most practicable remedial measures.
This third interim report focuses on three major problem areas-potential oil pollution from all sources, including underwater drilling; eutrophication with particular reference to the removal of phosphorus from detergents and sewage; and pollution from watercraft. The findings and recommendations are
based on the investigations of the commission's two technical advisory boards, the International Lake Erie Water Pollution Board and the International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Water Pollution Board, and on the subsequent public hearings held to consider these reports.
With regard to potential oil pollution in Lake Erie, the report contains significant recommendations for action to be taken by all levels of government.
With regard to eutrophication of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence River, the commission makes important recommendations calling for the implementation by the governments of the United States and Canada in concert, at the earliest possible date, of an integrated program of phosphorus control.
With regard to pollution from watercraft, the commission recommends that the federal, provincial and state governments in concert consider and implement at the earliest possible date compatible regulations for the control of water pollution from all classes of commercial vessels and pleasure craft using Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence River.
The International Joint Commission and its advisory boards have rendered invaluable service to both countries in helping to identify major pollution problems in the Great Lakes, in singling out particular problems for urgent action at this time and in proposing practical ways of improving the quality of these vitally important waters.
The government of Canada has been giving close attention to the Great Lakes pollution problems and fully recognizes that stronger control measures by both federal governments, as well as the province of Ontario and the Great Lakes states, are necessary. Within Canada, wide-ranging measures are already being taken to combat pollution in the Great Lakes and elsewhere. Important legislation has already been introduced in Parliament which would be used to implement several of the report's recommendations.
One of the amendments to the Canada Water Bill now before Parliament would give the federal government authority to limit the

May 21. 1970
Water Pollution
use of phosphorus content in detergents and control the input of other nutrients into Canadian waters. It is the intention of the government to use this authority to achieve a reduction in the phosphorus content in laundry detergents to 20 per cent by next autumn and to work towards its elimination, probably in 1972.
Also, there are amendments before Parliament to the Fisheries Act which will strengthen existing provisions which prohibit the deposit of deleterious waste substances of any type.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Amendments to the Canada Shipping Act were adopted by Parliament in June, 1969. These empower the Governor in Council to make federal regulations for preventing the pollution by oil, chemicals, garbage, sewage or any other substances from ships within Canadian waters.
The government of Ontario and its Water Resources Commission have also made a major contribution to the abatement of pollution in the Great Lakes, in particular through programs for the control of harmful waste discharges into the Great Lakes and for financing and construction of municipal sewage treatment plants.
I would like to emphasize the importance of Canada and the United States taking coordinated action to deal with the pollution problems of the Great Lakes. The IJC has shown us what needs to be done. A meeting at the ministerial level between United States and Canadian government representatives is planned for June in order to discuss urgent transboundary Great Lakes pollution problems including, in the first instance, implementation of the recommendations of the International Joint Commission special report. A preliminary meeting between Canadian and United States government officials will be held in Ottawa on May 25.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the statement the minister has just made may I say I have not, of course, seen the report the minister has tabled, but if it is as complete and useful as the first two reports of the International Joint Commission I believe it will be an effective vehicle in continuing the fight against pollution of the Great Lakes.
One point the minister did not touch upon was the method the federal government intends to use to deal with the United States

government, the individual states of the United States and the provincial government of Ontario, although he did say there would be ministerial meetings. But one great weakness in the structure we have in Canada at the moment for dealing with this type of problem, in this instance water pollution, is that no one in the federal government has any co-ordinating authority. The only minister who has some semblance of authority is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Other ministers have responsibilities in their own special fields. I hope the government will give serious consideration to bringing new legislation before the House or at least setting up a body within the government to co-ordinate the federal effort and to take the lead nationally.
I point out that the International Joint Commission as such has no authority whatever. The commission has been doing a good job in investigating pollution and making reports, the present one being the third, but it has no authority whatever to take any action, nor has any other international body dealing with the Great Lakes or international waters. So I take this opportunity to urge the minister to consider the necessity of the International Joint Commission having its authority extended so that it may make regulations and enforce them and thus exercise control, or to consider the setting up of a new body which could act on behalf of all the governments that have an interest in the control of pollution in the Great Lakes. The statement that has been made today is a good foundation on which the federal government can take effective action in either of these ways. But until the government recognizes, first, the need to have somebody running the show in respect of pollution and, second, that somebody has to have some authority over the international waters, I believe that all these reports and all the legislation that has been brought in will be forgotten.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the statement the minister has just made I would like, first, to thank him for his courtesy in supplying us with a copy of his remarks prior to opening of the sitting.
We welcome the tabling of the International Joint Commission's special report on pollution in the Great Lakes. The minister indicated that the report deals with the extent, the causes, the locations and the effects of pollution in the waters of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario
May 21. 1970

and the international portion of the St. Lawrence River. There is no doubt that the report outlines the gravity and extent of the pollution problems which face Canada in these waters. This party also welcomes the idea of co-ordinated, joint action by Canada and the United States in meeting the pollution problems in these international waters.
I should also like to point out to the minister, as did the previous speaker, that the International Joint Commission does not have authority to implement laws and regulations. This is something which members of this House will have to consider and upon which early action will have to be taken.
The minister also indicated that much stronger measures are needed to control oil pollution and eutrophication as well as pollution from water craft. I certainly agree. I point out to the minister that this government has failed dismally in the enforcement of pollution control measures to date. We have a large number of federal acts on the statute books now and a large number of regulations under each act, but the reason we have such a pollution problem facing us, not only in the Great Lakes but all over Canada, is to be found in the fact that these laws and regulations have not been properly enforced by the departments concerned.
I suggest to the minister and to his colleagues that although, as the minister said, some legislation in this field has been brought before the House of Commons in this session, the government has not yet brought forth any legislation to establish an over-all co-ordinating body in Canada to implement the legislation already on the statute books of Canada. Until such a co-ordinating body is set up, one that can do the job of bringing together the departments, the legislation and the agencies, there will not be proper pollution control in this country.
As my last point I should like to indicate that what is lacking in the existing statutes and in the legislation before us is federal financial assistance, for which there is a great need. There is no such provision in any of the acts and we will need it if pollution problems are to be attacked in the most efficacious way. I urge the minister and his colleagues to look into this problem and ensure it is rectified before this session is adjourned.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that the
Environmental Pollution International Joint Commission has indicated what needs to be done. About pollution in the Great Lakes, it recognizes that the government of Ontario and its Water Commission have made a major contribution to the abatement of pollution in the Great Lakes, in particular through programs for the control of harmful waste discharges into the Great Lakes.
This means that while the International Joint Commission of which Canada is a member was saying what to do, Ontario was doing something. This province took the necessary measures to eradicate pollution in the Great Lakes. Now, on May 25 next, Canadian and American officials will meet in order to discuss this report of the International Joint Commission pointing out the measures to be taken.
However, they were careful not to invite the government which took constructive steps in this field, namely the Ontario government. It is not mentioned in connection with the meeting scheduled for the end of May, but the government has announced that senior American and Canadian officials will meet soon. Unfortunately, although it did act in this field, the Ontario government has not even been invited to attend.
I think that the minister's statement is paradoxical. Parliament has been hearing about water pollution for nearly ten years, yet nothing has been done to date to fight it. Now, senior officials will get together on May 25 to tell the various governments what they should do.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that the government of Ontario should be represented at that meeting in order that the American and the Canadian governments take position and, at least, follow the example of the Ontario government, which has already adopted some measures to check pollution in the Great Lakes.



ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: that the first report of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, presented to the House on Tuesday, May 19, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 21. 1970
Motion to Adjourn

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the towboat strike in British Columbia which is causing widespread economic dislocation, and the need to ascertain from the government what steps it proposes taking to bring about an early settlement of the present labour dispute affecting, as it does, the safety and working conditions of towboat workers on the Pacific coast.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given the Chair notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose which he has just outlined. I want to assure the hon. member that I have given the most earnest consideration to the possibility of giving effect to his suggestion at this time.
As the Chair has explained so often in recent days and weeks when motions under Standing Order 26 have been proposed, the decision the Speaker is required to give is purely procedural. The decision is whether the provisions of the Standing Order are applicable so that a debate should take place under the terms of this Standing Order rather than in some other way. Among the many factors which have to be taken into account is the possibility of a debate in another form or under a different Standing Order, including debates initiated under the provisions of Standing Order 58. A number of other factors are relevant to the ruling which has to be made, including whether the situation proposed for debate is of a continuing nature rather than a sudden national emergency requiring the immediate interruption of the scheduled order of business.
While recognizing, with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and with the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Vancouver East, that the matter is one which is of immediate national concern, I do not think that, for the moment at least, an adjournment under Standing Order 26 can be proposed to the House from the Chair. Again, 
I want to assure the hon. member who has proposed the motion and all hon. members who for the last few weeks have indicated their continuing concern about the situation that the gravity and seriousness of the problem are fully realized by the Chair, and that it is with considerable reluctance that I must reach the procedural decision that the motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I shall direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister I believe it is traditional for a minister of the government to attend and address the annual conference of the Canadian Labour Congress. Has the Acting Prime Minister any explanation why, on this occasion, no minister of the government addressed the Congress, especially in view of the importance to the government of the attitude of the Congress toward the voluntary restraints program of the Princes and Incomes Commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it had been the intention of the Minister of Labour to attend and to address the meeting referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately-and I am sure I express the regrets of the House-the minister was required to go to hospital for observation and within the limited time available it was not possible to arrange for other representation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Under the circumstances I would have thought that the Acting Minister of Labour, who is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, would have been the ideal man to send. In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-he is supposed to be here today but is not present-I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong rejection by the Canadian Labour Congress of the restraint program, at least in the form proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission, we are to assume that this program is now dead or whether the commission or the government proposes to take a new initiative? If so, would
May 21, 1970

the Acting Prime Minister care to indicate very briefly the general nature of any such initiative?
Mi. Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. The initiative taken by the Prices and Incomes Commission is still very much alive. The commission is still of the view that the kind of program it has proposed is very much in the public interest and it will persist, despite the discouragement it has received from certain quarters. The government's view is that the forces of inflation are still strong notwithstanding the change in the economic situation and that it is very much in the interests of the whole country that all of us in this House should join in urging Canadians generally to co-operate with the Prices and Incomes Commission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the Acting Prime Minister's recognition of the changing economic climate, the deterioration in business expectations and the sharp increase in unemployment, I should like to ask him whether it is the intention of the government to continue in its efforts to slow down the economy further, in particular by introducing a program of consumer credit restraints? I asked this question of the minister a few days ago and my recollection is that he said he would take it up with the Minister of Finance. Can he now indicate whether it is the continuing intention of the government to create further unemployment in this way?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government with respect to the consumer credit legislation will be made known shortly. I do not accept the premise that it will produce greater unemployment. Indeed, I think the greatest threat to the stability of employment in this country is the inflationary danger.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary question.


Mr. Broadbenl:: It is not supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


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


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Is not the reason why the usual practice of having an acting minister take the place of a minister who cannot attend the Canadian Labour Congress conference the fact that the government knows its anti-inflationary proinquiries of the Ministry gram will not stand up and no minister is willing to be made a laughing stock in front of the CLC?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Given its importance in protecting jobs for Canadians, will the minister assure the House that the government will not abandon the Canadian value-added guarantee provision which now exists in the Canada-U.S. auto pact during the current negotiations with the Americans?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I cannot give such an undertaking. I can say, however, that if we ever decide to abandon these safeguards, we shall abandon them in favour of some other advantages.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the minister is not able to make that guarantee I will ask him another question. Will the minister assure the House that the percentage of production in Canada guarantee will not be abandoned or even allowed to fall below the existing level?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that my mind is not petrified. I hope the hon. member's mind is not, either.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Given the finding of the just-published study sponsored by the Canadian-American committee that the existing differences in prices between cars sold in Canada and cars sold in the United States cannot be economically justified, would the minister bring pressure to bear upon Canadian auto makers to bring about an immediate reduction in auto prices in this country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I could also indicate that the trade balance between Canada and the United States which was unfavourable to us by $450 million in 1968 is now unfavourable to us to the extent of only $162 million, which is tremendous progress for this agreement.


An hon. Member:: What has that to do with car prices?

May 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: The case is there. If you have an agreement of this kind you are bound to win sometimes and lose a little at other times, but you have to judge the total picture on balance and that does not seem to be the hon. member's forte today.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unrestricted free trade arrangement the United States is seeking to make with Canada in this regard, will the minister not make a statement on motions tomorrow on this very important matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, one would have to be more specific than that. The United States is not suggesting a totally free trade agreement. Among the many features of the existing agreement there is the manufacturer's importing privilege, and the United States has not asked for the elimination of that particular aspect. I do not think I ought to make a statement today. These conversations have not been completed, and consequently it would be premature to do so.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before any arrangements are arrived at, would the minister take the House into his confidence and give the House a chance to debate this issue?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on keeping the House and members informed, I have done that extremely well, I think, in the past, to the point of inviting hon. members to have conversations with me on the subject. I will do so in future. The government will not make any change to the auto pact unless and until the House knows about it.



U.S.-CANADA AUTOMOBILE PACT-COMPANY EARNINGS AND TRANSFER OF CAPITAL

['Well, Mr. Speaker, the best action that can be taken by all members of the United Nations is to support very strongly the implementation of resolution 242 of the Security Council which provides a framework within which a settlement can be reached. Until a settlement is reached there will be breaches of the ceasefire and violence. We ought to be working to help Ambassador Jarring fulfil his task.']
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious implications of the auto pact negotiations, has the government undertaken a study to determine the amount of increased earnings of Canadian auto companies which are subsidiaries of United States parents and the amounts of capital which have been transferred to the parent firms between 1965 and 1968?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this information is known by the government. The Minister of National Revenue knows pretty well what the profits of these companies are.

The hon. member's question raises a very important point, namely, that there is a difference between the balance of trade and the balance of payments. Our progress in the balance of trade is much more visible and much higher than with the balance of payments. Every time an extra car is produced in Canada it means more dividends for the United States company. That is one of the many points we have been making in our conversations with our U.S. friends. This agreement is good for both Canada and the United States.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the increased earnings have also resulted from the higher prices paid by Canadian consumers for cars, would the government table the results of the information it has received so that the Canadian people can assess the actual effects of the pact?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the question of the price of cars has been answered on a number of occasions both by my predecessor and myself. If one analyses the price of cars one must take into consideration all kinds of factors such as the degree of general efficiency of the industry in Canada, compared with what it is in the United States, the differences in production and distribution costs in Canada and the United States. As a matter of fact, the differential between car prices in Canada and the United States has gone down. It stood at between 8 and 10 per cent at the beginning of the pact and is now down to 3| per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister and the hon. member. I suggest that we have reached the area of debate. Perhaps we might go to the next question.



David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to put my question before the end of the oral question period.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has been advised by the Security Council of the United
May 21. 1970

Nations that the Council has condemned the unjustified attack on Lebanon by Israel, adding that such attacks should no longer be tolerated.
If so, does Canada approve the condemnation of the Israeli attack against Lebanon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I commented on a similar question yesterday. Of course we are informed. I said at that time that I did not think comments of this kind on any particular incident would be a contribution to settlement.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
In that case, if the minister does not feel that it would be in the public interest to make such a statement, could he tell the House what steps the United Nations could take against such attacks?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, the best action that can be taken by all members of the United Nations is to support very strongly the implementation of resolution 242 of the Security Council which provides a framework within which a settlement can be reached. Until a settlement is reached there will be breaches of the ceasefire and violence. We ought to be working to help Ambassador Jarring fulfil his task.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the charge by the Ontario Medical Association that the Federal Food and Drug Directorate as long ago as March began refusing to analyse street drugs, thereby making treatment of these serious cases much more difficult, may I ask whether the minister has looked into this charge and, if so, has he ordered the federal Food and Drug Directorate to resume its analyses in order to aid in the treatment of these cases?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I did not precisely understand the hon. member's question. He referred to what drugs? Was it street drugs?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, they are called street drugs. They are drugs available on the street.


John Carr Munro: Well, I think the hon. member should be a little more specific. We are running tests on various drugs but whether they are street drugs I do not know. Was he referring to drugs such as marijuana, soft drugs or hard drugs? I wish he would be more specific.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that if there is to be a series of questions and answers between the minister and the hon. member which would clarify what the hon. member wants, we shall not proceed very quickly. In any event, the hon. member seeks the floor on a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister asked me to be more specific. There have been extensive reports in all the newspapers about this charge. It refers to LSD, heroin and other drugs that can be purchased on the street. Would the minister please look into this important matter and take his job seriously.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member has been more specific may I advise him that this is a matter of grave concern not only to the Food and Drug Directorate but to the whole department. We are looking into all these drug situations and conducting independent research into various drugs. As the hon. member also knows, the concern of this government in this area was so great that one of our first actions on taking office was the appointment of the LeDain Commission, and we are expecting a preliminary report shortly.


George Harris Hees: If your concern is so great, will you now do what the Ontario Medical Association says you should have been doing three months ago?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister not answer a question directly?


David Orlikow: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether the charge of the Ontario Medical Association is correct, namely, that the department is refusing to analyse drugs for the alcoholism foundation which deals with people who have drug problems and come to them?

May 21. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: I think it is fair to say that the capacity of the department to analyse all the drugs which are sent in by various agencies and individuals is not unlimited and we have to use our own discernment in deciding what drugs we shall analyse.



POST OFFICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. It has nothing to do with the currently threatened postal strike; it has to do with orders which have been issued for the closure of many rural post offices in remote and pioneer areas where the people believe that the post offices should exist for service rather than for profit. In view of the widespread criticism which is being directed against these closures, would the minister be willing to hold up this process and give consideration to bringing in new regulations so that large areas, particularly on the prairies, which will suffer from the removal of their post offices may hope that the orders already made will be revoked?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmasier General and Minister of Communications):: The right hon. gentleman and, indeed, all hon. members on both sides of the House will be relieved to learn that this program is coming to a close. We have examined the circumstances of several thousand post offices and we have only a few hundred more to examine. I would imagine that of every five decisions we will take, four will be to keep the post offices open. This means we are taking into account the circumstances to which the right hon. gentleman has just alluded.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what manner of mathematical productions the minister has just brought before the House. All I know is that apparently he does not receive full information concerning the degree to which whole areas are being deprived of rural post offices by arbitrary, bureaucratic order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Bearing in mind the commitment given by the minister to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that no further closures

of post offices would take place until the users of those post offices had been afforded ample opportunity to make representations, can the hon. gentleman tell us whether these people have ini fact been allowed ample chance to make their views known?


Eric William Kierans: Investigation usually takes at least three months and a further three months elapses before decisions are implemented.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so-three weeks, or three days.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell us what consideration is being given to the appeal by the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada for immediate action to improve conditions for old age pensioners?


John Carr Munro: We are giving their representations serious consideration.



DISCOUNTING OF POST-DATED OLD AGE PENSION, FAMILY AND VETERANS ALLOWANCE CHEQUES

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises from the fact that by reason of the threatened mail strike cheques in payment of family allowances, old age pensions and veterans allowances have been issued prematurely. There are the only funds which some of these pensioners possess. Has it been brought to the minister's attention that certain organizations and individuals are taking advantage of this situation by discounting these cheques in advance at tremendous rates of interest?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I consider it a disgrace that these organizations should be undertaking this kind of discounting procedure, encouraging old age pensioners to cash their cheques prematurely. However, I do not know precisely what action could be taken to combat the practice.


William Marvin Howe: Would the minister consider issuing a news release advising everyone in
May 21, 1970

Canada to look out for these people who are taking advantage of the situation in which pensioners find themselves?


John Carr Munro: Perhaps today's questions will have that effect.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the hon. gentleman or of the government to express an opinion with regard to the recommendations contained in the report of the task force on agriculture recently tabled, or is intended to ignore the report? If the government proposes to make a statement to the country and to the House, will the government undertake to indicate the extent to which it proposes to change its policies in order to conform with the recommendations in the report?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The government, particularly the Department of Agriculture, does not intend to ignore the report. Indeed, if the hon. member will look closely at a number of the items of legislation currently before the House as well as at the program changes which have taken place since the report was first received in February of this year he will find there is a great deal of similarity between the contents of the report and the measures before the House. There is insufficient time at this point in our proceedings to explain to the hon. member in answer to a question on Orders of the Day what alternatives lie before us with respect to this report, but I would be pleased to do so when a suitable opportunity presents itself, either during a debate in the House or during a discussion in the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is because I have looked at the sorry list of government legislation in this field that I asked my question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilberl Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he tell the House what progress has been made in the negotiations between Ottawa and Peking with regard to the official recognition of Communist China? Furthermore, is it true that the government will shortly announce such recognition by Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the government cannot announce recognition until there has been agreement between the two sides, and this has not yet been achieved.


John George Diefenbaker: Fourteen months!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but since I understand he will not be in the House for another ten days I shall direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary. What negotiations, proceedings or arrangements are taking place between the department and the Mohawk people who are occupying certain islands in the St. Lawrence River?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I am informed that those who are occupying the island or islands are doing so without the consent or blessing of the duly elected chief and council. On the other hand, I am advised that negotiations are in process between the leaseholder and the chief and council with respect to renegotiating the terms of the lease. Incidentally, I might advise the hon. member that this is not the minister's day according to the roster. He will be in the House tomorrow.



FISHERIES


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berihier):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Following the imposition by the minister of the sudden ban on commercial fishing in the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers from the Hull district to Trois-Rivieres due to the high level of mercury contamina-

May 21, 197G
Inquiries of the Ministry tion in the water, may I ask whether the hon. gentleman intends to help the fishermen financially so as to compensate them for the damage sustained?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I have been in touch with the two ministers from the province of Quebec who are concerned with this problem. I might say there appears to be no difficulty whatever in the salt water areas off Quebec.



LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED TO CLEAN UP MERCURY CONTAMINATED WATERS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Since experts from Canada and Sweden differ as to the length of time mercury lasts in fish-estimates vary between 26 weeks and a century-and the effects on the resource as a whole, can the minister forecast with certainty how long it will take to complete clean-up operations in bodies of water which have been contaminated by mercury? Can he also tell us whether his department is insisting that all new plants provide assurances that their aqueous wastes will not contain mercury?


John (Jack) Davis: There is really no conflict of opinion between the experts in Canada and Sweden on this question. Mercury has a halflife in fish of between two months and three months. In other words, the mercury content will be reduced by half in roughly 70 days. As to the second part of the question, we are pursuing with the provinces concerned the clean-up procedures necessary to remove the harmful sediments at the bottom of the rivers which have been affected.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. The last part of my question was whether the minister is insisting that new plants provide assurances that their aqueous wastes will not contain mercury.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have had several meetings here in Ottawa with representatives of all the companies concerned who have assured us that they are doing their utmost to clean up as quickly as possible.



HOUSING


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
[Mr. Yanakis.l
welcome back to the House the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. I thought he had fled the country permanently after having seen the figures for housing starts for the first four months of this year. May I ask the minister whether, in view of these figures, he can indicate very briefly and in general terms what measures he proposes to take to stimulate the construction of housing during the balance of the year, and what target he expects to achieve during the year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition has been asked on previous occasions and I have taken the liberty before of suggesting that this question should be answered by way of a statement on motions. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition would like to amend the question along these lines?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement to the House indicating what measures he proposes to take to stimulate the construction of housing to an appropriate level? In the course of that statement will he also indicate what he considers to be an appropriate level of construction during the course of the year?


Hon. Roberi K. Andras (Minisler without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter in detail when I appear before the committee with my estimates, I believe early next week. In the meantime, may I say that one result of my trip has been that I am impressed by the better housing standards and the better quantitative performance of housing starts in this country vis-a-vis almost every country I visited whose officials I talked to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in regard to the towboat strike in British Columbia which is causing very regrettable economic dislocation. This strike involves the questions of manning and safety. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is taking any action in this matter to bring the parties together? Particularly in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour is ill, is any minister
May 21, 1970

in charge of the situation, and what action is the government taking in an attempt to bring both parties to the bargaining table?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing this matter this morning with my colleague the Minister of Transport, who can speak to the safety regulations part of the question, and perhaps the Acting Minister of Labour may also want to say something.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have arranged for the head of the steamship inspection service, Captain Harrison, to reconvene the meetings on safety, and these were recommenced this morning. As far as I am aware a meeting is being held as of this moment, and I have instructed him to keep on with the meetings throughout the weekend, if necessary, or for as long as anything productive and fruitful comes from them.


Mr. Winch:: Are they in Ottawa or
Vancouver?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The meetings are being held in Vancouver. When they have reached the point where there is a possibility of making a definitive statement with regard to those matters upon which there is general agreement, I will see that this is publicized immediately. In the interim I can assure the House, as I have already assured the towboat owners and the Merchant Seamen's Guild, first of all that it is our intention to strengthen the regulations significantly and, second, that it is also our intention to ensure that there is an on-going program to make certain that these regulations are lived up to by the towboat owners.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that this committee dealing with safety regulations has met frequently and no conclusions have been reached, may I ask the minister whether he is prepared to take action on his own, if the present meeting does not succeed in bringing about a settlement, in order that this matter may be brought to a head?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to quarrel just slightly with the statement that no conclusions have been reached. I think a good many have been reached, but these specific ones have not been published, and will not be until the whole question has been resolved. So I think that considerable progress 22375-351
Inquiries of the Ministry has been made, and I also understand that the climate of the current meetings is most encouraging.
So far as making a unilateral statement is concerned, in the last analysis, of course, that is what I would have to do. While these are consultative meetings dealing with regulations, I am sure that the hon. member and the House will agree with me that in the last analysis we will have to determine what is a suitable situation. Therefore, in the unhappy event that the talks are not productive to the point where I can accept the recommendations, I assure the House and the hon. member that I will do exactly what he has said.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister indicate for how long he will allow these talks to continue before he comes to the point where he will impose regulations by Order in Council in the normal way?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 

AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question.
In view of the fact that the federal task force on agriculture recommends the discontinuance of all forms of subsidies in respect of agricultural products, can the minister give us the assurance that this measure will only be considered after implementation of a policy designed to enable farmers who must leave the farm to secure new employment?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think there are several hundred recommendations in the task force
May 21, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry report. For me to comment on each one of them and to suggest what the government's reaction and policy will be with respect to the findings in the report would be premature at this time. I say that for two reasons. First of all, we think there ought to be further discussions on the subject within the government itself; second, we think that the interested parties in the public sector should have a look at these recommendations before we begin the process of answering questions of this kind.



WHEAT-ACHIEVEMENT OF FORECAST TOTAL SALES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the recent report by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicating that in the first eight months of this crop year the volume of wheat sales is 28 per cent below the 10-year average of 254 million bushels for the period 1958-68, can the minister tell the House whether he still expects sales to reach the 375 million bushels for the current crop year which he forecast earlier this season?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the level of export is running steadily ahead of last year in terms of current weeks and months, and so the difference between those two figures is rapidly disappearing and there will soon be a favourable balance. Accordingly, I can say I am still optimistic that the figure will be reached.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister attempt to determine the origin of a number of obviously spurious letters bearing a wide variety of postmarks purporting to be written by one Lloyd McCracken of a major United States oil company which have been sent to several Members of Parliament, together with packets of very dead fish interred in bunker oil, letters which contain misleading statements injurious to the fishing industry of the maritimes?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telephone call from a senior executive of Imperial Oil protesting about this and saying that the letter does not originate from that company and that it was mailed from at least four sources in eastern Canada, one of which is the Parliament Buildings.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary I should like to ask the minister. Does the information he has received show that there is no such research organization as is shown on the letterhead?


John (Jack) Davis: I understand there is no such organization.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-Whiie Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Fisheries. Because of these plastic packages of pollution that members have been receiving in their mail boxes, and because they appear to have been pretty widely distributed and reflect very seriously on the fishery industry in Newfoundland, would the minister, following a full investigation, be prepared to make a statement to clear up the matter and refute the statements made in the letter?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Can the minister assure the House that those which were sent from the House of Commons post office did not have a frank on them?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the great interest in the statement the minister made to the House on Tuesday last about the proposed new Toronto airport, would he be even more specific and state categorically that no new waterfront airport will be constructed without consultation with and approval or consent of, the council of the city of Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give that assurance. I am not exactly sure of the legal limitations of my assurance but, as I said to the House the other day, it now appears to be very evident that a so-called
May 21. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	71G5
Water Resources Programs
inter-city or commuter air strip is not feasible Canadian Dairy Commission announce its in view of the type of aircraft we have at the programs at least five years in advance, present time. I hope that is adequate assur- including ranges of prices or physical targets, ance to the hon. member. If he wants it more which seems quite logical to me. specifically, I will look into the legal aspects j WOuld therefore ask the minister if he and try to answer him.	could tell us whether he would be prepared to
.	.	recommend right away that the Canadian


Francis Andrew Brewin: Categorically and clearly, but piairy Commission review its dairy policy and subject to the legal implications, is the minis- implement this recommendation of the task ter prepared to give such an assurance? force


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can do that since I mentioned in the statement this is the situation in so far as the current types of aircraft are concerned. If a short take-off type of land aircraft were developed it might be that the residents of Toronto would welcome it, but that is well beyond this time.



TORONTO-LOCATION OF NEW FACILITY

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport and is related to the question just asked. On Tuesday, he said that the suitable location had been narrowed down to a region generally north and west of Toronto. My question is one of clarification. Does north and west mean the same as northwest and therefore those areas which' were being considered that are due west of Toronto are eliminated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of ensuring that the risk of speculation is not enhanced, I would prefer to remain with the wording I used which I can assure the hon. member was chosen with as much care as possible-generally north and west. I might say that I see no good reason why individual Members of Parliament who have a specific interest in this matter might not be given a briefing by the department. I would be very happy to undertake that at some time in the near future.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture who is getting plenty of attention today.
On page 438 of its report, the federal task force on agriculture recommends that the


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker; I cannot give that undertaking. However, I can give the member the undertaking that when government policy is amended from time to time the House will be advised.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order, might I be permitted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council what business he has in mind for the House for the remainder of this week and next week?


Mr. Yves Foresl (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow I understand will be an opposition allotted day. I believe the motion is to be put forward by the official opposition. On Monday and Tuesday, the House will deal with Bill C-215 that is the Canada Elections Act. On Wednesday it is proposed that the House will return to the consideration of Bill C-144, which is the Canada Water Act.


Mr. Peters:: Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting House Leader that extra care be taken today because of the unprecedented absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 20, consideration of Bill C-144, to provide for
7168	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works and motion No. 25 (Mr. McCleave).
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) will not mind me interrupting him in the middle of his thoughts on the motion before the House. As hon. members know, we had a rather lengthy and interesting procedural debate yesterday and I assured hon. members that the matters raised during that debate would be considered. I am now in a position to give hon. members the dubious advantage of the result of this consideration. When the House entered upon the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, the Chair raised a point of order with regard to the regularity of several motions set down as proposed amendments to Bill C-144. At that time, the Chair suggested there were some procedural difficulties in relation to motions numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 16.
I might say that reservations were also expressed in relation to, I believe motions 6 and 25. However, after hearing argument on these two motions the Chair felt that the hon. members who proposed these motions should be given the benefit of the doubt. Debate was initiated on motions 6 and 25. This is the reason the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has the floor in connection with his own motion No. 25.
This morning there has been an opportunity to review very carefully the comments made by several hon. members during the course of yesterday's sitting in relation to the procedural aspects of the proposed amendments. The learned contributors from all sides of the House provided reasons for a very serious reconsideration of all aspects of the procedural questions raised at the time.
In the first instance, it seems to the Chair that motions 1, 3, and 5 contain proposals which bear on the question of the financial initiative of the Crown. It would seem to the Chair that this erects an insurperable difficulty to those proposed motions. I might also add

DEBATES	May 21. 1970
that in the opinion of the Chair amendments of a substantive or declaratory nature should not be proposed to an interpretation clause. If such amendments were accepted, the clause would not then be an interpretation clause. I am sure hon. members realize the difficulty of accepting substantive amendments or proposals under the general classification of interpretation. I suggest to hon. members with respect that that is not the place to make proposed amendments or motions which are of a substantive nature.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) suggested that the Chair might take the initiative in respect of separating the defective part from motion No. 5. It does seem to me that such action is not relevant at this time and is not the acceptable parliamentary procedure. In that regard, I might refer the hon. member to citation 293 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition.
With reference to motion No. 2, it should be said in a preliminary way that this amendment is defective in both form and substance. It must be recognized in the first instance that motion No. 2 purports to amend the interpretation clause of the bill. Accordingly, the form and content of the motion must be consistent with the purposes sought to be effected by the interpretation clause. Although the preliminary sentence of motion No. 2 appears to be in the form of an interpretation provision, what follows is a list of prohibitions and objectives to be observed in the administration of the act. In other words, motion No. 2 is but a substantive proposition of a declaratory nature. It neither defines nor interprets any provision of the bill. While I sought long and hard, I can assure hon. members, to find some ground on which I may be able to give the hon. member the benefit of any doubt so that motion No. 2 could be put to the House, it was not possible for me to reach a favourable decision in respect of this motion. For the reasons stated, I do not think that motion No. 2 should be accepted.
I am aware that it was stated yesterday that if motions Nos. 7 and 14 are in order, it would follow that motion No. 2 should also be in order. I have looked at this proposition and compared the proposed motions. I have come to the conclusion that this proposition does not necessarily follow. It is my view that motions Nos. 7 and 14 are logical and complete propositions within themselves. They are not dependent upon the provisions of
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
motion No. 2. As stated earlier, the Chair is of the opinion that amendments to an interpretation clause should not be used for the purpose of bringing substantive and not too closely related propositions under debate and consideration. I have decided after careful consideration to give the benefit of the doubt to motion No. 4. That motion could be considered and debated in due course.
May I now turn for a few moments to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) with regard to the adequacy of the terms of the financial recommendation in respect of this bill. Being of the view that the financial provision of our rules is a fundamental part of our procedure, I suggest that the hon. member's submission has caused me serious concern. It would appear that I can add very little to what has been stated in section 3 of citation 246 in Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on Ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
I suggest to the hon. member that it is not necessary that all objectives of the bill be recited in a financial recommendation but rather it is the financial charges or expenditures that must be covered in it. When the recommendation is in general terms, it may appear to be deficient or inadequate, and I believe that in this case the government has taken steps to expand the financial aspects of the bill.
In this regard I might refer the hon. member to the supplementary recommendation presented to the House to cover the proposed motions Nos. 10, 12 and 13.
In the light of all the circumstances, it is not my view that further proceedings on Bill C-144 should be arrested at this time because of the scope of the financial recommendations related to this bill.
DEBATES	7167
Water Resources Programs
In concluding my comments at this time, may I remind hon. members that a convenient time will have to be arranged in relation to the hearing of the procedural argument on motion No. 16. There will also have to be agreement on when the debate should take place on the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), which has now been bypassed since we have started on motion No. 6. Perhaps there might be such agreement among hon. members in due course after we have completed the debate which is now current on motion No. 25.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: First of all, like the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) I have to say how much we regret the absence from this chamber of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is probably the first time that he has allowed himself to stray outside since the general election way back in 1968.


An hon. Member:: You mean in 1948.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Anyway, he is a thoroughly knowledgeable fellow about the type of breeze that one is apt to meet in this particular chamber, but I hope he has not been caught up by a sudden spring tempest and been wafted away somewhere else. We hope he gets back shortly.


Mr. Lewis:: He will be back tomorrow.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It must be a reverse, boomerang breeze that has taken him away from us.
When I reread Your Honour's statement about the order of business, I realized that my request last night was an exceptional request. It was very clearly indicated that the debate on motion No. 6 and on my own motion should accompany each other, and therefore I am all the more grateful to the House for giving me some time to go into certain aspects of the motion. However, because of the general understanding in the House I will make my speech as brief as I possibly can.
First of all, I hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will be here this afternoon while we are dealing with my motion. He is a gentleman who can go abroad and talk about putting up an electronic fence to keep such seditious nonsense as the Beverly Hillbillies and the Ed Sullivan show out of Canada, but here we are dealing with something that we have in Canada that we are not prepared to allow to
7168	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs go quickly to the U.S.A. So I hope that in returning to us at last he will give us some indication of government thinking on the very important matter of what, if anything, we should do with our surplus water. As was noted yesterday, this country is abundantly rich, and is perhaps the only country in the world that is abundantly rich, in surplus water-but even that surplus is decreasing.
The purpose of the amendment, as suggested, is that the export of water should be subject to a treaty. In other words, any export of water should be illegal until Parliament has expressed its opinion. I think this is important, and I will give a couple of very simple reasons why that is so. For one thing, as some of us know, a megalopolis is building up along the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes system that eventually will extend from somewhere between Montreal and Quebec to Milwaukee and Chicago. I say "eventually" I mean soon, as does the government when it uses that term; that is, it will happen within ten or fifteen years. This megalopolis will be filled with people who will be thirsty, and will have a great need for water. It will be larger than the megalopolis that now exists between Boston and Baltimore and Washington. That is a simple statement of fact. I have dealt with it previously.
I hope that when the megalopolis appears the press will not suddenly come around and ask, "Why didn't someone foresee it"? It was foreseen in 1969, and it is foreseen now. There will be a tremendous market for water within that stretch, and for Canadian purposes it involves, the area from Quebec City down to the Great Lakes. It we make short-term bargains and our water becomes mixed up in any deals with the United States we can get ourselves because we may then find that our own needs are parallel to the needs of the United States.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I thought that the amendment of my hon. friend and my amendment would commend themselves to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, a gentleman who is prepared to put up electronic fences to protect Canadians from something. If he is prepared to go that far, maybe he would take a short step and endorse our amendments which at least have the advantage of being of a common sense variety.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary quoted two arguments that I had used at one point in the committee proceedings about the

DEBATES	May 21, 1970
difficulty of applying a clause such as is proposed. How would one deal with floods? I suggest that if a flood arose it should be treated as an act of God, which is surely an exception to anything that one can put forth in a treaty or contract. I do not find any difficulty about that.
Again I used the argument, and my words come back to haunt me-doesn't everyone in this place suffer that from time to time-with respect to King Canute and how one can stop the relentless roll of water. The Parliamentary Secretary also used this argument. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you can disturb the natural flow of water. You can divert water courses, and this has been done. You can dam waters, so that water does not flow as it used to flow. This is a very effective method of controlling water resources. There are other means by which the perfectly natural flow of water can be disturbed, so it is simply not a question of passing a resolution endorsing the reasoning of old King Canute when he told the waters to stay back. By adopting my amendment we would be doing something more effective than that. The Canadian Parliament would be saying that if we allow our water to go abroad we would do so only under certain conditions.
Earlier this year when we dealt in Parliament with Arctic sovereignty I thought it was the most exciting debate we had. Members were getting up on all sides of the House, speaking from their hearts and their guts, explaining their attitudes toward Canadian sovereignty. You don't get a bigger issue in this Parliament than Canadian sovereignty, the question of how we feel about Canadian nationhood and the rights of Canadian nationhood. I suggest we will get an equally good expression of sovereignty if we deal with the very practical question of what we do about something of which we have a great abundance, our water.
Further, and I conclude very quickly, the suggestion I have made to export water only under a treaty would mean that full publicity would be centred on any deal. Before the deal could take effect, its terms would have to be spelled out. There would be public knowledge of them through parliamentary discussion, so nothing could be done by the government, or by any future government, without all Members of Parliament expressing their opinions upon it. In short, Sir, it is a way of giving notice to the public and allowing full expression of opinion here, rather than the public
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
being informed of something that has become a fait accompli. That is why this course commends itself.
I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will come back into the chamber. I do not see him here now, although he was present earlier during the question period. I hope he will come back and endorse this motion and the previous motion. I am not wedded to the paternity of the thing, but the idea should be endorsed by somebody, and that somebody should be the government of Canada as well as all the members who are here in Parliament.
If the words do not exactly commend themselves to the law officers of the Crown, or to the minister or to the government, I am not wedded to them either. They can be changed. The important thing is not particularly the words used in the formula. What I am asking Parliament and the government to do is to say that if we are dealing with this great Canadian resource, we will do it in a way that everybody in Parliament will have a say in the decisions that are made.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 25 (Mr. McCleave). All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Is it the pleasure of the House that we now revert to motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau)?


Some hon. Members:: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Comeau:: The minister is not here, Mr. Speaker, so we cannot convince him that he should accept these powers. If this amendment is defeated, and probably it will be, we will be proposing a further amendment under a different act, probably the Fisheries Act, because we sincerely believe that there has to be a co-ordinator. Some person must have overriding powers on the many rules and regulations that apply in pollution matters. I suggest that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources should take on the job because many of the bills now before the House depend on the Canada Water Act.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible for scientific research. They are in close contact with the scientific community. The Inland Water Centre at Burlington, Ontario, comes under the jurisdiction of that department, so it seems logical that it should be the co-ordinator because of its activities in scientific matters. As I have said before maybe the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources does not have sufficient manpower to do the job. Maybe the Department of National Defence, being responsible for emergency measures and having the manpower and equipment to deal with emergencies, although not the research facilities, should be given the job. This is another idea which seems logical to me, although the government may not feel that National Defence is the appropriate department to take on the responsibility. If they do not, I hope they will tell us exactly what they want to do so that a similar type of amendment can be introduced under other legislation. We definitely feel that there has to be a co-ordination of effort.
This bill was introduced last summer by the minister who is now responsible for the Wheat Board, but who was then the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At that time, a news release from the department stated,
The proposed new Canada Water Act, announced by the government, is designed to break through "the bureaucratic and jurisdictional maze"-
And I repeat, Mr. Speaker-
"the bureaucratic and jurisdictional maze" that has up to now bedevilled efforts at water pollution control and conservation, Otto Lang, minister responsible for energy and water resources, said today.
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
But this bill does not do that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have presented this amendment. When this measure was designed, the impression was created that this "bureaucratic and jurisdictional maze" would be eliminated. The minister is here. I am glad to see him. Although it has been definitely stated that this jurisdictional maze would be eliminated, we see no evidence whatsoever in the bill that this is correct. One of my prime interests during the past year has been this bill. I have looked at it carefully. We feel that instead of simplifying the bureaucratic and jurisdictional maze, the bill will only make it more complicated. It will set up I do not know how many agencies. The bureaucracy is to be increased. Unless someone is given overriding control over the entire field, we shall see an increase in bureaucracy. As it is our bureaucratic maze is becoming larger day by day. Day after day, largely because of this government's lack of planning, new bureaucracies are created to deal with new ideas and new legislation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
On many occasions I have asked how many departments or agencies of government are concerned with pollution matters. A sheet distributed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources shows that at least 12 departments of government are concerned about pollution; altogether 28 departments and agencies I believe are involved. For instance, involved in pollution matters are the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the minister responsible for housing, because he deals with CMHC, the Department of Finance, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Indian Affairs, the National Harbours Commission, coming under the Department of Transport, the Privy Council, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Treasury Board. In addition, I do not know how many agencies of government under the aegis of these departments are involved. Altogether, there must be 24 agencies at least, in addition to the departments, that are involved. Actually, I have not found out just how many agencies are concerned with pollution matters.
The reason for this amendment is very simple. We have some little confidence in the present minister and think someone ought to have overriding control over these matters. During the committee hearings someone said that 68 departments and agencies are concerned with pollution. That is absolutely 22375-361
DEBATES	7171
Water Resources Programs incredible. I simply cannot understand why someone ought not to be ultimately responsible for matters pertaining to pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment does not specify whether the minister has to deal with the bills introduced by all departments or whether he is responsible for the pollution problems which are the concern of other departments.
The amendment specifies that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) must act when any action is to be taken to check pollution in a field which does not already come under the jurisdiction of a minister, of the federal government, of a provincial government, of a federal board or of a municipality.

We do not want the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to interfere with the work of the Minister of Fisheries because the latter minister has done a great job in matters of pollution, as has his department. We want the fisheries department to be strong and to be kept strong. When there is an emergency, we want someone to have overriding authority. We do not want that authority to be delegated to other departments or provincial authorities. So, as I said earlier, this amendment is really very simple. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, when dealing with the report of the International Joint Commission, listed many departments and agencies of government involved in matters of pollution. His remarks supplement my argument, because I submit someone must have ultimate control in this area. In this area we want no vacuum. When an emergency arises, someone must have ultimate, overriding control.
We do not ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-and it may be the present minister or any other minister-to occupy himself with matters pertaining to the Department of Fisheries or any other department or provincial agency that has had delegated to it some authority to deal with some aspect of pollution. We simply ask someone to have overriding control over the whole area in order that emergencies may be met. That authority cannot be delegated to other departments.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief but wish to say a few words on the amendment before
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Progravis the House. I urge the minister to accept the amendment so that there will be no chance in future for difficulties to arise as a result of loopholes as to jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government. I am referring to loopholes in bills that pertain to pollution. It seems to me that the amendment is straightforward. It will certainly help to tighten the act, and we shall have better legislation as a result. Unquestionably, we need to tighten the various pieces of legislation dealing with our pollution problems.
The hon. member who has just spoken has indicated that this amendment will assign to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) those powers which are not now exclusively assigned to the legislatures of the provinces or to any other department, branch or agency of the government relating to the control and management of the water resources of Canada and to the preservation, improvement and restoration of the quality of the national environment by the prevention, elimination and limitation of the pollution of water resources and the pollution of any natural element that in any way might or does pollute a water resource.
What is wrong with putting this in the legislation? Far too often have our provincial and federal governments passed legislation containing all kinds of loopholes, and as a consequence when a conflict has arisen, perhaps over some small issue, there are lengthy delays. Then, we find both the federal and provincial authorities hiding behind the constitution and telling the people of the nation, "We cannot take action for the simple reason that the legislation is not clear." All we are asking is that the government take a look at this clause. I would not hesitate to make any changes in the wording which might be thought necessary to comply with legalistic points which might be raised on the government side. To me, the amendment makes sense. Why should we leave a vacuum in any of this legislation? Let us plug loopholes now, and prevent lengthy delays in the future when dealing with these problems. Canada is faced today with pollution dangers which were never anticipated a few years ago and as time goes on we shall no doubt be faced with new types of pollution which threaten to contaminate our environment; a stage will be reached at which it will not be possible to tolerate lengthy delays.


[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For these reasons I urge the government to incorporate the amendment in the bill because it will provide extra protection which we certainly need.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to say a few words in connection with this amendment, so as to encourage the minister to support it, for I think Bill C-144 can only be improved by it.
I suggest the government should grasp this opportunity and improve this piece of legislation, because, as it stands now, some levels of government would find no teeth in it.
The various governments do legislate now on Canadian waters and it is not known which one has the prime responsibility. It is not known either which level of government should take the first steps in this or that area to control or to ward off water pollution.
I am in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), and I believe it fits in very well with the subject being discussed at this time. If we want Bill C-144 to benefit all Canadians, I think we must pass this amendment straight off.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: rise to support this amendment which is similar to several others which were before us during committee stage. It is also similar to an amendment of mine which will not be debated today.
In spite of all the bits and pieces of legislation which have been placed before Parliament this session on this general subject, the lack of consultation with provincial authorities and the apparent lack of consultation between federal departments prior to the introduction of bills purporting to control pollution leaves me convinced that there is no guiding hand, or central direction toward a national pollution control policy. I fear that when this bill is passed there will be an overlapping of responsibilities, that we shall find two or three federal departments responsible for the same job, and, what is worse, that there will be large gaps, areas in which nobody will be responsible for taking action. Control of pollution is such a tremendously important matter that there must be someone charged with co-ordinating the whole effort.
It has been suggested that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
the minister to be charged with the oversight of environmental control measures. When his department was set up after the 1965 election, the Prime Minister of that day said it would bring together all the loose ends having to do with water resources and the control of water pollution-that this was the department to which responsibility for all these things would be assigned. It was intimated that though the initial responsibility would be primarily one of combatting water pollution it would eventually be broadened so as to include the whole environmental field. I applauded the setting up of the department at that time. I do not applaud many of the things the government does because, as a member of the opposition, it is not my job to do so. But on this occasion I thought the government had done something which was worthwhile, namely, to bring all these responsibilities under one minister.
Unfortunately, this did not happen. When the relevant legislation was passed, the minister was made responsible in general terms for only "those matters assigned to him". So I began to direct questions to the Prime Minister about pollution matters. And on each occasion he replied: Wait until the Canada Water Act comes in and then you will have your answer. For a long time this was his stock reply to all questions on pollution control. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had our answer now, and the answer is, "no". The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is to play only a limited role in pollution control.
As my hon. friend from South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has pointed out, the publicity which preceded the introduction of the Canada Water Act promised great things. Everyone reading it thought: At last we have what we have been looking for all these years; we have a Canada Water Act and all the responsibilities of the federal government will be placed under one department; at last the effort will be co-ordinated. This is exactly what we were led to believe by the publicity statements. However, when we take a close look at the bill we find we have been deceived. All the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be doing under this bill will be to co-ordinate a few little water policy management regions he has managed to set up. That is all. Some will be set up by agreement and others are to be set up unilaterally. I doubt, myself, whether these unilaterally established water quality management agencies will ever be set up. I doubt whether authority exists to constitute them. Indeed, I
DEBATES	7173
Water Resources Progravis doubt whether the government would take such action, even if it did have authority. I say this having observed the government's reaction to any constitutional or jurisdictional problems concerning which any question has been raised. Always they say: That is close to the line and we do not wish to infringe provincial jurisdiction. We thought this was going to be a co-ordinating act, but it is not.
* (4:00 p.m.)
Then, we thought that perhaps the government had just overlooked this point and was going to bring in an amendment to correct the oversight. We thought the government was going to say, as the hon. member for South Western Nova has so moved, that the minister would be responsible for co-ordinating the efforts of these departments; that he would be responsible for dealing with gaps that appear; that he would be responsible for co-ordination of provincial authorities, but would specifically make it clear that the minister would not be responsible for work or duties already assigned to other departments; nor was the minister to have any authority over matters exclusively assigned to the provinces.
The present amendment is not strongly worded, but I think it is the best we can do. We introduced two amendments, the second worded a little more strongly, but it was ruled out of order. This amendment is the next level down the scale, so to speak, and attempts to consolidate the efforts of the various departments under one minister. I cannot understand why the amendment was not accepted. Well, perhaps I can. Perhaps I was a little hasty in saying that I cannot understand why it was not accepted. I think the reason is that there is a division of jurisdiction between two or three departments, and none of them is willing to give up its own little piece of jurisdiction in the common good. I believe that that is the reason.
I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has the fortitude to call his cabinet together and to tell them: "Somebody must be responsible for this matter and you fellows must quit bickering about who is the big shot with regard to pollution control". I do not know who would want to be chief of pollution control in this country. Certainly, no minister has been designated minister of pollution control. Perhaps we would require a fancier title, such as minister of environmental control or something like that.
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs
Be that as it may, if the Prime Minister is not going to place a specific minister in charge, I think the House should insist that one minister be so designated. The minister we have picked is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We have not picked him on a personal basis or because he is the best of two or three ministers who have some responsibility for these matters; it is merely because he is the minister of the department that seems to have the main responsibility for water pollution control.
I think that the lack of co-ordination of federal, provincial and local efforts, including municipal efforts, will lead only to continuing squabbles over jurisdiction, authority and enforcement. While the government appears to have some vague idea that pollution control is necessary, the means with which to carry out and enforce the various pieces of legislation has not been set up. I hope that all of these pieces of legislation dealing with pollution control are not just a gigantic public relations job and that there is no real intention of enforcing them. However, if the government refuses to accept this amendment, we can only assume that it does not intend to co-ordinate these efforts, that it does not intend to put money behind pollution control efforts, and that it does not intend to enforce the various acts that have been passed this session, that are in the process of being passed or that have been promised.
I should like to conclude by making brief reference to what is just about the best example of how diffusely the various aspects of pollution control are spread among the departments. This came to light quite by chance this afternoon when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) tabled the third report of the International Joint Commission. Although I have not yet had the opportunity of reading that report, but hope to very shortly, I assume that it is a well thought out, well studied and researched report. The IJC has been holding hearings all over Canada and the United States on the problem of pollution of the Great Lakes, so as I say I assume it is a good report.
What I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, is who is going to enforce and carry out the recommendations contained in that report? Although I have not read it, I am positive there is something in the report about phosphate detergents. There is also a provision in the Canada Water Act dealing with phosphate detergents. The report also makes mention of oil pollution, and I am positive there

will be some reference to the dumping of oil by ships on the Great Lakes. This matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. I am equally sure that the report will have reference to the deleterious substances that are causing damage to the fisheries, a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). As I say, the report itself was tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to see the International Joint Commission given the responsibility for carrying out the recommendations in the report. I should like to see the federal and provincial governments of Canada, and the federal and state governments of the United States, delegate authority to some body. In the committee we were told that the International Joint Commission does not want this responsibility, that it does not want to be an enforcement or control agency. Therefore, it seems to me that some other agency should be set up to which all of these powers are delegated. As I have said, a minister should be designated to coordinate pollution control efforts. An international body should be set up with the authority to carry out instructions given to it.
That is the burden of my argument, Mr. Speaker. Since other amendments have been ruled out of order or withdrawn and this is the only remaining amendment dealing with this particular question, and since it is a reasonable and well thought out amendment, I hope the government will see fit to accept it.
I recognize that if there is a jurisdictional conflict between one minister and another, it will be difficult for one minister to accept full responsibility. However, I am very happy to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Acting Prime Minister, in the House at the moment because he is the only minister, I suggest who could do something about this situation. Perhaps while the Prime Minister is away he will settle any jurisdictional conflicts existing between his colleagues. If he is prepared to take that responsibility, perhaps he would suggest to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that this amendment should be accepted.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are being given a first hand example of the interest that this government takes in this most important matter of pollution. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made some very pious speeches about the tremendous importance of this matter to the country, how it
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs the border. It is obvious that pollution does not stop in mid-stream, so there is no point in Canadians passing good legislation if the governments in the United States do not pass equally effective legislation to deal with pollution on their side of the border.
To those of us who were fortunate enough to be members of the Canadian delegation which travelled to Washington a few weeks ago to meet with our counterparts in the United States government to discuss matters of mutual concern and interest, it was interesting to note that the subject of pollution was given the highest priority; it was first on the list. This is considered by parliamentarians in both countries to be the no. 1 problem facing us today. We immediately got down to business and started to discuss pollution problems without any further ado. It was agreed unanimously by all members of the two delegations that it was absolutely essential that the provincial governments, state governments, the federal government of Canada and the government of the United States work very closely together in an effort to make sure that legislation passed on both sides of the border is as similar as possible so that the fight against pollution of the waters we share can be successful.
The third thing I believe we must do in order to give our fight against pollution a chance for success is to make certain financial arrangements to enable industries and municipalities that discharge waste into our waters to purchase the expensive machinery needed to remove pollutants from their waste before it is discharged. To accomplish the first thing I have mentioned, that is to co-ordinate the efforts within the federal government, the provincial governments and the governments in the United States, I believe we must establish a federal agency to co-ordinate our antipollution efforts, both federal and provincial. I would suggest that such an agency, for want of a better name, might be called Environment Canada. This agency should be controlled by a minister so that the confusion which exists between the five departments of the federal government which have some responsibility for anti-pollution measures and the ten provincial governments with which the federal government must work, can be eliminated to the greatest possible and practical extent.
The minister in charge of an agency such as Environment Canada would work to see that the provincial governments, the governments of the states which share this common
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs water, the federal government and the government of the United States would work together to see that the objective we all agree must be accomplished if anti-pollution measures are to be a success becomes a reality. This is not in any way being accomplished today. This must be done. We must stop merely talking about the need for co-operation. We must appoint an agency and a minister in charge so that the job can proceed. The minister who I would suggest to handle this agency would be the minister without portfolio from Windsor, because he is not only a hard-working, conscientious young minister but also possesses considerable tact. This job as co-ordinator requires tact. The minister whom I would nominate to not receive such an appointment would be the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because if there is one quality this minister does not possess it is tact.


Mitchell William Sharp: He has charm.


George Harris Hees: 
Robert Lorne Stanfield: He said it was a good speech.


George Harris Hees: If the Acting Prime Minister thinks that was a good speech, he goes down greatly in my estimation. I have always considered him a reasonable and a sensible man, but I do not think he made that comment seriously. I would ask him to give consideration to a suggestion of mine. The only way one can explain away that unfortunate speech is to go to the U.S. government and simply say: "Look, you have your Spiro Agnew, we have our Joe Greene. We know what you go through and you can understand what we go through with this stupid ass making speeches of that kind to you. Please forget it; we are sure, having suffered with Spiro for the past few months, you will understand".
Finally, the last thing that I feel we must do to make our anti-pollution program a success is to make it possible for municipalities
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
and industries, particularly small municipalities and industries, to afford the very high expenditure that is required for machinery to remove pollutants from waste before it is discharged into water or into air. I suggest that we follow a very simple program that was found to be very effective in wartime. As you and I remember, at that time the government of the day made available long term low interest loans to industries which they wished would transfer their operations into war production. They allowed these industries to write-off the whole operation within three years. This made it as easy as possible for peacetime industries to transfer quickly to wartime operations and we all know the results that were achieved at that time. A program similar to that can be just as successful to fight pollution because it will make it possible, particularly for small industries that could be charged high rates of interest and can ill afford it, to play their part in the control of pollution. These expenditures do not bring back a return that can be realized in the daily operations of these industries, so they represent a loss so far as their earnings are concerned. These loans will enable small industries and small municipalities which do not have ample funds for expenditures of this kind to make the necessary purchases of machinery to remove pollutants from waste, and in that way enter into a sensible and practical anti-pollution program.
In conclusion, may I say that I believe sincerely that if we Canadians will do the three things I have suggested, all of which are practical and can easily be done by this government without the slightest trouble, we can at long last start down the road of an active, practical anti-pollution program. Under such conditions the federal and provincial governments, in co-operation with our counterparts on the other side of the border, can bring about a practical anti-pollution program that will enable our fight against pollution to become a reality instead of simply sitting around day after day talking about something as important as this but doing nothing about it.
Mr. R. J. Orange {Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):
The amendment before us today is substantially one which was discussed at great length during the committee hearings. Although the words are slightly different, the intent is exactly the same. The committee, having examined this particular amendment, arrived at the decision that it did not fall within the
DEBATES	7177
Water Resources Programs scope of the act to create a minister who would be solely in charge of pollution or, as a member of the committee described him, would be the super czar of pollution. It was on this basis as well as the fact that at this stage the bill is based on relationships with the provinces that this decision was reached.
If you look at the first words of paragraph (a) of clause 3 of the amendment you will find the following: "not exclusively assigned to the legislatures of the provinces". In our committee discussions we attempted to determine precisely what this might involve. I do not believe that any evidence came before the committee which would indicate to us that these words would have any direct bearing on the act or would strengthen the act in any way.
A number of references have been made today to the lack of co-ordination and cooperation on the federal level with respect to the management of water and water pollution control in Canada. I believe that members of the committee, and I am sure other members of this House, are familiar with the activities of the inter-departmental committee on water which consists of representatives of various departments of government who have been meeting on a continuing basis to put together the various pieces of enabling legislation with which this session of the House is dealing. An example was used with respect to the problems of the Arrow.
a (4:30 p.m.)
The implication was left by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) that there was no co-operation or co-ordination in this respect. Nothing is further from the facts. Because of his responsibility under the Canada Shipping Act, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) immediately took steps with respect to remedial action. He organized a committee under Professor Patrick McTaggart-Cowan which is continuing its work now, and which has been working almost from the very beginning not only to resolve the problems of the Arrow and the situation it created but also to put together the kind of research information which will be of value if disasters of this type occur again in the future.
The suggestion has been made that the International Joint Commission should be responsible for the Great Lakes. Through the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters we see the co-operation which is now being achieved between the federal and the provincial gov-
May 21. 1970

Water Resources Programs emments, and within various departments of the federal government. This inland water centre is an inter-disciplinary operation, and there is consultation with its counterparts on the American side of the border.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would assign to the minister powers Which he otherwise would not have and does not require. Under the Canada Water Act he will have the authority for the conservation, management and use of the water resources of Canada. Earlier I mentioned the Inter-Departmental Committee on Water, which at this stage is the co-ordinating body within the federal government in connection with the use of water in and around Canada.
The Standing Committee discussed this amendment for the best part of two meetings, and it was the decision of the committee that it was not within the scope of the bill to create a super-czar of pollution in Canada. In the committee, we felt that reference to the national environment was beyond the scope of the bill, and it was for this reason that the committee decided that the amendment should be rejected.
We have just heard from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). It is always a pleasure to hear from him. It provides some form of comic relief for the House. I am sorry the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) was not present to reply on his own behalf, but I am sure he will have that opportunity at a later date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He will have quite a job defending that speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion no. 4 (Mr. Comeau). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding a new clause 6A as follows:
"6A. (1) Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister, shall establish water quality standards for all classes of water in Canada.
(2) No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters in Canada that fall below the minimal water quality standard established for those waters under subsection (1); violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be an offence and punishable under section 22."


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 14 is very similar to amendment No. 7, and I believe that Mr. Speaker suggested that they be debated together. No. 14 stands in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). I do not know whether he wishes to have this done, but I have a note here that No. 7 and No. 14 both relate to water quality standards and might be debated together, although I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West would want the questions to be put separately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am little uncertain whether in fact that was the position, but it seems to be a reasonable suggestion. I would just like to confirm that the hon. member for Kootenay West is agreeable to that, since motion No. 14 is in his name. If he is agreeable I am prepared to put his motion now, debate them together, and put the questions separately at the conclusion of the debate.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, that was the understanding the other day, that the two motions would be debated together, and I have no objection to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) moves:
That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding immediately following the word "prescribing" in subclause (1) (a) of clause 16 on page 18 the following:
"from time to time specific water quality standards and levels applicable to all bodies of water under the jurisdiction of the Canada Water Act for the following."
May 21. 1970	COMMONS


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not think my two amendments would come up for debate this afternoon, but here we are again. My amendment is made up of two parts. It deals with the establishment of national quality standards for all classes of Canadian waters. We have discussed this in the standing committee. We heard many briefs in that committee. Various points of view were expressed regarding the establishment of national quality standards for Canadian waters. Some disagreed with the suggestion, others agreed with it, but generally everybody agreed that there should be some form of criteria. Some people did not like the word "standards" but they agreed that there should be some criteria to set a minimum standard of some kind for any particular class of water.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is along the same line, and this is simply because in the committee, and in fact for a couple of years when dealing with this subject, we talked along the same line. In opposing this type of amendment, the minister has given his famous example of Hamilton harbour versus Lake Louise. This is his stock answer to it. He suggests that we cannot have the same standards for Hamilton harbour as we would have for Lake Louise. The minister does not seem to realize that we agree with his suggestion. We do not feel there should be the same standards for Hamilton harbour and Lake Louise.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We realize the industrial complexity of Hamilton harbour and we realize the great recreational activity with respect to Lake Louise. We do not say the same standards should apply, but we do say that for one particular recreational class of water there should be a standard so that it can be preserved for recreational purposes. These waters, as I have already stated, should be and are designated now. We know that certain waters are only used for recreational purposes and that certain waters are only used for industrial purposes. I am not saying that if a minimum standard is set Hamilton harbour has to be cleaned up to the point where you can swim in it. I do not think that is possible and we have to be realistic. But if water is designated for recreational purposes, then it should be used that way and there should be a standard for that type of water, whether it be Lake Louise or Lake Heetanoo-ga in my constituency.
DEBATES	7179
Water Resources Programs
It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. There have to be some guidelines for these different bodies of water; there have to be some guidelines for industry; there have to be some guidelines for the municipalities and there have to be guidelines for everybody concerned with a particular area of water or water basin. There have to be guidelines so that only the amount of discharge which is designated as safe, after much research and thought, will be permitted. If you do not say that the same guidelines apply to Lake Louise as to another lake used for the same purpose in a different province, then I submit you are simply going to create havens for pollution in some of these areas. You are going to say that in one province it will be possible to pollute more than in another province because there are not national guidelines or standards for a particular class of water. If one province contends that beyond a certain minimum standard you are disrupting the ecology and another province has a lower standard, then industry will naturally seek to establish there. There should be national guidelines in order to eliminate this sort of situation, Mr. Speaker.
Before I leave this subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read from the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works dated May 30, 1969, as follows:
Your committee is concerned by the increasing magnitude of air, water and soil pollution and the jurisdictional conflict which hampers the finding and implementing of proper solutions.
Your committee recommends that the government draft a code of standards for the cleaning up of and the future protection of all Canadian waters; that provincial approval of such a code be sought; and that the federal government provide an enforcement procedure-if necessary by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Your committee also recommends that a centre or centres similar to the Canada Centre for Inland Waters be set up to centralize all existing and future federal research in air and soil pollution and to extend and speed up such research so that codes of standards may be drafted to protect the air and soil from pollution.
The committee recommended that a code of standards be drafted for the cleaning up of and the future protection of, all Canadian waters. I see the minister coming in but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister-


George Harris Hees: This is a very important moment because the minister has decided to come back. This means that he has been here for six minutes out of 3| hours.
7180	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not even in his seat. If he is going to raise a point of order, he should at least be in his seat.


An hon. Member:: He does not know the rules.


George Harris Hees: I could not wait, Mr. Speaker. It is too exciting.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I can assure you it is exciting Mr. Speaker. This was supposed to be the major bill dealing with pollution bill. The minister attended two committee sittings but did not attend yesterday's sitting of the House, so today I am glad to see him.
I read yesterday that there was going to be a cabinet shuffle and some of these ministers were going to be shifted around. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary is looking for a new job. I wish him well.


Gerald William Baldwin: "The minister in charge of pollution".


Louis-Roland Comeau: To return to what I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the unanimous report of the National Resources and Public Works Committee recommended that the government draft a code of standards for the cleaning up and future protection of all Canadian waters. The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister, was on that committee and participated in drafting our report. Maybe it was he who suggested that this be included in the recommendations. In committee, however, while defending the government's idea that we should not have a national standard for a particular class of water, he completely ignored the suggestion of May 30, 1969, which he had made to the committee.
If I had a list of the constituencies of the other members of the committee I would name them, but I know that practically all those who were on the committee last year are on it again this year. Last year they recommended national standards but this year they say, "Oh, no, we have to defend the minister because the minister said we should not have national standards." It makes you wonder. Sometimes you hear the opposition talking about the usefulness of some of these committees, but instances like these really make you wonder just how useful committees are. This is a unanimous report; everyone supported it.

DEBATES	May 21, 1970
e (4:50 p.m.)
Last week a committee to deal with environmental pollution was set up. We are told that this is one of the most important committees that has ever been set up by Parliament. Well, the government is playing politics with this subject, because that committee will probably bring in a recommendation similar to the one to which I just referred. It will make all sorts of recommendations, but they will not be accepted. That committee has only one month in which to sit before the summer recess. Unquestionably, as I said, it will make recommendations and look at air pollution, various standards, etc., etc. There are standards now in Montreal; there are standards now in Toronto. As I said before, we do not say that the same standard should apply to Hamilton harbour and Lake Louise; only that similar bodies of water across the country should be controlled by similar standards. For instance, the standard applying to lakes or waters used for recreational purposes should be the same in every province of Canada.
The last paragraph of the amendment reads as follows:
(2) No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters in Canada that fall below the minimal water quality standard established for those waters under subsection (1); violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be an offence and punishable under section 22.
In other words, the amendment says that no body of water shall be allowed to fall below the set minimum standard. This afternoon we have talked of conflict in Canada, and how everyone wants to be a hero in pollution matters. The Minister of Fisheries takes great pride in his work in the fisheries; the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wants to become the great hero in the battle against pollution.


George Harris Hees: The absent hero.


Louis-Roland Comeau: My hon. friend says, the absent hero. The bill the Minister of Fisheries piloted through the House was a strong bill which set standards. Yet, while that minister suggests certain standards, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is opposed to them. The standards of the Minister of Fisheries are simple. He says, "Allow the fish to live in the waters of Canada." That is the standard. He says that once pollution reaches the point where the fish begin to die, you must stop. His standard has been very effective, because he says that when fish begin to die something must be done. That is a basic and very essential standard.
May 21, 1970

Private Bills



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
When this bill was introduced, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Prime Minister and many other ministers said that Bill C-144, the Canada Water Act, was supposed to be "it" in matters pertaining to jurisdictional control over water pollution. To meet any possible shortcomings, we have introduced several amendments. The members of the committee considering this bill really adopted the arguments of the minister when they said we should not adopt national standards. Actually, the government does not understand what we mean by national standards. At page 64 of report No. 23 of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) is reported as having said, in part, the following with respect to this amendment.
I cannot possibly vote for the second part of the amendment because it would be very detrimental to any person or individual who would even unintentionally pollute some of the waters of Canada.
What kind of argument is that? It would be detrimental to any person or individual who pollutes unintentionally, would it? Well, that makes you wonder what this bill is all about. If people are allowed to pollute unintentionally and the government will do nothing about it, I suggest it will be very easy for people to find excuses. A person will only have to say, "I did not mean to pollute; I did it unintentionally. The substance just slipped through that pipe and went into the river or lake." What kind of argument is that? Surely, the government can use better arguments than that. I think that is a good quitting point, Mr. Speaker. May I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Taxation- White paper on reform-changes suggested by vice-chairman of committee; the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis) -Criminal Code-Abortion-introduction of emergency legislation.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's Order Paper, namely, private bills.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia) that Bill S-22, to incorporate national farmers union, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to consideration of Notices of Motions (Papers).


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, partly as a means of indicating that I am back in my place, may I indicate that I shall move motion No. 203, in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre (for Mr. Broadbent) moved:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the November 4, 1968 letter by the Prime Minister of Canada to the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada as mentioned in the Third Annual Report of the Science Council.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is not here to tell us why this motion ought to be carried. I wish to state to the House that when it was originally called, the Parliamentary Secretary

We are not here considering the possible harmful effects full disclosure might have on the attitudes and work of high-ranking advisers, an aspect to be dealt with later.
Since ministers are ambitious and rival each other, any tendency to invite inspection of inner cabinet workings by outsiders would bring cabinet divisions out into the open.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
what's new?


Gerald William Baldwin: Page Mackasey and Kierans.


Yves Forest: While this might be manna from heaven for news reporters and commentators, it would harm the effectiveness of government, might well slow up administrative efficiency and hardly work for the good of the country. In times of crisis when some cabinet members would be looking ahead to the next election rather than devoting all their attention to the policy matter at issue, there would be an inevitable temptation for them to hint that they themselves did not agree with' the views expressed in one or another document made public. It would be a short step from this to admission by such ministers that they personally were opposed to policies adopted. Thus, collective responsibility would begin to crumble. Those who foresaw that a policy decision, however wise, would be unpopular and likely to damage their political standing might be tempted to lay the blame for it on their colleagues. It is hard to see that such consequences could further the laudable aims of those who urge an open disclosure approach to public business.
Under our system it is the task of the administration to govern and not that of Parliament. If an administration is not to be paralyzed by exposure to constant public scrutiny, the government would be wise to retain some discretion as to which documents and reports it publishes. There should, it appears, be a compromise between constant, total exposure-and undue, harmful secrecy.
John Stuart Mill saw a "radical distinction between controlling the business of government and actually doing it". He believed that:
The proper duty of a representative assembly in regard to matters of administration is not to decide them by its own vote, but to take care that the persons who have to decide them shall be the proper persons.
Gladstone told the House of Commons:
Your business is not to govern the country, but it is, if you think fit, to call to account those who do govern it.
Science Council
Lord Morrison of Lambeth commented in evidence given to the Select Committee on Procedure, in 1946:
I say it is the government that is responsible (for executive current administration). It is responsible to parliament, but if parliament is going to set up another duplicating set of administrative experts to take an interest in current administration, there is going to be a clash between parliament and government which I think would be bad. Parliament's business is to check the government, throw it out if it wants to, go for it, attack it, criticize it by all means; but parliament is not a body organized for current administration, not in this country-
Professor of Government at the University of Exeter, H. V. Wiseman, notes in his introduction to "Parliament and the Executive": Our general conclusion is, simply, that parliament does not and should not 'govern' the country; that the increasing power of the cabinet vis-a-vis the House of Commons is necessary and inevitable and should not be measured against a probably mythical and certainly short-lived golden age of 'parliamentary supremacy'; that, none the less, the dice have become too loaded against the House of Commons and that it is possible to restore the House to a more balanced position in the constitution without undermining executive responsibility and even without destroying the essential basis of party discipline upon which such responsibility rests.
Sir Ivor Jennings, in his "Cabinet Government" says:
It is, in short, the function of the government to govern and of the House of Commons to criticize: but there are limits to the scope of criticism; and if the government asserts that discussion is not in the public interest the House can do no more than accept the decision. Even where publication of information is not inimical, the Dowers of the House are limited in fact. It is a deliberative assembly, not a governing body.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? In all those quotations, does the hon. member have one from Pierre Elliott Trudeau on participatory democracy?


Yves Forest: I explained at the beginning what participatory democracy meant, and I said there were certain limits to it, especially when questions of state secrecy and things like that are concerned. Some documents must remain secret. I recognize that this might not satisfy the hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What has this to do with state security?


Yves Forest: I am saying that some advice must remain confidential. To be effective, complete, impartial and candid, advice papers prepared for cabinet and memoranda for ministers should be confidential. Otherwise, the advisers will have their minds on the conse-

May 21, 1970
Science Council
quences of publicity. There is also the possibility they might be inclined to find ways of keeping delicate matters out of written reports. They would speak rather than write. Disclosure of documents, position papers and reports emasculated by caution would help the public little.
Albert S. Able, Professor of Law, University of Toronto, writing on administrative secrecy notes that the chief danger to the administrative process of a policy of "general disclosure" is a "potential freezing of channels of communication." He states:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Effective administrative supervision calls for informed decision making which calls for free communication between staff members and between levels. Opponents of administrative secrecy tend to pooh-pooh claims that there would be much less of either if everything were an open book. But common experience belies them as to volunteered complaints and reports. It is human nature to be candid in confidence and coy for the record. No doubt private tipoffs must be sifted sceptically-and no doubt most public servants know that by and large they are unreliable. But to discourage their coming in for sifting would measurably asphyxiate many an administrative program. As for communication with a department or agency, what would be lost is not so much information as a shirtsleeves exchange of ideas. When one is seeking answers, there is need to range tentatively and discursively without worrying constantly whether one would look silly on paper. It is batting things back and forth, not a series of formal position papers, from which constructive solutions arise. Private deliberations and public postures are entirely different styles of discourse and communications which have to be made with an eye to the latter only imperfectly provide the advice and suggestions needed for wise and flexible administration.
Modern government is a complex business, the biggest in the country, and cabinet is burdened by heavy tasks. The process of decision-making is influenced by party programs, the views of special interest groups, the work of interdepartmental committees and the careful sifting of cabinet committees. The work load might become intolerable if all stages of the process were fully open to public view.
Those favouring an open administration note that for 200 years there has been full access to most government documents in Sweden. However, the report of the task force on government information has this to say:
The Swedish system of open administration may be admirable but it is not necessarily easily adaptable to Canadian conditions. Nor is there much evidence that the real results for the public-in improved quality of information or lack of suppression of essential documents-are notably different from the results in the Canadian or United States 
systems . .. however, the atmospheres in which the public seeks and the government releases information, are markedly different.
Both Sweden and Canada have a parliamentary system and a cabinet responsible to the legislature, but the Swedish cabinet differs significantly from the Canadian. Sweden has attempted to separate the administrative and political functions of government through the use of Royal Administrative Boards .. . the satisfactory transplanting of Swedish practices in access to public documents might be difficult to achieve.
At its root the problem of revealing or concealing background information is one of balance and compromise. The Fulton committee which examined the civil service in Britain had this to say:
We recognize that there must always be an element of secrecy (not simply on grounds of national security) in administration and policymaking. At the formative stages of policy-making, civil servants no less than ministers should be able to discuss and disagree among themselves about possible courses of action, without danger of their individual views becoming a matter of public knowledge: it is difficult to see how on any other basis there can be mutual trust between colleagues and proper critical discussion of different hypotheses. But the material, and some of the analyses, on which these policy discussions are going forward, fall into a different category; unless there are overriding considerations to the contrary (e.g. on grounds of national security, the confidential nature of information supplied by individual firms, or to prevent improper financial gain), there would be positive advantages all round if such information were made available to the public at the formative stage of policy-making.
The committee went on to suggest that a government inquiry "make recommendations for getting rid of unnecessary secrecy". This may appear to be a worthy proposal but it is a long way from recommending that all background reports and documents used by the administration be published.
This has been a long reply to the request of the hon. member, but it may bring enlightenment to other such requests and act as a guideline to such motions for production of papers. In this particular instance, I believe it would not be in the public interest to divulge this document.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate to have been in the chamber to hear the parliamentary secretary, for whom I have great personal regard, give this most enlightening reply. I must say that never have I heard so much garbage. Perhaps the hon. member was prompted to rise to his feet by the pollution bill with which we have just been dealing.
May 21, 1970

The hon. gentleman did not answer the question asked of him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about what had happened to participatory democracy. This, of course, goes back to P.E. 1968-"pre-election 1968". We have heard very little and seen even less of participatory democracy, in the sense of providing open information of a type to which this House and the country are entitled, since that election.
The great respect that I have for the hon. gentleman has been heightened by the fact that he was able to read his statement with a straight face. It was sufficient to drive my honourable and distinguished colleague for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) out of the House; I do not think he could stand any more of it.


Yves Forest: The hon. member will admit that I had some good authorities.


Gerald William Baldwin: The authorities which the hon. member quoted might well have been good a number of years ago, but it is obvious that the people who wrote these dicta, these memoranda, never contemplated a government such as that headed by the right hon. gentleman at the present time, a government that is greedy, avaricious, grasping for power, secretive, incapable of producing the free and open society that we must have.
In today's issue of the Ottawa Citizen, a paper which notably does not frown frequently upon the present government, there is a statement to the effect that the other place is considering establishing a committee to ride herd over and to scrutinize just such actions as those which have been complained of-this type of directive, this method of secrecy, this governing by order in council.
In this regard, I have often made mention of a very good report, a non-partisan, unanimous report, which was brought in on the last day of the last session ending in October last year dealing with this same sort of issue. This report was received by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and all government members with hosannas. This report was going to create the open government system in Canada and would make sure that the government would be regulated and controlled and that Parliament would be supreme. What utter bilge! That committee report has been buried, and as I said the other day we will probably never see it again. This is why those honourable and distinguished ornaments in the other
Science Council
place have now seen fit to assert, as I hope they will continue to assert, their intention of taking up where the committee report that has been buried left off.
The rules referred to in the memorandum read by the parliamentary secretary were good and valid rules at the time, but they do not prevail with a government such as this which now has at its command the exercise of such a vast potential of uncontrolled and unchallengeable power. For this reason, if ever there was a government that must be open and must be compelled to divulge information, facts and documents which possibly under other circumstances I would hesitate to demand, it is this government.
To conclude on this particular issue, I note that the hon. member who moved the motion seeks a copy of the November 4, 1968 letter by the Prime Minister of Canada to the chairman of the Science Council of Canada, as mentioned in the third annual report of the Science Council. If documents are not going to be used or made available, then they should not be the subject of comment in publications which are open to examination by the public and the members of this House. The letter has been commented upon, and although I have read the third annual report of the science council I do not recall the actual terms of it. However, if they saw fit to comment on that letter, there is no reason in the world why the letter should not now be made available. I certainly feel I, for one, intend to support the motion presented by the hon. member.
e (5:20 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I listened with some degree of amusement but also with some degree of concern to the reasons given by the government spokesmen for not producing the letter referred to in this motion. It seems to me what really has been given here is the old standard argument found in text books on political science some years ago. I was perhaps most dismayed to hear the reference to John Stuart Mill. There is a certain degree of irony in the reference to John Stuart Mill. The first aspect of this is that in the history of the English speaking peoples he will certainly be regarded as the distinguished liberal-small "1"-who dedicated his life almost entirely to the pursuit of free and open discussion and the implementation of civilized and decent legislation. To hear his name quoted in the context of a

May 21, 1970
Science Council
defence of restriction of information is most distressing, especially coming from a government led by a party which is named "Liberal".
A second and much less significant aspect of the irony is that my doctoral thesis happened to be on John Stuart Mill. Therefore, I know a little about him. I challenge the government spokesman to produce one statement by John Stuart Mill which would in any way support their position. There is not a thing written by Mill which would support the view of the government in seeking to restrict information, and this is really the issue here. In fact the government spokesman would find substantial argumentation in support of the contrary view; that is, that governments above all should be open and that all sources of governmental information should be readily available, not only to the opposition but to the public at large.
It would seem to me that the general reasons that should be accepted in defence of a restriction on information could really be reduced to three. One would be when the security of the state is involved. Even in this case, it has been the practice not only in this Parliament but in others for certain leading members of the opposition parties to have access to certain documents of crucial importance even when state security is at issue. But as a general rule, certainly individual persons in a democratic society would expect that correspondence concerning security matters should not be made public. People have confidence in their democratically elected officials protecting their interests in this respect.
The second area would be one in which disclosure would provide an opportunity for someone to make an improper financial gain. Again, everyone would agree with this. The third area I suppose-and this is the last example which comes to my mind-would be if the document could be considered to be libellous in nature. Beyond these it seems to me the minister has failed to do what he should do. He has failed to provide an argument for the general principle, practised not only of course by this government but by all Parliamentary systems throughout the world, of invoking the general rule of a right to secrecy and a right to request others to gouge out of them any information they can. To say the least, I do not think this is a distinguished aspect of our tradition of Parliamentary government. It is a tradition which now is being challenged. It is being challenged in Canada and in other Parliamentary systems within

the British Commonwealth. As the minister will know, the system of secrecy has not only been challenged but has been overthrown in Sweden. Contrary to what has been suggested it seems to me the Swedish experience is informative for two reasons.
The first reason is that Sweden has a very distinguished tradition of freedom for its people in all areas of life. Second, it has a very distinguished reputation for providing practical government. In Sweden there has been an attempt to maximize the combination of these two desirable attributes in society, freedom and practicality. I would suggest they have been successful in keeping both these and, at the same time, in providing as a general rule the right of the public to be informed and the requirement that the government must show cause for restricting the publication or distribution of any document. It seems to me that any government, especially a government using the name "liberal", should be acting on this principle and not a contrary one. The suggestion has been made that the reason the Swedes have been able to do this, even though they have a cabinet form of government, is that they operate on the basis of boards much more than we do and keep the separation between administration and policy on a much more rigorous basis than we do in this country.
I do not think it is a persuasive argument to just state those facts in supporting the government's cause. Surely, what one would have to establish is that in our society the ready dissemination of information would seriously disrupt administrative procedures. This is the crucial point which I, as well as members in all three parties on this side of the House, would challenge; that is, the assumption that by making information available, such as scientific reports, letters, recommendations on trade policy and so on one could seriously disrupt the efficiency of the government. What evidence can be produced? There is the old, antiquated claim that controversy will reduce the frankness with which officials will argue their case. I do not agree with that. There is the serious counter argument that if people thought that what they intended to argue in written papers would be subject to scrutiny by opposition members, by university people and by editorial writers, they would certainly take more care in what they say and it is quite conceivable that the cogency of the arguments they present would be much better.
May 21. 1970

Of course I do not ignore the partisan aspect of any civil service. No sensible Member of Parliament or intelligent member of society at large would expect in our type of government that civil servants would not be involved in partisan recommendations to a minister. In one sense, I think it is part of their job. But this need not go into written documents; that is one important point. Surely they speak to their ministers on a frequent, daily basis. So that aspect of privacy would certainly be maintained.
[DOT] (5:30p.m.)
I say that we have not had the defence that this House should expect from the government side in its attempt to maintain the secrecy rule. It seems to me that in a free society this is exactly what is required. When you have secrecy, that is what needs to be defended. Those of us who are calling for openness and freedom should not need to defend our case; because openness and freedom should be the norm. The onus of proof is on the government, and they have not provided it. Therefore, I hope that this motion receives the support that all free and reasonable people believe it deserves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in
the members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
V/ATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, motion No. 7 (Mr. Comeau) and motion No. 14 (Mr. Harding).
Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, immediately before five o'clock I had been speaking to my amendment which, in the first part, deals with the establishment of national quality standards for all classes of water and, in the second part, provides that no water will be allowed to fall below the set minimum standard. At that time I had been quoting what an hon. member had said in the committee.


Mr. Orange:: At what page?


Louis-Roland Comeau: 
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I could say what I wish to say equally well on motion No. 7 or motion No. 14, both of which have as their purpose the establishment of water quality standards for all classes of water in Canada. We on this side believe this to be one of the most essential features of any legislation dealing with the prevention of pollution of our waters. Nevertheless, it has been omitted from this bill. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be members of the committee and to visit the Bedford Institute of Oceanography were deeply impressed with the careful, painstaking and broad scope of the work which is being done there.
9 (8:20 p.m.)
I believe that the people of Canada have the idea that this Canada Water Act will provide water to this country that will not be allowed to deteriorate in quality from its present standard; that in the case of water that has so deteriorated the objective of the bill to clean it up and gradually restore it to a much higher standard. I believe that is what the people are expecting from this bill. How-
May 21. 1970

Water Resources Programs ever, I am afraid, from our studies in the committee and from all we have heard and seen in connection with this matter, that the people are being lulled into a sense of false security in this respect.
The members of this party believe that the people are being "had" if they really think this water act will do any such thing. No legislation can ensure clean water or the restoration of impure water without national water quality standards being applied across the country. Because without these standards there is no measure of that quality. The amendment of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) as well as that moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) clearly make this point.
The committee held 36 meetings and most of the members attended practically all of them. I think it is fair to say that two different views were held in the committee in regard to the management of water. The government's view, as put in the bill and outlined in committee, is that instead of having national water quality standards across the country, each river will have its own, separate standards which are arrived at in a completely different way from those of its neighbour and other rivers in Canada. The minister made this abundantly clear in his statement to the committee, and I should like to read an extract from his statement since reference has quite often been made to the minister's point of view in this regard. At page 2 of the statement that I have of his speech he said:
We seek to analyse and plan each river in detail and set the best standard. These standards will be for full protection of human health and aquatic life, for the preservation of recreational values and scenic beauty and all other benefits. But to set a common denominator which suits both Lake Louise and Hamilton harbour is entirely inappropriate. Since all waters could never be entirely pure, we would have to set a standard for the nation that would be less than pristine purity.
I feel like quoting to the minister the old adage that I heard during my childhood, "Heaven's your home". No one is thinking of pristine purity; it is too late for that. The minister went on:
That being the ease, anyone, without stricture, could pollute our finest waters down to the national standard. I ask this committee ... is that any v.-ay to treat our purest water resources? No indeed... that would be a licence-and a free one at that- to pollute.
I ask the House to pay particular attention to this next sentence:
Yet that is precisely what a national standard Would do. We want to improve the quality of
[Mrs. Maclnnis.l
polluted streams and to keep those now beautiful and clean in that ideal state. This is why we say no uniform standards but optimal standards.
I emphasize the minister's use of the words, "Yet that is precisely what a national standard would do". No one is proposing one standard of water for all the waterways in this country, and the minister ought to know that. He has heard it often enough in committee for it to be beyond the shadow of a doubt. These two amendments call for national standards for different classes of water across Canada. Both this afternoon and this evening the hon. member for South Western Nova made it abundantly clear that waters being used for different purposes would have different standards but that those standards should be national for those different purposes, no matter whether they be in the constituency of South Western Nova, in the Kootenay West area, the Fraser River or anywhere else.
One point I want to make abundantly clear is that we are not talking about a national standard for our waterways, but about national standards that will differ for each different class of water but which will not differ on the basic of different river basins. The minister talks of polluting down to the national standard. One point that I raised in the committee a number of times was that it seemed to me that the concept the minister had in mind, as did those who drafted the bill, is that the bill does not extend to water that is reasonably pure now. You would have to wait until water became really polluted before the bill would apply to it. Otherwise, why talk about polluting down to the national standard?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You are talking about it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am not; I am quoting the minister. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to note that this was a direct quotation from the minister's speech. It was he who referred to polluting down to the national standard. We do not want this at all. One reason we are worried about this bill is precisely that it takes for granted that the standards the minister and the government have in mind are standards or levels for water already polluted; they do not have in mind classes of water that are unpolluted.
Let me deal with another matter. The minister's point of view seems to have been shared in large measure by quite a number of the industrialists who appeared before the committee as witnesses. One group pointed out that pollution has arisen source by source
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
and it must be corrected source by source; in other words, it is the basin-by-basin approach. They say that since pollution has occurred source by source, it has to be cleaned up source by source. This is a piecemeal, fragmented approach to the whole question of water pollution and water management. I feel strongly that this bill was drafted with industry at the minister's elbow.
I go further and say it was at the minister's side, in most cases holding the pen. There is one exception to this, and I give the minister full credit for it. 1 want to deal with it now because I will not be here for the final discussion on the phosphates section of the bill.
In my view, the minister deserves a great deal of credit for having hung tough when being beseiged by the phosphates manufacturers. I should say by the phosphates "manufacturer", because it is a monopoly, and by the detergent manufacturers. They did everything possible to delay the bill and to lobby members of the committee in order to attempt to get a reprieve for phosphates in the pollution section of the bill. However, the minister hung firm and insisted that the content of phosphates in detergents would be reduced by this August, and hopefully eliminated by 1972. I did note, however, that when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke this afternoon he qualified the ban by 1972; he weakened a little on that point, and I only hope that the weakening is not in the minister's mind.
I believe that this legislation in general was drafted to suit the convenience and needs of industry rather than to suit the needs and convenience of the Canadian people. I think the legislation is adopting a very fragmented approach to pollution. It approaches pollution water-basin by water-basin and provides for no proper national standards of water quality. Against what is the government going to measure these standards or criteria? The minister talks of an optimal standard, but what is to be the measuring stick for the optimal standard of a given area? We have not been told. We have just been told it will be an optimal standard. Until there are national standards for different types of water, there can be no measuring stick; all we have is a sliding up and down affair. The approach to the whole problem is a fragmented one. There seems to be a difference of opinion in the cabinet on this matter. I notice that when he was speaking in Vancouver to the Kiwanis Clubs of British Columbia on February 20 of
DEBATES	7191
Water Resources Programs this year, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) had this to say:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Fragmentation is a curse. It is a frustration, a stumbling block, an obstacle to intelligent planning, a divisive thing which keeps us from joining forces in the battle against the unnatural poisoning of our environment.
I think he could very well have been speaking of most of the clauses in this bill, because instead of this bill being something that would apply to all the waters of Canada and deal with these waters as a great treasure to be carefully preserved for this and future generations, we find the bill visualizes a separate, piecemeal approach in respect of all streams and waterways of this country. We found that many witnesses representing industry were very anxious to keep this separate, fragmented approach. We also found, however, other witnesses who had a completely different approach, and this included opposition members of the committee. I was very pleased this afternoon when the hon. member for South Western Nova spoke in the voice of an unfragmented Canadian who was not thinking of this country in terms of little, chopped-off waterways. The waterways cannot be chopped into different bits. They run across frontiers whether international, provincial or regional. A fragmented approach will not result in keeping clean those waters that are now reasonably clean or in rehabilitating those waters which are now polluted.
Representatives of the Canadian Water Resources Association appeared before the committee. They spoke clearly and said that their association asks that water quality criteria be national. Then they went on to point out the various fragmented organizations that would be involved and the difficulty in respect of co-ordinating them so that the responsibilities related to this legislation might be carried out. When speaking this afternoon, I believe on another motion, the hon. member for South Western Nova spoke of there being 12 different departments involved in water management. The Canadian Water Resources Association referred to this legislation and said that ten consultative committees, with three federal and three provincial members on each, are envisaged. This association noted that there are now 10 federal departments, 9 agencies, 4 major commissions, 3 international boards, 30 sub-boards and 40 acts of Parliament affecting water, plus the water agencies of the various provinces.
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs This is the major reason the Canadian Water Resources Association wants national standards. They believe there should be something definite as a yardstick by which to measure the purity and cleanliness of Canadian waters in the face of all this division which we of course must have in carrying out the purposes of this bill. Reference has already been made to some of the representations of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. I should like to quote some passages from the brief of this federation because it also wants national standards. At page 3 of the brief we find the following:
In its present form. Bill C-144 provides for establishment of water quality standards only in those areas which have been designated as water quality management areas. As we understand it, standards would vary from area to area. We believe that this piecemeal approach would have a most detrimental effect on the quality of water in Canada, through encouraging greater concentration of industry, particularly those whose effluent is difficult to purify, in those areas which have low water quality standards or no standards at all. We believe it is essential that a uniform, high standard of quality be established for all the waters of Canada.
This is one thing members of the committee were conscious of all through their deliberations. We were conscious of the fact that there is nothing whatever in this legislation that would prevent an industry which is polluting industry from shopping around from one water quality area to another water quality area in an effort to find a place where the standards are less strict so that it might locate there with the result of making the area more polluted than it is now. There is nothing in this bill to prevent such shopping around by industries. This is another reason we want national quality standards. The brief of the Canadian Wildlife Federation continues:
In a press release relating to introduction of Bill C-144, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated that "One would hardly expect to bring the quality level of a city harbour to that of a mountain stream". Even though the comparison is somewhat extreme, the policy it implies warrants close scrutiny. The city harbour, or the industrialized area, must be equated with "urbanized" and "populated" areas. The Canada Water Act appears to suggest that these areas can expect to have waters of low quality, unavailable for many of the uses to which water is normally put and for which there is a growing demand. We believe it is essential that waters in or close to populated areas meet quality standards which make them available for a broad range of uses, including water-based recreation.
A national water quality standard would provide a goal toward which all levels of government could work. The goal would not be attainable immediately, of course, but should be negotiable, 
within limits, on the basis of a timetable established by federal-provincial-municipal consultation, planning and agreement.
The Canadian Wildlife Federation recommends that the Canada Water Act be amended to state that the government of Canada is committed to purifying all of the waters in Canada to a degree that they will provide suitable habitat for self-perpetuating populations of local flora and fauna, and to the degree that they will provide opportunity for water-based recreation.
The minister may believe this is counsel of perfection. He may believe it is a standard of perfection to have water across Canada in which fish can live or in which plants can grow. However, I want to tell the minister that if he found himself inundated and overwhelmed with letters from aroused and concerned citizens when they found out what phosphates were doing in respect of polluting our waters, if he allows this bill to go through and we find that we are permitting industries to pollute in other ways because we do not have national standards, he will find himself inundated by communications, letters and petitions from mothers whose children cannot swim in the Fraser River, the ocean, Lake Erie or in other places because of the disgusting stink, growth of algae, and dead fish. He will also find himself inundated by letters and petitions from fishermen whose livelihood is being taken away and from people who wish to go boating or enjoy themselves swimming in these areas. We must see that the standards are such that they will protect groups of people other than those engaged in industry. Industry is important but so are citizens groups of various kinds, recreation, health and our fishing industry.
o (8:40 p.m.)
Without national standards this act will not give us the necessary protection. What do we mean by national standards? This afternoon our amendment was thrown out. I believe the reason was that it was not in proper form, but there was also the suggestion that it did not meet the purpose of the act. Surely the purposes of the act are set out in the preamble, and I am not quarrelling with the decision to throw out the amendment. According to the preamble, the purpose of the act is 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. The amendments that we have before us now propose exactly that, namely, programs relating to the
May 21. 1970	COMMONS
conservation, development and utilization of water resources, and this cannot be done without national standards.
What do we mean by national standards? By national standards we mean something of the type that is set out in the Pollution Control Act of the United States. The U.S. in this respect is well ahead of us. Water quality standards were established in Britain as early as 1900. Here we have not even accepted the necessity for them, but there they were established early on. I will refer to Britain again in a few moments.
We believe that the United States established certain criteria for their standards which are precisely what is visualized in these two amendments, namely, that water quality standards should be established for all waters in Canada and that in no case should water be allowed to deteriorate from its present quality level. The U.S. standards specify that water should not be allowed to deteriorate below its present quality level and that no waterway should have as its principal use the transportation of waste. We read in the newspapers that some of the major rivers in Europe have become open sewers and cesspools. We feel that in no case should we abandon any Canadian river or waterway to become a sewer as its major purpose. This will be done if we let industry have its way without national standards to protect this country.
We also must ensure that our national standards do not permit waste in its untreated state to be discharged into a waterway. If I had more time tonight I could mention many places where waste is pouring, untreated, into the waterways of Canada. How long will this be allowed to go on? Until we find out that people are dying or catching all kinds of dreadful diseases or becoming incapacitated in other ways? I do not know, but we have not established sewage treatment as a standard. In setting standards we should consider the best use for the waters wherever they are. That means that where you have a multipurpose river, such as the Fraser River, we have to find out what will be the best use for that river and what standard to establish for it. I can suggest right now that down near the mouth of the river the standard set should not be for the convenience of the polluting industry, but rather should be such that fish can live and that people can enjoy fishing and bathing in this river.
These are standards on which we should insist. Our standards should provide for the 22375-37
DEBATES	7193
Water Resources Programs upgrading of the quality of water with a view to the future needs of the population. Hamilton harbour is a mess today, but there is no reason why it should always stay a mess just because it is so badly polluted. There is no reason why the Fraser River should stay in as bad a condition as it is today in its lower reaches. The same could be said about other rivers. These standards cannot be met overnight, but goals and timetables should be set to bring these waterways back to their former quality. This may sound impossible to people who are industry-oriented, but I suggest the time has come in Canada when we have to be consumer-oriented for a change. For far too long we have considered exclusively the convenience of industry in the arrangements of our cities, waterways and other matters across this country. I say frankly that I believe the time has come when the convenience of industry will have to take a second place to the health, welfare and life of the civilian population.
Why does this legislation not propose national standards? I have already indicated that I am afraid it is because of strong regional and sectional interests and because the government simply will not give leadership and face up to the disapproval of these regional and sectional interests. I know, however, that when two groups from the province of Quebec came before our committee, both of them dealing with the projected ban on phosphates, they said that they wanted a federal ban imposed on phosphates under the criminal law, regardless of whether or not it suited certain interests in that province. These were the consumers and these were the people in charge of water management in the province of Quebec. This government would be well advised to disregard sectional interests in the face of the overriding citizen demand for clean water and for water that will be made clean if it is not so already.
A few minutes ago I mentioned that in Britain water pollution standards had been set back in 1900. However, these standards were not observed until about ten years ago when conditions became very dangerous to the health of the people in London. The Thames as well as the air over the city became desperately polluted and about ten years ago there was a killer fog in London and several thousands of people died as a direct result of the smog. This produced a great deal of pressure which resulted in action being taken by the government. They tightened up whatever regulations were
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs necessary, with the result that last winter, ten years later, they had 70 per cent more sunshine in London. They have had to tighten up regulations regarding fossil-burning fuels emitting smoke from the myriad chimney pots in London. They say that the water in the Thames is already a number of shades lighter and brighter-not whiter, but cleaner and purer than it was ten years ago. The fish are coming back in the lower reaches of the Thames where they have not been seen for many years, and birds that have not been seen in London for many years are also beginning to come back. If we in Canada had any wit we would act before real trouble happens here. But the government, with its habit of thinking from crisis to crisis, of "Don't move until you have to move," is not thinking in terms of prevention.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
If the government goes ahead without national standards, without national quality control in any way, in a very few years we will find ourselves in a situation very much like that which they faced in London. Then it will cost a lot more money, a lot more in health, in well-being and in industry, particularly in an industry such as fishing, and it will also cost more in terms of the disappearance of species of flora and fauna. I do not see why we do not adopt national standards now, particularly since we have been warned by the examples of other countries.


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


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I have just a minute to finish?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I will just be a minute, Mr. Speaker. We are glad to see that at least the government is moving to provide an act. This is something, but we are not going to be thankful beyond a certain point. If the legislation when enacted has very serious shortcomings, it if makes people think it will provide protection against pollution when actually all it does is throw a straw to a drowning man who thinks he is getting a first-class life preserver, we will certainly not be thankful. We would be doing a disservice to the people of this country if we did not point out the seri-
ous shortcomings of the legislation. If the government were really trying to do what needs to be done, it would now be preparing an over-all environmental act.
Just as you cannot fragment the waterways of the country, neither can you fragment water, air and soil, because they are all inextricably interwoven in the tissue of the survival of life about which we have heard so much. We need an environmental act in Canada to protect our water, air and soil. So while I say we are glad to see a very slight beginning along this line, and while I have given the minister full marks for standing firm on one point, we in this party feel there are serious shortcomings in the legislation. I have not touched on all the shortcomings. I have merely dealt with one, the lack of national standards for all classes of water. That matter can be dealt with through either of the two amendments. I am going to support both amendments. I only hope the government will take a second look at the amendments instead of waiting until it is flooded half seas under, as it will be, when people realize the shortcomings in the legislation.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to say that my party wishes to support the amendment under consideration and which I find necessary.
The first paragraph of section 6A of motion No. 7 reads as follows:
Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister, shall establish water quality standards for all classes of water in Canada.
I feel that this provision is quite relevant since it aims at preventing the pollution of sectors not yet polluted.
Once it is decided that our waters are polluted enough the establishment of standards will be requested and the waters will be treated. To me, it is better not to allow the waters to get polluted and to adopt an amendment that aims at preventing pollution, which would be cheaper for everybody.
The second paragraph of this motion reads as follows:
No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters in Canada that fall below the minimal water quality standard established for those waters under subsection (1); violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be an offence and punishable under section 22.
I congratulate the member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) for proposing this
May 21. 1970

amendment. As I said previously, if we do not adopt it we will allow our waters to get polluted and when we realize that it is dangerous, we will establish standards to determine their degree of pollution. We will start deeming them up and set up areas where the pollution is too high when the water is completely polluted.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I waited a moment before rising to see if any of the eloquent members on the government side would rise to speak on this amendment, or in fact on the bill at all.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We spoke in committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We have disposed of several amendments by way of debate yesterday and today, and except for a reply by the Parliamentary Secretary the government members have taken no part in the debate. We have had a completely one-sided debate. Sitting in the House one would think that the amendments were all fine amendments. Everybody speaks in favour of them; nobody speaks against them-but when the question is put the members on the government merely shout nay and they have done their duty for the day.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: They don't drink water.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: They sit there in their arrogance, knowing very well that once we are finished talking they will vote against the admendments. I would like to hear some debate on this question of national standards.


An hon. Member:: We are hearing plenty from you.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would like to hear the hon. member who just spoke make a few remarks.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We have had 1,000 pages of debate.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I wish the hon. member's seat-mate, who was on the committee, would take part in the debate.


Raymond J. Perrault: Keep politics out of it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) says, "Keep politics out of it." Why doesn't he stand up and make some comments on the bill, because there are people in British Columbia who feel that national standards should be provided in the bill. I would like to hear his views on this matter.
22375-37J

Water Resources Programs [DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I speak sincerely about this matter. In the committee we heard from some very qualified people on the question of water quality standards. Some of them were in favour of water quality standards and others expressed themselves as not being in favour of a uniform standard but did agree that some set of criteria was necessary with respect to the bill. We are merely hung up on words. That is what has happened with this bill. The minister started out by confusing everybody through his initial statement, saying, "You cannot have the same standard of water purity in Hamilton harbour as you have in Lake Louise." We do not expect that. This is the point that has been made over and over again, that a set of water quality standards would mean standards for the use of certain types of waters. Other jurisdictions have fairly competent sets of water quality standards. They have a standard for the type of stream that is presently unused, and which should remain so. They have a standard for an area in which there is factory waste which should be cleaned up. They have a standard for swimming and recreational areas, and a standard for shipping in harbours. They also have a standard for water for human consumption. Surely these are standards that should be set out in this bill. This is what we are seeking.
We always get hung up on the phrase "uniform national standards." We are not asking for uniform national standards. I want to illustrate my point by referring to the committee's proceedings of March 3 when the Pollution Control Committee appeared before it. Alderman J. E. Davis appeared before the committee and in his initial presentation said they were opposed to a national uniform water quality standard and that it was better to have a different standard for each water basin area. Then in questioning by members of the committee, as recorded at page 8:22 of the proceedings, there is this exchange:


John (Jack) Davis: We believe that you should have an over-all guideline principle. The word "standard" I think is the word we are hung up on, is it not?


Randolph Harding: No, no.


John (Jack) Davis: It is a semantic.


Randolph Harding: Yes, "standard," actually is the point we are getting at.
What Mr. Davis was saying was that we were getting balled up in semantics. He wanted some sort of guideline, criterion or standard. It does not matter what we call it, but he wanted something set up along this
7196	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs line for Canadian waters. This is what we have been asking for in these amendments. To some extent I am repeating remarks that have already been made, and I hope I do not do it too much. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has gone about Canada making speeches in connection with water pollution. As already pointed out, on February 20 last he made a speech in which he promoted water quality standards for Canadian waters. He said they were necessary. He said they were essential. This is a minister of the government that is promoting this bill.
The second question that arises is: If we do not have any standards or criteria, what is the minister or his department going to use in deciding whether or not the water quality management plans that he proposes are satisfactory? I tried to get an answer to this question from various people in the department, including Dr. Tinney who was the main witness from the department. I asked him, "What kind of standard are you going to use in the department?" I asked the question because under this bill, when a water quality management area is set up the board or commission has to decide on what sort of standards it wants for its area, for its waters. It has to decide how to achieve those standards, at what cost, and so forth.
Having made up such a plan, the board then presents it to the minister for approval. The fundamental part of such a plan is the standard to which waters are to be elevated or at which they are to be maintained. This is what a water board is supposed to decide, and then it is written specifically in this legislation that the minister must consider that proposal and decide whether or not it is satisfactory. What basis is the minister or his department going to use? Nothing in this respect is set out in the bill, and there can be nothing in the regulations because there is no provision in the bill for making regulations. This is what we have been trying to do. We have not even been trying to write the regulations. We have been trying to put a clause in the bill so that the minister can write the regulations. We have no water quality standards set out in the bill, and we will have no water quality standards set out in any regulations.
What we are going to have without any parliamentary approval, without any governmental approval, and possibly without any ministerial approval is somebody in the department deciding what standards are .acceptable. Somebody in the department is

DEBATES	May 21, 1970
going to decide right out of the blue what standards they are prepared to accept. This is outrageous. If we cannot spell out standards for the water quality boards to use, how is some official in the department, just out of the air or out of his great expert knowledge, without any direction from Parliament or the government, going to decide: This is the standard we are going to accept?
I think this is a terrible thing, because the bill requires that the minister must approve the standard that is recommended to him. But how is he going to do it? On what basis? On what background? On what standard for a particular water is he going to make his judgment? Without anything in the bill or in the regulations, this is a very sloppy and improper way with respect to approval of standards for water quality areas. Without any standards, how are we going to prevent one area from setting a lower standard than another? We cannot. This was one of the points made time and time again by witnesses before the committee. If we do not have a national minimum standard for a certain type of water, we are going to have area A setting a lower standard than area B, in order to attract industry. Consequently, the water basin authority which sets a high standard, which carries out the intent of the legislation and does what all Canadians think should be done, will lose out. There is nothing in the bill which would prevent that.
I think it is an outrageous proposal that the people who try to carry out the intent of the bill, which is the maintenance of a high level of water purity, may lose out on industrial development. This is not right. In refusing to set any type of standard, the minister is being very unfair to people who want to have high water quality standards. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are some objections, and logical ones, to a uniform national water quality standard. I use the word "uniform.' This is the word upon which all people who object to national standards hang their hat. They say we cannot have all waters across the country uniform. They come right back to the minister's Hamilton harbour and Lake Louise allusion. The word "uniform" does not appear in any of the amendments that are proposed. It does not appear anywhere. It is left out purposely because each basin contains a particular type of water, and the quality, at the stage when this act comes into force, may be higher or lower than the minimum. We must deal with that. If the level of any basin is lower than the national standard that is set,
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
that level must be raised to the national standard. That should be the objective of the water quality management commission. They must raise the level of quality of such waters. If the water quality of a basin is higher than the standard, it ought to be maintained at that higher level.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
That brings me to another point. The minister said several times that if you set national standards you will degrade the quality of waters to lower levels and that any clear waters will be degraded to the minimum standard. That is not so. The first thing that ought to be included in the national water quality code is the provision that the quality of no water shall be degraded below its current level. That sort of provision is contained in all the water quality codes I have seen and was included in one of the amendments which was ruled out of order today. But such a provision is basic and is included in the federal pollution code of the United States and in four or five state water quality codes which I have read. Such a provision is the first on the list. It usually says that regardless of other standards, no water shall be degraded below its present standard. Therefore, the minister's argument that the waters of Lake Louise will be degraded to the level of those in Hamilton harbour is phony. I do not know what the government's excuse is for not setting up some sort of national criteria or standards, when it would be so easy for us to decide at what level the purity of the waters of Canada shall remain.
That is all I want to say on the subject. I should like to hear someone on the government side make a convincing counter-argument, because I have not heard one yet. The minister has made a couple of statements. I have referred to them and I say they are both phony. I should like to hear hon. members who sat on the committee argue the government's side of the case. If this is supposed to be a debate, then at least we ought to hear the other side of the argument from hon. members on the government side who were on the committee and who may want to contribute to this debate. If they speak, I shall be most pleased.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee that dealt with this matter and I therefore assume I know a great deal less about it than those who served on the committee. None the less, I should like to make a brief comment on the matter we are now debating.
DEBATES	7197
Water Resources Programs
It occurred to me as I listened to the remarks made only by hon. members on this side of the House, and as I read some of the Minutes of the committee discussion, that if someone from another planet were to come here and listen to our debate, he would wonder what it was all about. I agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) that there really ought to be an explanation as to why the minister finds so unacceptable the simple suggestions made in the two motions we are debating. I see he is busy on work which I am sure is important. All that these proposed amendments say is that the act ought to give the Governor in Council authority to set national quality standards for various classes of water. The proposed amendments do not even attempt to set the standards that the Governor in Council ought to introduce. That idea was contained in another motion which was not found acceptable. The motions we are now debating merely say that the act ought to give the government power to proclaim national quality standards for various classes of water. Why that should be unacceptable to the minister and to the government, I simply do not understand.
It has occurred to me in the last few months that people will consider the fight against pollution to be in the same category as motherhood. It is something that everyone ought to be concerned about. We satisfy ourselves with declaring we are sorry to see the pollution which threatens our people. We say in ringing terms that it is necessary for us to be rid of it and yet, sadly, we do relatively little about it.
This act, part of which we are now discussing, is an example of the very small step we are taking on a matter that everybody proclaims to be of the utmost urgency for the future welfare of all mankind. Professor Richard A. Falk of Princeton and of the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioural Sciences says:
The planet and mankind are in grave danger of irreversible catastrophe ... Man may be skeptical about following the flight of the dodo into extinction, but the evidence points increasingly to just such a pursuit... There are four interconnected threats to the planet-wars of mass destruction, overpopulation, pollution, and the depletion of resources. They have a cumulative effect. A problem in one area renders it more difficult to solve the problems in any other area.
I draw the attention of hon. members particularly to the last sentence of the quotation:
The basis of all four problems is the inadequacy of the sovereign states to manage the affairs of mankind in the twentieth century.
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs
This is precisely the case in this country as in all other countries that have the questionable benefit of being highly industrialized and which are faced with threats to the welfare of mankind which industrialization, necessary though it is, has produced for ordinary people in all parts of the world. It is our failure as a sovereign state to deal with pollution and the other matters mentioned by Professor Falk that worries the people of Canada and worries, I am sure, the minister. I assume that the minister and his colleagues are just as worried about pollution and the threat it holds for human welfare in Canada as are the people of Canada and the members on this side of the House.
When we move these amendments, it is not for the purpose of putting the minister on the spot. It is for the purpose of pleading with him to strengthen the act which in our view does no more than set up the necessary machinery. It does not provide the other things which are also necessary to make that machinery do the job which has to be performed.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
When I consider, as a layman, this dreadful problem of pollution, when I see what has happened to many of our rivers and lakes, when I see, as I go about this country, industries which are constantly polluting the waters and the air around them, I ask myself: What is it that we need in order to deal with this danger with some effectiveness, realizing that it will be a matter of decades or even generations before the water and the air can be cleaned? It seems to me that the following things at least are necessary. First, it is necessary to have an objective. It is necessary to set national standards for the various classes of water so that the community as a whole may have a goal toward which it is working and for whose achievement it is spending whatever money may be available for the purpose. Second, there must be massive funds available for the job, funds which will finance the building of the capital equipment required if we are to avoid what is happening now to our waters across Canada.
The cleansing of our waters will not take place in the absence of research funds. Massive amounts are required to enable the municipalities which are now abusing their waters by letting the refuse and pollutants from the ordinary life of the community run into waters such as the St. Lawrence River at Montreal and other rivers across this country,

to construct the capital works required to eliminate such practices. Third, what is obviously necessary in a country such as Canada is the machinery to co-ordinate federal, provincial and municipal efforts in this field. I emphasize the word "municipal" because I do not think the cleansing of our waters is possible unless the municipalities or regional governments take an active part in the process and are allotted the necessary financial resources to build the structure required to avoid the further pollution of the waters they are now polluting.
Fourth, it seems to me there should be national standards, to which strict prohibitory measures are attached to prevent industry, municipalities or individuals from polluting our waters. No anti-pollution measure is worth the paper it is written on, it seems to me, unless it deals with these four major areas. The Canada Water Act does not do so, Mr. Speaker. There is, it is true, one exception. The bill deals with the area of co-ordination of federal and provincial action-not with federal-provincial-municipal action-and provides machinery for co-operation and coordination. To this extent it is a worth while piece of legislation. But it fails to deal with any of the other factors, and in these circumstances it is of little value; it is certainly of much less value than legislation in 1970 on this subject ought to be.
So we start with our first point. It was not possible for members of this House who are not members of the government to move anything which would have the effect of amending the act with respect to funds available to regions and municipalities. Your Honour will recall that you were obliged to rule out one amendment which dealt with federal grants and that several other proposed amendments which involved expenditure were similarly ruled out of order. We know that such amendments cannot be debated on the floor because of the entirely proper and acceptable rules of this Parliament. Nevertheless, we cannot deal with the major problem of financing the anti-pollution work which has to take place, without financing it isn't going to be done. I almost said "it ain't going to be done" as being more appropriate to the subject of pollution we are discussing. We have attempted to stress the criminal aspect of pollution but the minister has refused to adopt our suggestions. So our members have been able only to seek to persuade the government to accept the notion that this bill ought to
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
contain a provision enabling the government to set national standards governing the various classes of water in Canada.
It may be difficult to do so. Perhaps one of the reasons the minister does not want this power is that he sees all kinds of difficulties attached to it. I am sure it would not be easy to set out all the standards which might subsequently be required. This is one of the reasons we believe it should be exercised by way of regulation approved by the Governor in Council. The minister could take some time in producing these standards. One of them, which it is obviously necessary to establish immediately, as soon as the act comes into force, would ensure that none of the waters across Canada shall be permitted to deteriorate below their present level. This would be a start. Even if the government established a regulation which said nothing more than that, we would have taken a step to prevent waters which are not now polluted from being polluted, and to prevent those waters which are only slightly polluted from being further polluted. What is wrong with that? What possible objection could there be to the government taking the power to set national standards so that we might have a starting point for any of the work which is to follow?
There are one or two other simple standards which even laymen can think of. The value of getting them into the act in such a way as to give the government authority to make regulations on the subject is that the minister will be in a position to produce regulations embodying certain standards within a few days of the legislation coming into force. He could then study the situation further and produce revised standards six months later and further standards, if required, in a year or in two years' time. So if he were out about this matter the minister would accept an amendment of this kind giving himself the power progressively to produce standards as he learns more from experience and from studies of various bodies of water in Canada, beginning with the basic ones I have mentioned and building up a set of standards in the course of two or three years which would stand the test of time.
There is another reason which so far has not been mentioned in favour of national standards along the lines suggested by other speakers and by myself. I am thinking of the educational value. I started by saying I was afraid that the subject of anti-pollution is rather like motherhood-everyone is for it. I
DEBATES	7199
Water Resources Programs think this is true of the people of Canada as well as all of us in Parliament. Almost every Canadian says, "It is a pity that the waters are polluted. Something should be done about it". Yet very few Canadians are yet ready to realize that certain payments will be required in order to rid ourselves of polluted waters; that we will have to exercise certain disciplines in personal matters, whether in our homes, in our cottages or in the kind of detergents we use for washing our clothes.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Anti-pollution measures, properly applied, sincerely applied, effectively applied, will require sacrifice on the part of the Canadian people. Anti-pollution will require self-discipline in the way we behave in our homes and in our lives. It will require an understanding of what is involved. One requirement of antipollution measures is education of the people of Canada to what is really meant. We must persuade them that we are not using mere words or being holy about the subject; that we are not just saying that we are against sin. We must persuade them that we mean to tackle the problem of pollution of our waters and of our air and that we really intend to do something about it. One advantage of setting national standards is that this would be spelled out to the people of Canada. It would tell the people of Canada that this is the objective that Parliament and the government have in mind. The minister would say to the people of Canada, "This is the objective I have in mind as the minister responsible. I am not just saying that pollution is a bad thing; I have the authority of Parliament to set standards of quality for Canada's water, standards that I intend will be observed".
I am not going to say what these standards should be. I am trying to avoid repeating things that have already been said. However, what I do not understand is why the minister is refusing to accept these simple motions. I could be suspicious enough to wonder whether the minister really intends this act to do something about pollution, or whether it is merely a piece of window-dressing that he will be able to wave in the air at the appropriate time for the appropriate purpose. I have a feeling-I say this sincerely-that that would be totally unfair to the minister. I have a feeling that he is genuine in his desire to do something about the pollution of Canadian waters. On that assumption, his obstinacy in regard to these simple amendments is inexplicable. We are not-
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired, unless he has the leave of the House to pursue his contribution beyond the allotted time. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have reached what might be called a peroration so I will not have to worry members for very long. The minister's obstinacy in this matter is inexplicable. These motions are not asking him at this moment to write the standards, but merely give him authority under the act to do so. He does not have to produce all the standards at one time. He can produce them one by one, two by two or three by three over a period of months, or even two or three years, as his experience grows and as studies indicate the standards required.
He can do more than that, Mr. Speaker. He can amend the standards. This is the value of a regulation as opposed to a statutory definition. Regulations can be amended without having to come back to Parliament. If a standard that he has proclaimed proves unworkable or inadequate, then by Order in Council he can amend it. All we are asking him to do in these amendments is to agree to take unto himself this power, in order to make the act more meaningful and in order to set an example to the people of Canada. This would make everyone feel that he and the government really mean business in tackling pollution. As I say, I cannot understand why he refuses to accept them. I hope he may yet be persuaded to see, not the light because this bill does not deal with the whole question of pollution, but at least a glimmer of common sense.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) a few minutes ago referred to the questionable benefits of industrialization, I found myself thinking about the Indians. The connection may not be immediately obvious to the members of this House, but I was thinking in particular of those Indians who dwell and have for a long time dwelt in that part of the country that I represent in this House. If I understand correctly, it is estimated that something like 30 to 40 per cent of the total Indian population of Canada before the arrival of Europeans dwelt in a rather narrow strip of coastal territory adjacent to the broad waters of the Pacific. There they enjoyed

what in many respects was the highest standard of living of any of the inhabitants of North America at that time. This was largely because they had at their doorstep waters that were of a nature and quality to enable the production of food from rich and bountiful resources.
In many ways they reached a level of civilization through their opportunities for leisure and relatively easy ways of providing the necessities of life which indeed is envied by many of us today, and this with all the background of European so-called civilization that our forefathers brought to this country and which we directly or indirectly have been able to enjoy. Their way of life was such that it really in no way affected or altered to any tangible extent the quality of those waters. As long as they alone inhabited that particular area, the richness of their life continued in almost unbelievable abundance.
When I went to live in that area as a small boy, that abundance still existed almost in its original state. It is true that there was the beginning of an industrialized society. However, at that time the total population of the province of British Columbia reached scarcely half a million people. The kinds of industry existing were so scattered and relatively small that while here and there there was a spotty interference with the original quality of those waters, by and large their ability to teem with abundant life had scarcely been touched.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Since the time when I was able to enjoy those surroundings as a boy, the process of industrialization has increased in geometric progression to the point where we now see looming immediately before us a different kind of situation so far as our waters are concerned. Indeed, the pace of that industrialization and the change in the total magnitude of it, both in respect of individual plants and in the collective sense of the total industrial effort, has rapidly moved even in the period since the end of World War II to the point where it is so different in degree that it has become different in kind. There is, therefore, an increasing concern about the results which are becoming so widely apparent in respect of the effect of this industrialization not only on the waters of the lakes and rivers of British Columbia but on the waters of the seas and inlets and indeed of the ocean itself.
As many members of this House well know, many thoughtful scientists are beginning to
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
raise the question of the ultimate capacity of a body of water as huge as the Pacific Ocean to continue to absorb at the current rate the wastes that are being poured into it. They are raising the question that out of the Pacific Ocean, and to a lesser degree the other oceans of the world, the very life-giving oxygen we breathe is being taken. If this process continues, sooner or later we will all choke to death for lack of air if we have not all died because of the various toxic effects to the water and therefore to our food before that process reaches its ultimate point.
It is with knowledge of this type in my mind that I should like to join in this debate for a few minutes. I may not be able to reach the eloquence of my colleagues from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and York South, but I too should like to express my concern about the rather lackadaisical attitude of the minister and the government to which he belongs in respect of the approach being suggested by these amendments which are under consideration. I have not had the opportunity to take part in the sessions of the committee which studied this bill, but during this period of time I did find myself involved with other committees studying matters rather closely related to the content of this bill and its announced purpose in respect of dealing with pollution in Canada.
We had the northern inland waters bill and the Arctic water pollution bill before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and we had a bill, not quite so directly related, before the External Affairs Committee in respect of our territorial seas and fishing zones. Then in the Committee on Fisheries we considered some rather substantial amendments to the Fisheries Act. I am sure all members of the House, whether or not they have sat on the Fisheries Committee, realize that the questions of water quality and the welfare of our fisheries are very closely related. So the type of considerations involved in the amendments which are proposed at this stage have been very much in my mind in recent weeks as well as in the minds of the members of the New Democratic Party who have taken part in the deliberations of the committee which considered this bill.
As I listened tonight to the discussion in respect of this amendment, particularly by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for York South, my mind went back to the conference on pollution and our environment which was held in
DEBATES	7201
Water Resources Programs Montreal in 1966, which I attended and indeed to which I have referred a number of times in various remarks I have made in this House on different items which have been before us. I should like to emphasize at this point that the ideas and arguments put forward tonight by my colleagues are precisely the basic ideas which emerged from that pollution conference in 1966. Apart from any argumentation and considerations that have been put forward in the Committee hearings on this bill, and the references made to the committee hearings by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I submit that there does exist a solid body of evidence and thought that was the product of that conference on pollution in 1966.
As I recall, I believe the whole question of what evolved from that conference may be summarized in two ways. One was a consideration of the idea of watershed management. The other was the whole question which has particular reference to the place of the federal Parliament and the federal government in the scheme of things in respect of the idea of setting forth water quality standards that would be applicable anywhere in Canada and which could be applied in the appropriate way anywhere in Canada. This bill purports to touch on both these areas, though inadequately in my opinion. So far as water quality management on a water basin basis is concerned, in my view the bill is very fuzzy and incomplete. It does not make this concept clear in its reference to water quality management agencies. This idea cannot conceivably develop from that section of the bill.
However, no real assurance has been given, so far as I am aware-and I think there has been some assurance to the contrary-that that idea of watershed management will emerge from this bill. But in the other area, the basic thing that emerges from that conference is completely lacking because if this amendment should be refused the bill would make no provision for the development of adequate water quality standards. I again emphasize, as one or two of my colleagues have, that we are talking about standards in the plural and not in the rather strange way the minister did in trying to suggest we want every water in Canada to be as pure as Lake Louise. I do not know whether I told the minister this, but when I visited the park as a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development I found that the water of Lake Louise was not too pristine pure because waste was being dumped into
May 21, 1970

Water Resources Programs that lake in one of our national parks. If the minister wishes verification of this statement, all he need do is go swimming there.
I think I should again emphasize the nature of the conference to which I referred, particularly because in respect of this bill I notice from various press reports that some constitutional questions have been raised by such eminent figures as the Premier of the province of Ontario.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Therefore, I think it is not inappropriate to point out that in that conference there were ministers of provincial governments, deputy ministers of provincial governments, pollution control directors and administrators of various provincial governments, a wide range of representatives at the municipal level of government, both elected and appointed, as well as a strong admixture of representatives of various forms of industry and of organizations such as wildlife federations, and so on. Also, a representative of the consumers associations of Canada took an active part in the proceedings. All the questions that arise in this area because we are a federal state, with various responsibilities assigned to various levels of government, emerged in the cross-current of discussion among the various groups at that conference and were battered back and forth.
The pros and cons of both the constitutional and the practical aspects of pollution control were analysed and considered. If there was one clear fact with which everyone seemed to agree no matter what area they came from-I have not in my review of the people who were there mentioned that there were many representatives at the federal level-it was that the federal government should give leadership in the field of water quality maintenance and should take the initiative of setting standards which could be applied right across the country. This is the main purpose and function of a federal government in a federal state, as I see it, otherwise we might as well forget about this place and this government and let each of the ten provinces run its own affairs and do as it pleases in any area of the country.
This is one thing, if nothing more, that I hoped would have emerged in the wake of that conference, that is, a proposal by the government to set standards to which other bodies across the country could reach up, standards which, as the hon. member for York South said, would be moving standards.

By "moving standards" I mean that they would be set by regulation from time to time and would be adjusted with changing technology and more intensive research. After all the time that has elapsed since that conference, with all the heralding that went on year after year by various ministers of the government that we were going to have a Canada Water Act, we find out that standards are the one thing that are lacking in it. So I think it is not unbecoming that a number of us in this House should take the time and effort to stress the need for action and express our regret that the government introducing this piece of legislation has seen fit completely to ignore this fundamental idea.
One of the indirect results of this basic lack in the Canada water bill has been an effort on the part of those of us who for a number of years have been involved in this question through our interest and concern for the welfare of fishermen, to ensure that within that act clear federal jurisdiction is maintained to set standards that will be applicable to all the waters of Canada. It is rather unfortunate in some ways that this has had to happen. In effect, we have had to go behind this act-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It being so close to ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would allow me to complete my remarks on this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there agreement to allowing the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I was saying, those of us who were in the Fisheries Committee considering related matters felt we had to, in effect, try to maintain a holding action based upon our clear jurisdiction over fisheries under the BNA Act, because I believe there are so many areas of water use that lie outside the ambit of that particular jurisdiction which have to be dealt with that it would have been much better had we had something in this act that would have given us a clear-cut mandate to go across Canada as Members of Parliament urging people in all corners of this land to meet the standards that Parliament had set. But rather than that, the minister has chosen to accept a long, tortuous, behind-the-door discussion before any of the agreements envisaged in the bill can be reached. I foresee
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
that it will be many years before any federal standards in the other important areas of water use will have any practical effect.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the reason that I appear on this "late show" to speak on the subject of the white paper is a very sensible one, I think, in that many of us in this House are trying to smoke out or find out from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) exactly where he intends to go with this document. My speech will not be directed toward the content or the merits of the document but rather to finding out from the minister-who is not in the House or even behind the curtain-what course he proposes to follow with the white paper. At least to most of us the white paper would appear to be the most important single program to be laid before us in this session of the twenty-eighth Parliament. So, motivated by these purest of principles, the other day I asked the minister this question as recorded at page 7121 of Hansard:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
In view of the comments on the white paper made by the vice-chairman of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, will the minister say whether we can anticipate that the far-ranging changes recommended by the vice-chairman will receive consideration by the government?
To which the Minister of Finance replied:
Mr. Speaker, the recommendations made by the committee as a whole, consisting of members of all parties, will be considered seriously by the government.
So we all stand up and say "whoopee" to that, "Hear, hear,", "Jolly good fellow" and all that sort of stuff. But the fact is that because I am one of these mild fellows, pleasant in nature and so on, I can ask a question and get one kind of response from the Minister of Finance but the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has a somewhat different disposition from myself- much more effective, but a somewhat different disposition-asked a question a few days 22375-38(i
DEBATES	7203
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion before that and received an entirely different tenor in the answer that was given to him.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert was asking about the deferred savings plans of companies like Simpsons-Sears. The way the Minister of Finance replied to me was honey, but the way he replied to the right hon. member for Prince Albert was waspish. I do not think you bring about changes in this country by being nice to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and being acerbic to the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


An hon. Member:: It should be the other way around.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My hon. friend has pointed out that it should be the other way around, but granted the merits of that, Mr. Speaker, I am almost being sidetracked by that kind of thing. The point I am trying to make is a very serious one. I received about 700 representations on the question of the deferred profits savings plan and I know that other members from constituencies in which there is a Simpsons-Sears, or the like, have received a similar amount of mail.
On the question of what one could expect by attending conventions, some 99 per cent of the 800-odd briefs presented to the Finance Committee expressed views. Therefore, I boil the long preamble down to this, that Members of Parliament who have a limited amount of time and are really trying their best to deal with the very serious topic of tax reform-I think every member of the House espouses tax reform but wishes it would apply in proper measure-have to consider several questions. The first is that after we have received a fair amount of evidence, should the Finance Committee of this House be hearing the same points made over and over again, ad nauseam? Or should there not come a point when the Minister of Finance acknowledges that this point has been well and truly made, that he and his advisers had not considered it when they drew up the white paper, and therefore it is something that should be withdrawn, or he should make a statement on it?
Second, Mr. Speaker-I am coming to the last 30 seconds of what I would like to say-is it not time that the Minister of Finance, in view of all these opinions we have now had expressed before the Committee on Finance and all of the things that we were bombarded with, said there are certain areas where he thinks the original white paper is wrong, that he is withdrawing them and that he will re-
?204	COMMONS DEBATES	May 21, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion state his position, not within the whole context of the white paper but within the context of a few ideas?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister has asked me in his absence to reply tonight to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who has described himself, I think fairly and aptly, as a mild fellow, and I might say one who is fairly concerned, as are all Canadians, about the proposals for tax reform. This is the sort of discussion that can surely only further the objective of all of us, to have a fair system of tax reform.
The hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie), who made a speech to the Petroleum Accountants Association in Jasper last Thursday, made it abundantly clear in his remarks that he was speaking personally, and this of course is the right and indeed the duty of all Members of Parliament. In commenting on the speech made by the hon. member for Etobicoke I think the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants probably had reference to the Globe and Mail report. That report set out accurately the five special areas that the hon. member dealt with in his remarks. These remarks, Mr. Speaker, are the sort of expression of opinion that the government wants from everyone in Canada. It has been repeated many times that the reason the government put forward its proposals in the form of a white paper is in order that the public will have an opportunity to express its views.
The hon. member for Etobicoke raised the question of whether gains on shares in widely-held companies should be subject to taxation on a different basis than a gain on the sale of shares in other companies, or gains from the sale of other assets, and the distinction between public and private companies with respect to a credit to be given to shareholders in respect of income tax paid by the corporation. This is a very important part of the proposals affecting the taxation of gains and companies, and views about whether it will work or will not work are exactly what the government has requested. The hon. member also made a suggestion for assistance to small corporations. This is an area where a great deal has been said in opposition to the proposal to withdraw the low rate of tax on the first $35,000 of corporation taxable income, but very little has been put forward by way of an alternative.

The government has urged those concerned to make suggestions for ways in which the special problems of small business could be recognized, but not too much has been forthcoming. The government hopes that more Members of Parliament and members of the public will follow the example of the hon. member for Etobicoke and make constructive suggestions in this area.



CRIMINAL CODE-ABORTION-INTRODUCTION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the "late show" is probably not a very encouraging spot to speak on an issue as vital as the need for updated abortion legislation. Yesterday I tried to get an emergency debate on the matter and it was ruled out of order. Then I asked the Minister of Justice (Mi'. Turner) whether the government contemplated emergency legislation and he told me that no immediate changes were in view.
I call attention to the fact that the public and the press across the country continue to regard the situation of abortions, illegal and otherwise, as a dangerous and growing menace. Newspapers like the Montreal Star, the Windsor Star, the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun-those four at least, to my certain knowledge-have written editorials pointing out that the present abortion legislation is completely inadequate and needs updating. Evidence about this is coming in from all sides. Here in Ottawa the Association for the Modernization of Abortion Laws has informed me that sometimes it gets as many as ten calls a day from women wanting to know how they can get an illegal abortion or, more properly, illegal in Canada but legal in Britain, Scandinavia and now in New York.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I myself have had a number of telephone calls from women employed in the public service who, finding themselves pregnant, in poor health or in difficult family circumstances and not knowing where to turn, are desperate. The Toronto Globe and Mail carried a very impressive editorial on Tuesday. It quoted a prominent obstetrician as saying that he would hazard a guess that there are at least, nationwide, as many abortions as there are births. When one reflects that in Canada last year there were 370,000 births, one can see that this problem has important and grave dimensions.
May 21, 1970	COMMONS
It is a difficult problem to solve. We know that the legislation is inadequate. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that in the first three months of this year, the three westernmost provinces and the three Maritime provinces reported only 235 therapeutic abortions. When you compare those figures with the evidence of the Toronto obstetrician and of detective Douglas H. Walton of the metro Toronto police morality bureau, that it is quite possible that there are hundreds of illegal abortions in Toronto every week, you begin to realize the pitiful inadequacy of the legislation.
I think the minister should desist from his ostrich-like posture of keeping his head in the sand and thinking that the abortion problem will go away if he stays there long enough. It will not go away. It will increase in size, just like pregnancy. And the pregnant women of Canada in their hundreds and thousands who want and need abortions will not be able to wait. I suggest that we need to do two things. The whole matter ought to be taken out of the Criminal Code and left up to the decision of the woman and her doctor. Even before that legislation becomes possible, we ought to make abortions available not only in hospitals but on an outpatient basis in properly equipped medical clinics and doctors' offices. By using the new suction method machine which is in use in the Ottawa Civic Hospital and in other hospitals across the country, I do not see why this should not be done safely.
Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a respected physician in Montreal, has written to the minister on behalf of the Humanist Association of Canada urging that the medical profession and the Humanist Association be consulted as to how best these changes can be brought about. I urge that this problem be considered as the serious one it is and that there be no further attempts to evade it, because the proportions of the problem will become much greater than they are even at present.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I say on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that the sections relating to abortion law received more consideration
DEBATES	7205
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion both in and out of Parliament during discussion of the omnibus criminal law amendment bill last year than did any other matter contained in the legislation. During parliamentary discussion on the omnibus bill the Minister of Justice, as reported on page 4722 of Hansard for January 23, 1969, said:
I realize full well that this matter goes right to the essence of life, goes right to the bone. There is not going to be any consensus on this issue in this house or in the country. There are those on the one hand who abhor abortion for any cause, or for any reason whatsoever. There are those on the other hand who would make abortion wholly permissive or at the personal option of the woman. We have not reached a consensus between those views in this bill. We have reached only what I might call an accommodation. When the life or health of a mother is in jeopardy, therapeutic miscarriage will be absolved from the penalties in the criminal law.
Since enactment of the abortion legislation last year many exaggerated and uninformed statistics have been advanced by proponents of "abortion on demand". For example, it was claimed recently that about 2,000 women a year die from the after effects of abortion. In her remarks this evening the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) quoted some rather fanciful figures that in my submission have no foundation in fact.
I think, it would be better to look at the DBS figures. If we do so, it is difficult to understand the basis on which this claim is made, because the latest statistics available to DBS show that though 22 women died from causes due to abortion in 1964, this number decreased to 13 in 1968. While it is acknowledged that these statistics are incomplete in that they do not represent all provinces, there is nevertheless a wide gap between the two sets of figures.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what the Minister of Justice said in the House yesterday:
We are closely studying the medical experience under the recent amendments to the Criminal Code. When we gather enough information from those statistics we may be in a position to report to the House. At the moment there are no imminent plans to amend the law.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Friday, May 22, 1970