1970-05-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Crossman.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, my department together with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been engaged over the past few months in a study of the impact on Canadian manufacturing interests of so-called concessional financing made available by some foreign governments on exports to Canada. This study has now been completed and I should like to make a statement concerning our findings and recommendations.
Most industrialized countries have been making export financing facilities available for many years. Until the recent sharp rise in the market rates of interest, government export financing was normally available at rates of interest equal to-if not higher than -the domestic lending rates. Government export financing was therefore not usually a factor influencing sales between the developed countries. It did play a useful role in financing sales to developing countries which-as is well known

lack capital and the ability to attract it on the required scale from conventional sources.
As is well known over the past two years domestic rates of interest have increased at a rapid rate throughout the world. Export financing, on the other hand, continues to be available in some countries at about the
same rates of interest as before. Coupled with the shortage of domestic funds, the availability of financing at favourable rates of interest has now become a significant factor in export sales between the developed countries, and this is where the problem lies.
In recent months, Canadian machinery manufacturers have been making representations to the government indicating that they are unable to sell machinery for projects in Canada because they cannot meet the highly attractive financing terms which are available to their foreign competitors. Moreover, Canadian manufacturers claim that because of the attractive credit terms available from abroad, they sometimes lost business-or were even denied the opportunity to bid-on projects which benefited from federal government assistance under the Area Development Incentives Act.

The government is satisfied that in several instances the availability to foreign manufacturers of export credit at lower rates of interest has resulted in substantial loss of business to individual Canadian companies which otherwise would have been competitive in price, performance and delivery.
There is also the danger that should export credit competition among the industrialized countries be permitted to continue, an increasing number of countries will resort to it and this may eventually develop into a full scale credit race. It is evident that credit competition of this magnitude can in the long run benefit no one.
In the light of these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to take a number of steps designed to mitigate the adverse impact of foreign government financing of exports to Canada which causes injury to Canadian industry.
First, Canada will use all available means consistent with its international obligations to curtail foreign government financing of exports to Canada in cases where it causes material injury to Canadian industry. In this context, consideration will be given to invoking the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Act in specific cases.
May 26, 1970
7320	COMMONS DEBATES
Foreign Government Concessional Financing
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Second, we are pursuing the matter in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development-OECD-with a view to arriving at internationally agreed rules for the extension of government-assisted export credits between industrialized countries.
Third, in providing regional development incentives the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will take into consideration any adverse impact which foreign government export financing may have on Canadian industry. The regulations under the Regional Development Incentives Act already require that Canadian manufacturers shall be given an opportunity to supply machinery and equipment required for regional development projects, provided they can do so on terms which are competitive in price, delivery and performance.
Fourth, pending progress through international action, the Export Development Corporation will continue to match competitive financing offered by other countries to enable Canadian exporters who can compete in foreign markets to do so essentially on the basis of price, quality and delivery.
These measures should go some way in dealing with the immediate problem of injury to Canadian manufacturers. They should also provide a basis for an eventual long-term solution through international action.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed that the government is now taking some steps to improve the competitive position of Canadian industry both in the domestic market and as far as exports are concerned. I regret that action along these lines, and further action which I will suggest, has not been taken prior to this time. I believe that the government has been derelict in its duty in that it did not perceive what was happening to the competitive position of our manufacturers particularly and of industry generally because of developments not only in regard to interest rates but also other impediments to the export of Canadian goods.
With regard to export financing, I hope there will not be a world-wide race in credit competition because, as the minister has stated, this will do no one any good in the long run. I hope all possible steps are being taken to see that world-wide credit competition does not develop.
The minister referred to a number of steps that the government intends to take. The first

was that consideration will be given to invoking the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Act in specific cases. I trust that in doing so the provisions of the new anti-dumping legislation enacted last year will not be interpreted according to the letter of the law, as some officials might be inclined to do. In other words, when any person feels he has been injured by the importation of goods there should be a pretty wide interpretation of what constitutes injury under the anti-dumping law. It should not be interpreted as strictly as it has been in the past, and possible or likely injury should be taken into consideration.
In addition to the use of the Anti-Dumping Act, I believe that the government should make use of the import-export control legislation which we have on our statute books. I know from personal experience that there has always been a considerable feeling among the departmental officials particularly that import controls should not be invoked. When I was minister of agriculture I invoked them on several occasions against the advice of the officials of the Departments of External Affairs, Trade and Commerce and so on. We did not, as a matter of fact, suffer any adverse effects from the imposition of import controls.
There is no question in my mind that import controls ought to be used under present world circumstances to a much greater extent than has been the case in the past, and I am thinking particularly of the difficulties of the Canadian electronics, footwear and textile industries. Imports coming into this country are destroying these industries and creating widespread unemployment. The government should be looking much more strongly than it has been at the means at its disposal, including import controls, to correct that situation.


Mr. Benson:: That is good Tory policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The second point the minister made is that in the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development an effort will be made to arrive at internationally agreed rules for the extension of government-assisted export credits between industrialized countries. Everything possible should be done along that line, but I think it should be realized that on the basis of past experience this is not a very well founded hope. We are looking for concrete results, but I believe we should not delude ourselves that we are likely to achieve very much through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
ment. We must therefore rely on other means at our disposal, some of which I have already mentioned.
The third point relates to the supplying by Canadian industry of machinery and equipment for regional development projects. As is pointed out in the statement the minister made, Canadian manufacturers can do so provided they are competitive in price, delivery and performance. In my opinion, Canadian manufacturers ought to be given a preference in these projects which are financed with moneys provided by the Canadian taxpayer. In every other country that I know of local manufacturers are given a preference in government projects of this nature, and the same thing ought to apply in Canada.
The fourth point the minister made is that, pending progress through international action, the Export Development Corporation will continue to match credit financing offered by other countries. This is all to the good. I hope this course will be pursued very vigorously indeed, and that fear that we may lose a certain amount of money on a particular deal will not stand in the way of the Export Development Corporation being authorized to finance large numbers of these projects.
I end by saying that I hope the measures announced by the minister will be effective in improving our competitive position in both the domestic and export markets and that some of the other measures I have mentioned, particularly the imposition of import controls, will also be resorted to.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have raised the question of concessional financing with the minister on a number of occasions. I have waited for a statement from him for some time and have been optimistic about the kind of statement we might hear from the minister. I regret to say that the minister's statement is not the least bit convincing. As with so much the minister does and suggests, it lacks bite, it lacks any effective mechanism indicating our determination to take action.
There is much in the statement with which I can agree. The four motherhood clauses are great stuff. We are all in favour of co-operating with and talking to other countries in order to see what can be done. But the minister has left out of his statement one essential element which would have indicated that he meant business. I refer to the fact that members of industry strongly urged the immediate imposition of countervailing duties when it is 22375-45
DEBATES	7321
Foreign Government Concessional Financing found that action detrimental to Canada is taking place. Unless the minister is prepared to state publicly that he will take this kind of action, no one will really believe him or pay any attention to his good thoughts.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It is time that the government got tough and showed some determination to act. Too often it has happened with regard to the automobile and textile industries, and it is now happening in regard to concessional financing, that there is a great wringing of hands and a great outpouring of intellect, but nowhere do we find any indication that this government means business. The government is quite willing to get tough with old age pensioners, but when it comes to getting tough with foreign countries capable of taking care of themselves they act like mice. This has to change and this is what I understand when I look at the statement the minister has just made.
It would be one thing if we were talking about an industry that is asking for protection or one that is not strong and competitive. The machinery industry has been placed at a disadvantage by what is going on, and it is among the most efficient and capable industries in our country. They are not asking for special concessions, nor should they be given special concessions. They are asking for the opportunity to bid against foreign countries on equal terms. As matters now stand, they are totally excluded from some bidding because of the financing that has been arranged by foreign countries. The financing is arranged first and when those companies accept the financing they must agree that Canadians will not be permitted to bid. This is an intolerable situation, particularly when it occurs in a designated area.
The industry of Ontario has never voiced any real objections to regional programs to assist the less-developed parts of Canada. As a matter of fact, they have reacted to the program with considerable enthusiasm. However, if this problem is not solved, if the tax money which they have contributed to assist the less-developed parts of Canada is going to be used to exclude them from bidding and to benefit foreign manufacturers only, I suggest to the government that they may jeopardize their entire program.
It is time we stopped being nice fellows because the kind of nice fellow this government has been is very little removed from being a patsy. It is time this government
May 26, 1970
7322	COMMONS
Foreign Government Concessional Financing indicated to other countries that we have no intention of letting them walk over us. There is nothing in the statement to indicate that the minister is taking this position.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: At first sight, Mr. Speaker, the four-part program announced today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) appears hesitant and temporary. Canada has always been a loser in the international field.
Mr. Speaker, we must export to survive, but Canadian industry must also be protected if we are to do so.
The Canadian government therefore has two related, but no less important roles to play. What worries me is that the statement of the minister disregards altogether these two basic principles.
First of all, we must promote the development of Canadian industry, not only by taking into account the adverse impact of concessional financing offered by foreign governments, but also by encouraging, through appropriate and strict measures, greater consumption of Canadian products by Canadians.
Needless to say that the measures proposed today by the minister will prove clearly insufficient, mere palliatives, if he does not come up with practical and precise measures to encourage greater consumption of Canadian products.
It is true that we must export to survive, but it has never been said nor proven that export programs prevented on-the-spot or foreign consumption of Canadian products.
Canada is no exception to the rule and perhaps it is the most affected by exports. Indeed, Canadian labour costs more than in some other countries and, besides, the federal government has never adopted true measures to protect Canadian products against the competition of imported commodities.
In fact, the example of the shoe industry is enough to show the weakness of the four proposals of the minister. In 1967, when the population of Canada was only 20 million inhabitants, our country imported-as I say, imported-almost as much footwear from Asiatic countries or socialist countries as did all the countries of the Common Market, with a total population of 185 million.
During that period, that is from 1966 to 1970, the number of employees in the footwear industry in Canada has decreased from 25,360 to less than 21.000. Since January 1,


1970, an average of one footwear plant is closing down each week.
In addition in Canada, most women's and a few men's footwear plants are producing at less than 80 per cent of their normal capacity and more and more people are being laid off. As for imports and exports, it seems that the policy of this government is bringing about the destruction of the Canadian industry instead of supporting it.
So, I take this opportunity to point out to the minister the weakness of the inappropriate and temporary measures taken by the government. If he fails to take the necessary action, he will be among those responsible for the closing down of many drug or shoe manufacturing concerns in Canada, to the benefit of foreigners.
The Ralliement creditiste is asking for strict controls on imports to Canada and for the promotion of Canadian goods consumption in this country.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURN ACT


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Return Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is a bill designed to produce increased disclosure by corporations. It will overcome the limitations of the government's proposal which will damage the prospects of the federal companies branch, discriminate unfairly against federal companies and fail to provide more than a token gesture toward public disclosure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
to the Minister of Agriculture who gave me certain bland assurances yesterday about pesticides, while at the same time an enterprising reporter was disclosing an altogether different state of affairs. Are steps being taken to handle properly the registration of pesticides in view of the reported shortage of staff, which means that applications for registration of pesticides are not receiving prompt and proper attention?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, without giving a detailed explanation I should like to reply that there are a number of inaccuracies in the press report to which the Leader of the Opposition refers.
However, he did ask yesterday whether my department and groups associated with my department are making substantially increased efforts in their study of pesticides. I should like to amplify the reply by saying that there has not been a substantial increase in staff but there has been a substantial increase in resources of the Department of Agriculture devoted to work on pesticides, with particular emphasis on the persistence of certain pesticides and a breakdown of them. My department, along with other interested departments, is indeed placing a great deal more emphasis on this subject. The question yesterday, as I understood it, specifically asked whether or not any increased staff had been laid on. While there have been a few, there has not been a substantial increase in the number of staff.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. I do not necessarily ask the same question one day that I have asked on the previous day. I asked the minister a different question today and he did not answer it. I ask the minister now, what measures, if any, are being taken to overcome reported complaints of poor coordination between the departments concerned with the examination of pesticides and herbicides, lack of co-ordination and lack of trust between people in the departments involved, and reported budgetary restrictions? What measures is the minister taking regarding this very important question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is an interdepartmental committee on pesticides with membership from several departments, including the Departments of National Health and Welfare, Fisheries and Forestry, Energy, Mines and Resources and Agriculture. That committee has all of these pesticides under continuing review.
22375-45a
DEBATES	7323
Inquiries of the Ministry
I do not accept the contention in the so-called report that there is lack of co-ordination between the departments that deal with this very important matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question. I should like to direct it to a man who we can be assured will give a firm and informative answer. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government proposes to give any of the other departments involved in the matter of the approval or disapproval of pesticides and herbicides for example, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the right of veto or approval, as well as the Department of Agriculture?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Aciing Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's question was prefaced by his earlier question which he indicated was based on rumours. Not accepting those rumours, I cannot answer the question he now poses.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: At least you are consistent, George.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will address to the responsible minister. It is very nice to have humour but there is an extremely grave situation here. The matter of decision-making is all in one department while other departments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot make a speech about the situation; he should ask a question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then may I ask the minister or Acting Prime Minister whether he will take immediate steps to form a decision-making body to represent the various interests that are involved?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there already is such a body in existence, the interdepartmental committee, which considers problems relating to all these pesticides.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I ask for purposes of clarification. Did the Minister of Agriculture indicate that this interdepartmental committee has the right of veto or approval of pesticides or herbicides, that this authority does not rest any longer exclusively with the Department of Agriculture?

May 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture or any of the other departments concerned does not wish to pursue this matter on the basis of veto, but rather uses the collective judgment of all of the competent people involved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. Could I ask the minister who makes the decision? Which department makes the decision?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, the Department of Agriculture has primary responsibility for licensing and for issuing licences for pesticides. But if I have to repeat what I said, may I say we listen very carefully and take into consideration the reports that come from the interdepartmental committee.
SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF 2-4-5T and 2-4D FROM MARKET


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the residues of 2-4-5T and 2-4D are considered dangerous to humans and animals, would the minister withdraw these chemicals from the market until an examination can be made of them in order to protect both public and animals in this country?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, an examination has been made, a very detailed examination, and the purposes for which a licence can be issued to use these pesticides have also been adjusted. I should advise the hon. member that this has been done in accordance with the very latest technology that is available to all of the departments.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding yesterday's Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures which show that consumer spending for the first quarter of this year increased by only half of one per cent, which is the lowest rate of increase in some five years. In view of the fact that expenditure on durable goods has dropped by 8 per cent, is the Minister of Finance going to abandon his proposed legislation dealing with consumer credit controls?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question several times. If the government has any change in policy, it will be announced in the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the situation disclosed by these figures, and in view of the widespread concern about this matter, will the minister tell the House whether or not the government still intends to proceed with the consumer credit controls which the minister announced earlier?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating essentially the question that he asked in the first instance.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question.
Does the government intend to implement the proposal contained in a brief presented yesterday to the Senate Special Committee on Poverty by Mr. John Yaremko, Ontario Minister of Social and Family Services, asking that the federal government hand over family allowances funds to the provinces, which could then decide how best to use them?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, any announcement on that subject would have to be made known in due course by the government. Until that announcement, if any, is made, there is no room for speculation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether or not the suggestion made by the Ontario Minister of Social and Family Services will be studied by the federal government in due course?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all of the committee evidence and reports of both Houses of Parliament are studied by the government.
May 26, 1970



REQUEST BY SASKATCHEWAN FOR ASSIGNMENT OF WHEAT TO PURCHASE TURBINE

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. It has to do with whether or not the Saskatchewan government has asked for permission to have available to it on behalf of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation three million bushels of wheat from the Saskatchewan pile-up for the purpose of purchasing a turbine from Japan. What decision has been made by the minister in this connection?


Hon. Olto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: A request did come forward from the Saskatchewan premier in connection with a possible assignment of Saskatchewan wheat specifically in connection with a transaction which had been entered into. It was, of course, impossible to separate Saskatchewan wheat for these purposes within the existing handling and transportation system without doing damage to the functioning of that system at its maximum level for the delivery of wheat to all our customers.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister, having
recently been in Saskatchewan, must be aware of the fact that there is a tremendous pile-up of wheat in that province. Does he not think it is a reasonable request, particularly having regard to the fact that if the request is allowed $25 million worth of wheat can be disposed of by the government of Saskatchewan by barter within the next ten months?


Otto Emil Lang: That, of course, is the sheerest speculation. In fact it has been the stated view of the government that these so-called barter transactions-and indeed no real barter has taken place-can only have the effect of threatening price stability in world wheat markets, and in no case has it yet been indicated in any way that this would provide additional sales in place of regular wheat sales. They simply might operate as substitutions for what are regular cash sales to our regular customers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The applause on the part of the Liberal members indicates their lack of interest in the sale of our wheat. May I direct a supplementary question to the genial Acting Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Hees:: Now you will get an answer. Fire from the hip, George.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio has stated that the decision not to allow the government of Saskatchewan to sell this wheat was a governmental one, would he, now that this matter is no longer a rumour which might shock his finer sensibilities, bring this matter before the cabinet and endeavour to bring some sense to the minister who is denying the government of Saskatchewan sales?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Let George do it.



IMPORTATION OF MILK POWDER

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and if I may say so I hope the Minister of Agriculture will pay attention to the question. Is the government permitting the importation into Canada of what appears to be millions of pounds of milk powder by the Borden Company, and possibly other companies, from Ireland, New Zealand and other countries? If so, will the government make use of the Export and Import Permits Act to prevent the importation of further huge quantities of this product, which I am informed is contemplated in the immediate future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I doubt that the quantity is as huge as indicated by the hon. member, but there may have been some slippage in recent months which we are trying to control as best we can. I will look into the matter and report.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the minister's reply, may I request that the minister look into this matter immediately as I am informed that there may be as much as 2,500,000 pounds coming into Canada in the immediate future.


An hon. Member:: Some spillage!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary Centre on a supplementary question, but I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that there is a spillage of time. We will be running out of that commodity very soon.

May 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture whether any investigation has been made of whether these imports of skim milk powder are actually Canadian milk powder which was exported at distress prices and is now coming back to the Canadian market at inflated prices?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have heard that suggestion once or twice. I am not sure where the rumour started, but perhaps it was across the way. There were a few pounds-


Some hon. Members:: Spillage!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -of milk powder in the form of animal feed that came into Canada a few weeks ago. To the best of my knowledge, no milk powder has entered Canada for human consumption, and indeed even one of the two applications to licence this animal feed, which is a requirement, has been withdrawn from our department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask whether this importation was Canadian milk powder which had been sold abroad at distress prices and is now coming back?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not know, but I do not think so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



POST OFFICE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, much as I love him, my question is not for the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board to inform the House whether negotiations with the postal employees are still continuing and whether the parties are getting closer to the possibility of a settlement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The answer to both questions is yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Is it planned to continue the negotiations day and night until there is a settlement, and is the minister personally in direct touch with the negotiations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is planned to continue
negotiations as long as progress can be achieved. I am kept continuously informed of the progress.



NEGOTIATIONS ON EXPORT OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister ready to forget his umbrage with the United States and get down to the hard bargaining necessary to ensure accelerated trade in our surplus crude petroleum and natural gas with the United States and thereby stimulate employment of our young Canadians, graduates and undergraduates?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is very general in nature. It is the type of question which should be answered by way of a general statement. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Following the minister's speech I wonder whether the minister is prepared to get down to some bargaining with the United States to accelerate our trade in the particular commodities I mentioned in my original question?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The government's
position has always been and continues to be that we regret the unilateral decision to cut back our oil exports. We are continuing to urge our American friends to review this decision and, further, we are prepared to negotiate at any time an expanded market for our surplus oil. With respect to natural gas, of course my hon. friend knows that it is within the statutory provisions that our surplus is for sale and that the National Energy Board determines what in fact is surplus to Canadian need.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Was it government policy for Canada to enter into the secret agreement with the United States with regard to crude petroleum and natural gas that gave the United States the right to make the decision unilaterally, which is what the government did?


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
May 26, 1970



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the minister is in a position yet to announce to the House that he has decided to provide a search and rescue vessel for operation in the Cabot Strait apropos of the recent Patrick Morris and Enterprise disasters with further loss of lives? If not, can he relate to the House what progress is being made on this most urgent and pressing question?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, no positive decision can be announced, but I believe it was my hon. friend who suggested that we should examine a craft that is now available in Halifax. This is being done and I am getting a report on whether or not it would be adequate. I believe that in principle we have come to the view that we should station some kind of vessel in the Sydney area.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcolin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can he report on his department's activities in relation to towboat safety in British Columbia and the meetings which have been held there for several days?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the question is supplementary, but in view of the fact that it has been asked the minister might be allowed to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was advised this morning that all of the parties taking part in the discussions with regard to marine safety have accepted the Department of Transport's proposals. I have not personally seen these proposals yet. However, in view of the fact that there seems to have been general agreement with regard to them I do not see any problem in accepting and proclaiming them as quickly as that can be done through the Department of Justice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. If his
Inquiries of the Ministry statement turns out to be correct that there is general agreement by the consultative committee, can the minister assure the House how soon these proposals will be translated into regulations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on that matter I have made some inquiries this morning from the Department of Justice. It may take two or three weeks to have them in legal form, but as I indicated to the hon. member late last week I can give the House full assurance that the proposals as put forward, in the way that I anticipate their being introduced, will be made into regulations as quickly as possible. I can make that commitment to all parties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to make the proposals public so that we will have some idea what the general provisions for safety will be? It might help considerably in the labour dispute that is now going on on the Pacific coast.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In fairness to those involved in the consultations I would want to ask them about this, but for my own part I do not see why this should not be done.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Considering that the Montreal post office can now get by with 257 truckers, can he advise why it was necessary to purchase a fleet of 439 trucks at a cost of over $1 million or, in other words, 129 more trucks than were used previously-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question could be placed on the Order Paper. The hon. member for Surrey.


Mr. Kierans:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Postmaster General seeking the floor on a point of order?


Eric William Kierans: Yes. I think the question is designed to leave a false impression, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have suggested to the hon. member who asked the question that it should not be asked at this time, and I do not think there should be comment on it.

May 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION



SEPARATION FROM LOCAL POLITICS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister. Having in mind published news reports to the effect that some local members of parliament are seeking to have the Chairman of the National Capital Commission either disciplined or dismissed, will the government do what it can to keep the NCC out of local politics, having in mind that people in every constituency in Canada are paying for its operation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I believe a reading of the press reports will not indicate that any Ottawa area member sought the dismissal of the person concerned. However, I quite agree with the hon. member that matters affecting the national capital are of concern to members from all parts of the country, and because this is the capital of the whole country they are not matters for only the local area members.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. Would the Acting Prime Minister ask the Chairman of the NCC to keep his nose out of local politics, and also-


John James Greene: Order.


Robert Muir: How
"Greene" is my valley! Would the Acting Prime Minister ask the Chairman of the NCC to name names as to the greedy speculators and greedy politicians he condemned when speaking to the children who were in Ottawa under the sponsorship of the Rotary Clubs of Canada?



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the other place has now established a committee to examine the question of government regulations, is it a fact that the government has abandoned all idea of implementing the very excellent report of the special committee which suggested that supervision should be exercised in this chamber?
[Mr. Speaker.!


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council to answer that question.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: It is not a fact, Mr. Speaker. We expect to be making a statement, before the end of the session in June, on the statutory changes that will be necessary to apply the report prepared by the parliamentary committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question. Apart from making a statement, is it the government's intention to do anything in a concrete way to implement any of the report's recommendations before the session is over?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have about 17 or 20 bills on the Order Paper now. If we could pass those quickly we could bring on this other matter.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in his absence perhaps the acting minister would accept it. In view of the fact that the number of visitors to the national parks has tripled in ten years, now numbering 12 million a year, does the minister have plans to increase the accommodation by acquiring suitable areas now available for new park development?


Mr. Speaker:: That question could also be put on the Order Paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Because of the serious situation confronting war veterans as a result of the effects of inflation which mean that they are barely able to exist, have the minister and his department any intention of increasing the service and disability pensions of Canada's war veterans?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that question was asked a few days ago, but perhaps the minister might like to reply in view of the importance of the matter.
May 26. 1970


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been asked previously. I wish to reply that pensions were increased in 1964, 1966 and 1968 and war veterans allowances were increased in 1966. The whole question of war veterans pensions and allowances is before the government at the present time, and when announcements are to be made they will be made in due course at the proper time.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: When will this announcement be made?


Gerald William Baldwin: In due course.



RESUMPTION OF STANDING COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Could he indicate when the committee will be resuming sittings to consider the preparation of a report to be submitted to the House on the Woods Committee recommendations?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: It will be shortly, Mr. Speaker.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Because of the important issue of civil rights arising out of the recent report of the Special Committee of the Senate of Queen's University, on Mr. Charles Edwards, would the Solicitor General table the letter dated April 3 that he received from Dr. Deutsch, President of Queen's University, and the reply he sent to Dr. Deutsch?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to look at the letter to see if there is any objection to producing it, and if there is not I will be glad to table it.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour is absent, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the incessant rise in the cost of living and the fact that unemployment insurance benefits of $53 are totally inadequate to meet a family's needs, does the minister intend to completely revamp this program shortly?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to take that question as notice.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I will direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the question asked in the House last Friday by the Leader of the New Democratic Party concerning reported starvation conditions of the Eskimo people at Pond Inlet, and in view of the fact that the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were in Pond Inlet at the weekend en route to the ship Manhattan, can the Parliamentary Secretary say if there is any foundation for these reports?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, for ten days the Manhattan was moored about 20 miles off Pond Inlet. During this time there was an exchange of visits between the Eskimos of Pond Inlet and the crew of the Manhattan. When the Manhattan left there was an exchange of parting gifts and the Eskimos gave the Manhattan crew fresh cariboo and Arctic char, the Manhattan giving the Eskimos fresh fruit and vegetables.
Knowing that the NDP, unlike the Eskimos, is having some lean years I could not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising for a supplementary question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask Your Honour if you will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to finish his statement because I have-

May 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the continuation of the statement might have been very interesting, but I thought it was getting away from the subject. The Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will give the House some information on whether the reports emanating supposedly from the Manhattan to the effect that there was hunger in Pond Inlet have proven to be accurate?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I was in Pond Inlet with the minister, and also on the Manhattan and my reply to the question from the hon. member for the Northwest Territories is quite accurate. It was indeed an exchange of gifts.


An hon. Member:: What did you give, Russ?


Russell Clayton Honey: There was no hunger or anything approaching hunger in Pond Inlet or in any other Eskimo settlement in the north. Things are very good there.


Gerald William Baldwin: Was there any thirst on the Manhattan?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance this question. In view of the very clear change in economic conditions recognized the other day by the previous Acting Prime Minister, is it his intention to take any measures to stimulate the softer areas of the economy and, in particular, does he intend to take any measures to stimulate the construction of housing that has fallen off so badly?


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition recognizes, I am sure, that to answer the question would no doubt at least require a statement which would normally be made on motions. I wonder if he would care to rephrase his question, keeping that fact in mind.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to know whether the Minister of Finance is going to take any new measures. I am not interested at the moment in knowing what the measures are.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if we intend to take any new measures we will announce them in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the conditions to which I have referred, and the repeated insistence of the minister not to give any policy statement in the House, the country is to assume that the government's policy of introducing more slack into the economy as well as the government's policy of further increasing unemployment are to remain in effect until further notice?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with any of the statements the Leader of the Opposition has made. I would simply quote the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox, whom I heard on the radio on Sunday-


George Harris Hees: Prince Edward-Hastings, if you please.


Edgar John Benson: Prince Edward-Hastings-who stated that the Conservative party has decided it intends to offer constructive alternatives-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition in a moment, but I have again to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are just a few minutes left for questions and if we spend it all in debate many members will be deprived of the opportunity of asking their questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I appreciate there are only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, but the future of a good many lives is involved as far as their usefulness is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister, with all the earnestness I can command, not to continue to evade these questions but to consider seriously making a statement in the House at the earliest possible moment indicating what the financial policy of this government is so that those who are trying to make a living in this country will know what to do.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when there are changes to be made in government fiscal or monetary policy they will be announced in the House and, unlike the Leader of the Opposition whom I noted the other day on television using pictures which I thought were taken when the Conservative party was in power in the thirties, we will take action when action needs to be taken.

May 26, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon.
member. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Finance did me the honour of mentioning my name and a statement I had made, I should like to ask when he is going to implement the four specific policies I have laid before him for curing inflation without increasing unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: There were four specific policies and I told you what they are. When are you going to do something about them?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Let's have an answer. When? When?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to seek the co-operation of the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The hon. member has no right to stand and continue asking questions when he is called to order by the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege because the minister was allowed to stand and do exactly the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre.


An hon. Member:: "Laugh-In" is on Friday.



POST OFFICE


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. In view of the urgent need to keep budgets in line, can the minister assure the House that his department has not overbought mail delivery trucks in Montreal?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this question might be put forward at ten o'clock. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the government of Ontario taking part in the talks between Canadian and United States officials on the April report of the International Joint Commission on pollution?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in the preliminary discussions which are to determine the agenda and the format of the later high level meetings, the Ontario people are not taking part. However, it is my expectation that when the later meetings take place, and certainly meetings at the ministerial level, Ontario should and would be invited to take part if this meets -with the approval of the American side of the delegation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and I should also like the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to please take note. I consider this to be very constructive and positive.


George Harris Hees: You are beginning to get it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Will the Canadian government consider making available wheat and wheat flour without cost to the government of Brazil where thousands of persons are threatened with starvation as a result of crop failures brought on by five months without rain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this question should properly be addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, but the hon. member will know, I am sure, that the Canadian government considers all requests from countries seeking food aid in these circumstances.
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has Canada recently put in a firm bid on a 500 megowatt atomic energy plant in Australia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question can be placed on the Order Paper. If there is urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment. Orders of the day.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I made a number of attempts to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister on a matter of urgent importance concerning the Atlantic provinces. At present an international seminar on tidal power is being held in Halifax and it is being attended by experts who are world renowned in this field. There are representatives of the United Nations, of the World Bank, and others from all parts of the world, but there is no representative of the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly indicate what his question of privilege is?


Robert Carman Coates: My question of privilege is that at that conference there is no senior government representation and there ought to be. It is urgent that a representative of the senior government attend as quickly as possible, and I wish to bring this fact to the government's attention today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member has made a representation, perhaps by attempting to raise it as a question of privilege. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 25, 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. 8 (Mr. Brewin) and Motion No. 9 (Mr. Aiken).
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking on Bill C-144, the Canada Water Act, because it seems that almost every Canadian is making some sort of representation on the subject. I felt I should abstain from contributing my own two cents' worth. However, after having listened to yesterday's debate, I felt impelled to speak and make one or two observations. It seems that pollution in Canada has become the concern of every mother's child and it seems that every mother's child in the cabinet wants his share of the mud pie. That seems to be the factor governing our anti-pollution legislation. Canada at present could be an international leader in pointing the way to methods for controlling pollution. During the last six weeks, however, I have been concerned at seeing the introduction of three pieces of legislation coming under the aegis of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) which seek to control some aspects of pollution in Canada.
I am speaking to clause 8 of the bill and I feel very seriously that what we are doing now will establish a legislative precedent that will weaken Canada's ability to control pollution in this nation. I submit, therefore, that there is absolutely no need for Bill C-144, and, I will give my reasons for saying so as I go along. As a matter of fact, if the government is truly concerned about pollution, if it wishes to do Canada some great justice and to strengthen Canada's position in the fight against pollution, the best thing it could do would be to withdraw the bill altogether. Although I support the amendments put forward by my colleagues in the House, I wish to indicate in a preliminary way why I think the government ought to withdraw the bill altogether.
First of all, the government introduced Bill C-202 under the aegis of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the excuse being that we needed the legislation because there was no machinery under which to police pollution in our Arctic waters. These are the waters lying north of the sixtieth degree latitude, a line which runs through the
May 28, 1970

northern parts of the prairie provinces and the tip of Quebec and Labrador. The excuse is that we need the new legislation because the government lacks authority to enforce pollution measures in the area. The simple truth is that for 50 years the fisheries department of Canada has been armed with a special provision which allows it to police pollution in Arctic waters. The Department of Fisheries ought to be allowed to play an increasingly greater role in matters of pollution control; instead, the government is diminishing that department's responsibilities in this area.
I wonder how many hon. members have read Bill C-202? I will bet that there are very few in this House, and I include some of the ministers of the Crown in my remarks, who have looked at Bills C-202, C-204 and C-144, the three bills that deal with some aspects of pollution. All three bills contain similar definitions; they all have the same aims and objectives and, as the government hopes, they will bring about similar results. There, we have three pieces of legislation aimed at exactly the same things. Actually, the aims of these pieces of legislation are summarized in clause 8 of Bill C-144.
The very existence of Bill C-144 flies in the face of certain pollution control principles. I do not know what the professional term is; I am trying to say that there must be control from the top and not any dual control. Here, in this area, we are seeing a triplication of control, because three ministers are involved with pollution matters. Control will be quadrupled as soon as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) brings in amendments to the Transport Act. We will then see four captains in control of pollution, if I may use a phrase of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). Four captains will be in charge of the ship. Right now we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is the senior captain, the Minister of Fisheries who ought to be, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, all in charge of one ship. Not even the Manhattan could carry on under these conditions.
I understand that several provinces are challenging the constitutionality-that is a big word the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) uses these days-of Bill C-144. They say that it trespasses on their jurisdictional area as laid out at the time of Confederation in 1867. The Department of Fisheries was to have control over all waters, except those I suppose, that were so polluted there were no fish. There are
Water Resources Programs no waters in Canada-except a few-which have been polluted to the extent that no fish live in them and, therefore, there are no waters in Canada that do not come under the authority of the Department of Fisheries, so far as that authority relates to pollution. As I say, the constitutionality of the bill is being challenged. Many Canadians think as I do, that this piece of legislation is not a move in the right direction. The costs and powers involved are important factors to consider.
I see Mr. Speaker looking a little restless, no doubt because he thinks I am straying a little bit from the clause in question, clause 8 of Bill C-144. In order to clarify the point I wanted to make it was necessary for me to give some background information. We are considering clause 8, the penalty clause, which provides, if I may summarize, that no waste shall be deposited in any management area. In other words, once a management area has been designated, no waste may be deposited in that water under any circumstances, except with the permission of the management authority which will lay down certain limits for pollution.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Many people challenge the definition of "waste". I see that the minister is not listening to my remarks, but that is par for the course in Parliament and I am not worried about it. Perhaps someone is listening. The hon. member for South Shore is listening. Perhaps if I could get the minister's attention for one moment-I am referring to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is sitting there on my left-I could tell him the word "waste" has a definite meaning which is not connected with pollution. I agree with the hon. member for South Shore that that word already has a legal definition. The hon. member has put that definition on the record. I support the argument of the hon. member for South Shore that if this bill is ever tested in court, it will not take a very smart lawyer to have it thrown out on the basis of the word "waste". This definition goes back as far as the history of navigation. Waste refers to a bunch of cloths or rags for cleaning an engine. That is the interpretation of the word "waste". Even though that may sound like a flimsy basis, I contend that that clause will not hold water if it ever gets in court.
The amendments introduced by the two hon. members pertain to the generality of the application of clause 8. As it is now defined, clause 8 can apply only to a very few circum-
May 26. 1970

Water Resources Programs stances. Clause 8 can only apply if a province agrees that a certain area should be a water management area. What do you do outside this area? If the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry were here he would say, don't worry because we now have Bill C-204 which is almost law. The Fisheries Act goes back to Confederation. It has been amended through the years and the present act actually had its origin in 1932, 38 years ago. At that time clause 3 of the Fisheries Act read and I quote:
"(2) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass into, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of a like character to the substances named in this section or not, in any water frequented by fish, or that flows into such water, nor on ice over either such waters."
I will now paraphrase clause 3 of Bill C-204 because I was in committee when it was amended:- no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of any dilatory substance of any type in any water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where such dilatory substance or any other dilatory substance that results from the deposit of such dilatory substance may enter any such water. The word "waste" was changed all the way through. I am playing it by ear, that is putting in the changes as I read the definition.
This Fisheries Act has never been applied because there has never been a great deal of concern about pollution. If applied, Bill C-144 would be unnecessary. It is a waste of the Canadian taxpayers' money. It is a waste of time and energy, and there is no need for it. It is superseded by Bill C-204. I am aware that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wants his share of the mudcake, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wants his cut of the pie. However, there is no way we in Parliament can act as school boys and take away the power of the Minister of Fisheries.
What will happen in case of a conflict? What will happen if the Minister of Fisheries is not satisfied with certain standards which permit certain effluent to pass into an area in which there are fish? Is that the end of it? Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the czar who controls our anti-pollution measures or is the Minister of Fisheries? We have guaranteed that it will not be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because there is an amendment in this particular bill to the effect that this must be solved at the cabinet

level. That is not satisfactory because several ministers could be in conflict over who has control of the anti-pollution measures in this nation. I am losing the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps I am polluting the atmosphere in the House. If so, perhaps I should be ruled out of order.
We now have a bill before us that has passed the second reading stage and the committee stage. It has been amended. It is a very powerful bill. There is really no need to amend the Fisheries Act because we have had the act as long as Parliament has existed, although1 it has not been enforced. This act provides penalties. It gives a tremendous amount of authority to the government to act in the event that pollution occurs. Perhaps it needed to be amended to bring it into line with the modem society in which we now live. The only problem with that act is that it has never been enforced.
I remember many incidents of pollution caused by firms, fish firms in particular, dumping their waste into the Atlantic Ocean. These firms were not prosecuted. They simply argued that it was a large body of water and therefore the problem was not serious. Canadians have become very concerned about pollution in the last five years. Canadians were aroused when they were informed of the pollution at Long Harbour in Newfoundland. This past week I had an opportunity, along with some of my colleagues, to fly over a sulphur plant in Long Harbour. It was an ugly sight. We were shown settling ponds into which effluent, which was once channelled into the ocean, is now being channelled. This eliminates a great danger. When that effluent was dumped into the ocean it not only destroyed millions of fish, but a way of life. A whole bay of fish were completely destroyed overnight. This aroused the ire of Canadians.
This was not only a problem for Newfoundland, but all of Canada. People all across Canada began to listen to stories about the situation. Television companies sent in crews to film the event. Divers and underwater crews filmed what was happening on the bottom. People were amazed because the effects of this one industry polluting one bay cropped up all over the place. All of a sudden everyone was excited. This subject of pollution needs to be one of Canada's top priorities. I am very concerned over the fact that the government does not want to give the Department of Fisheries the status it deserves. Consequently, many types of legis-
May 26, 1970

lation are being introduced. Every minister of the Crown, in one way or another, has a finger in the pollution pie. This is of great concern to Canadians. It is not enough to have the government and various ministers concerned, we need one major authority.
The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and the hon. member for South Shore have all made this argument. I do not think anyone can refute it. Naturally, every government department and various agencies have a role to play, but they must complement one major authority. This major authority must have a great deal of power and discretion to deal with the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I do not think we will get that in this present bill. I am appalled by clause 8. The Canadian people do not realize that in Bill C-144 Parliament is being asked to dilute the efforts of this country to fight pollution. I am sure all hon. members have read this bill. It is a fundamental piece of legislation. Hon. members must be concerned that this bill does not give the federal government any authority or power. The only power the bill contains is one to request the provinces if they will go along with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in setting up a management authority. The bill does not have the power to lay down standards for any given area. Should it be decided, for example, that there is need for a water management authority in the Shuswap area, which I visited recently, the authority would have power to enforce its standards in that area only. What about the rest of the province? As I say, I do not believe the provinces will co-operate. In the second place, there is no need for them to co-operate, because provisional authority is already vested in the Minister of Fisheries; he has it constitutionally, he has it by precedent over the years, he has it in legislation in the shape of the Fisheries Act. He has this authority under the terms of Bill C-204. He can say: You will not be permitted to pollute; we shall not tolerate effluence having a toxicity above a certain level. This is an enviable authority. I doubt whether there is a minister in Canada with the authority possessed by the Minister of Fisheries. Why are we not using it?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member; his time has expired. He can
Water Resources Programs continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not delay these proceedings for longer than a minute or two. I have not spoken in the House on this subject earlier. We have made our position clear on numerous occasions before the Committee on External Affairs, the Committee on Northern Development and the Fisheries Committee where we have thoroughly, conscientiously and responsibly analyzed the legislation concerned. My hon. friend from South Shore, who has been in the House far longer than I have, has gone into this bill in great detail. We believe the Minister of Fisheries should exercise the authority he has right now. I am concerned lest this bill dilute the authority which exists to make a real effort to combat pollution. This is too serious a matter to be fooled around with for political reasons. The minister was here earlier. I expect he will want his finger in the pie.
I will recognize the Minister of Fisheries as the authority in matters of pollution control. Even if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources lays down standards in certain areas, he can be challenged by the Minister of Fisheries. If it is intended to go ahead with the bill we are considering, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should be given broad powers to ensure that the application of controls will extend right across Canada. It is not enough that it should apply only to areas with respect to which some sort of agreement has been reached. Failing this, it might be just as well to throw the bill out altogether. Perhaps the minister himself realizes there is no need for this legislation; maybe the intention is to continue in a make-believe fashion for a while until, eventually, when everyone realizes that the bill has no value, it will be recognized that the power should be placed where it belongs and where it can be exercises, that is to say, with the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: It was
interesting to listen to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). His speech covered a wide range. I agree that these are worth-while amendments and that they would add a strength to the bill which is lacking at the present time.
Putting in fees as a deterrent has not worked in the United States or in Europe and
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs I do not believe it has worked, or will work, here. Members of my party are sceptical about these things. I am thinking of a pollution fee or deterrent which was put into the legislation in Ontario. K.V.P. had a mill, in Espanola and were dumping in a large amount of pollution-they were better at pollution than anyone in the Province of Ontario; they dumped everything and sundry into the water system of that area to the extent that the Water Commission had a look at it, and then, finding there were some influential people involved, decided not to do anything about it.
The people in the area took the K.V.P. to court. But before the court decision could be implemented in accordance with legislation in force in the Province of Ontario, the premier of the day, Leslie Frost, rushed a new bill into the Ontario legislature. This bill said, in effect, that in this particular area K.V.P. would be allowed to dump any waste they wanted into the water, as an exception. Of course, the company continued to do so. When changes were eventually made in the Ontario water control legislation the people again took the company to court. In one instance, the company was fined. The company had, of course, pleaded guilty. A fine of some $1,000 was imposed and the company was given a specific time in which to instal pollution control equipment. Naturally, the company did not do this and again the people of the area took the company to court. Once more there was a decision in favour of the people who had taken the action, and once more the company did nothing about it. This resulted in a $4,000 charge but to the best of my knowledge there has yet to be pollution control equipment installed, though I understand the company has been sold. This is an indication that it is cheaper to pay the fee than to instal the controls needed to stop pollution. The company found that a fee of $1,000, or even $4,000, was of no importance at all. It preferred to plead guilty and satisfy this small charge, or pay this licence.
It reminds me of the days when there was a great deal of bootlegging in some municipalities and the bottleggers expected every month or two months to be brought before the court and fined. This was exactly the same thing, in practice, as a licence. If the fine was not too heavy, your operation was obviously warranted for another month or two. When your turn came to be in court again you paid another fee and it just became a licensing fee. This happened in my constituency on a number of 
occasions. Everybody laughs about the licensing of bootleggers. Not everybody gets knocked off at the same time; it is done on a nice, friendly basis, in rotation. I presume they keep track of who got rapped last time and how long it is since somebody was asked to pay his licence fees in this way. This got around the Ontario liquor licensing regulations and it brought to the municipality the fees which it would normally expect to obtain if it were doing the licensing.
The same is true in connection with pollution. Many of the pulp and paper companies, in particular, have found it more profitable to operate on the basis of a fee or a fine than on the basis of a licence. I say we shall have to make up our minds whether we really want to stop pollution or not. Although the minister of fisheries announces in the House that fishing in Lake Erie, or in Lac St. Pierre, or in the Saguenay-in fact, in many parts of eastern Canada-has been ordered discontinued because of mercury pollution, he never tells the House that the plant responsible for the pollution has been closed. Again, this seems to me to be a sort of bootlegging operation. The government's approach is not one of: "Let's not put mercury into the water". Perhaps that would be too logical and too direct. Instead, the government announces that a certain stretch of water has been polluted by mercury, and as a result people will not be allowed to fish in it, that if they do they will die from poisoning.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The government has also said that companies guilty of pollution can be taken to a civil court, and if blame can be proved to be directly attributable to the company, compensation may be had. But once again the government does not order the company not to pump mercury into the water. It seems to me that the pollution clauses in the bill are oriented to that sort of approach, which surely must be wrong. I am pleased to see the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) in the House today because I travelled through the Sudbury area, through "blizzard valley", for years and remember seeing the potato crops and field crops blighted. At one time you could not grow grass or clover in Sudbury, or even a shade tree.
If there is talk that International Nickel or Falconbridge may be forced to instal pollution control devices on their smoke stacks, the old bugaboo is always raised that the company will shut down and go out of business,
May 26, 1970

that they will close down the smelter and throw all the employees out of work. People have been scared and, as a result, nothing has been done about pollution control of this sort. Many years later along comes the government of Ontario and invests money in the establishment of secondary industry in the area. International Nickel is now manufacturing sulphuric acid and making a handsome profit from the operation. My point is that it is of advantage to industry to stop polluting the environment and to turn its endeavours toward other pursuits.
There are many immigrants in my part of Ontario and I remember recently talking to someone from the Ukraine, or Roumania, or Czechoslovakia, or Poland, I forget precisely which, about a river in his country flanked on either side by communities that collectively had a population which ran into millions. He was pointing out to me that the difference between the North American economy and the European economy is that, no matter the commodity, there was always a use for it in Europe. Waste just was not dumped into rivers. For example, he told me that when he was a young lad he used to swim in this river and drink the water from it. Although there were millions of people along its banks, the river was not polluted. There are very few people living along some of the rivers in northern Ontario, yet they are badly polluted. Although the people have been few, the pollution has been abundant. As this person pointed out, in Europe every commodity is worth something.
The sulphuric acid fumes emitted by the smoke stacks at Sudbury are not an asset but an immense liability to everyone living in the community as well as to all other industry in the area. They eliminate agriculture, destroy trees in the area and have a deleterious effect on community life. If you go to Sudbury today, Mr. Speaker, you will find grass and trees. In Sudbury there are five lakes, most of which are now used for recreational purposes. Previously they were dumps for mining waste. I am sure that if industrial waste were analysed it could be put to use in the building of secondary industry, industry that in some cases might produce a product even more valuable than the original product.
I remember as a boy going to Cobalt and seeing dozens of mines that had very large waste dumps. At the outbreak of war cobalt was in demand as a strategic war material. These mining dumps were picked over and the cobalt that had been found uneconomic to
Water Resources Programs process was used in the war effort. The cobalt came from the silver mines. The mining operation in those days was so primitive that one of the byproducts was also arsenic. During the war silver was not a commodity of major importance and many mines closed down, but due to the demand for cobalt some opened up again and mined what had hitherto been a waste product. In fact, cobalt proved a more valuable product than the mining of silver, which had been the original product of the mine. Therefore, I suggest that if waste in North America is properly handled it need not be considered as waste. I am sure it can be proven that almost all types of industrial waste can serve some purpose and be put to good use. If the government would refuse to permit the dumping of industrial waste, I am sure some good use could be found for it on which, perhaps, totally new industries could be based.
Under the terms of the bill the government is not providing any money for research into sanitation control, an obvious field in which assistance is required. The bill indicates that assistance will be provided by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in sanitation control, which I presume means that the municipalities will be required to build proper sewage treatment plants.
In my own home town the municipality, with assistance I presume from the federal or provincial government, built a sewage disposal system and a lagoon. This reminds me of the story of some U.S. tourists who visited the town and decided to picnic on the shores of this nice looking lake with grass banks. There were not too many people around at the time and they decided to have a swim. Finally, someone from the sanitation department chased them away, telling them it was the sewage disposal lagoon of the municipality. That may be a very nice story, but in northern Ontario bacteria is not exposed to strong sunlight for as many months in the year as other parts of Canada, and the discharge from the lagoon into the river may be as pure as it is claimed to be. Eut it sure doesn't smell pure, as they say it should, and certainly it is not the kind of lagoon in which one would want to swim. Not even ducks are foolish enough to swim in it.
So, before these foolish controls are implemented, I suggest research should be done into whether or not the expenditures that the municipalities will be required to make will provide satisfactory pollution control in the
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs end. The federal government will have to take some responsibility for providing research into the type of controls that are possible. The municipalities are facing a financial problem in this connection. If they are going to be allowed, as I hope they are, to participate in the development of water management areas, I suggest the federal government will have to assume some of the burden of the cost.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
If the federal government does have a costsharing program for the maintenance of the management areas, then of course they will have some control through the withholding of their share of the grants to the municipalities until the necessary standards are met. If this is done, the federal government will have some say about the type of plant that will be allowed to locate in such an area and the type of waste control which will be implemented. I think that this method for the control of the management area will certainly be an improvement over the payment of fees.
I believe that greater co-operation in this area among municipal, provincial and federal governments, apart from matters involving constitutional issues, can be achieved, as it has been in other areas, through cost sharing programs in which the federal government through withholding its contribution can have some say regarding the development of the program. We have had good success in our cost sharing program for the construction of the Trans-Canada highway which had to be built to specifications before grants could be obtained. The province of Quebec decided to withhold its participation in the project, but eventually when money was made available for the construction of roads even the province of Quebec decided to meet those standards. We have now been able to develop universal standards across our nation and this has been to everyone's advantage.
This is true even in such mundane fields as education in which the government is not involved directly. We have been able, through cost sharing programs, to develop vocational education through the payment of construction and equipment grants that has ensured a standard of facility for all people.
I suggest that this may be one of the ways of assisting municipalities to participate in the implementation of this legislation and thus achieve uniformity. I suggest that the implementation of this legislation can be improved by the amendments before us. I do

not think it matters which amendment is accepted. Both have a similar purpose in view. But I suggest that by its refusal to consider these grants the government, the minister and his assistants are indicating that they have no understanding of the intent of the amendments or of the legislation which they put forward. It has become all too evident to everyone that the legislation before the House is not necessarily the legislation of the minister, of the cabinet or of the government but rather legislation drafted by civil servants who are not really in a position to provide the minister with sufficient information regarding the purpose of the bill to allow him to make a decision on the amendments. Sooner or later this will become known to the public, and they will become incensed at the inability and inflexibility of a government that cannot accept logical and advantageous amendments, the purpose of which is to make this legislation more realistic and meaningful to Canadians in general.
Pollution is only a word unless we are able to translate that word into legislation which will have an effect on the environment of Canadians. It seems to me that the amendment before us now will make this legislation more meaningful. I am sorry that the minister and the government are not capable of making a favourable decision on the amendment and that the vote, when it is taken, will only reflect the number of seats which the Liberal party holds rather than the merits of the amendments presented by the opposition.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: In dealing with the two amendments before us I would like to start first with motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) which reads:
No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste In any waters.
To anyone who has read this amendment and who understands the process of the deposit of waste, the impracticability of the amendment is evident. It would mean, for example, that anyone throwing a cigarette package in a river would be depositing waste in our waters. It would mean also that people who are living in cottages along the rivers and lakes of our country would be immediately required to install septic tank systems- not that this is an undesirable requirement, but the impracticability of a proposal of this nature is such that I cannot see how it could be part of the Canada Water Act.
May 26, 1970

I believe that much the same reasoning applies to motion No. 9. For example, there is no substance known to man which in some way is not detrimental to man, animal, fish or plant. For example, the secondary or even tertiary treatment of wash water would not remove it from this particular definition of waste. Motion No. 9 would prohibit the deposit of these treated substances. I ask: just how do we propose to live in a world under these circumstances? Where would the effluent from our waste treatment plants go? The government's proposal is to classify all substances that are potentially detrimental, including water carrying such substances as waste, and then to control the deposit of these wastes by specifying how they must be treated, in what quantities and in what manner they can be deposited. To do otherwise is to ignore the Newton's basic law of physics that matter cannot be destroyed. This House and every physical thing will eventually end up as waste to be transported by the rivers to the sea. No law of man can change this.
What we can do, and what we intend to do under this act, is to regulate and control the manner and condition under which these wastes must be deposited. I suggest that this particular amendment ignores reality. There are very few substances that are not in some way detrimental to man, animal, fish or plant. To say that all other substances must be disposed of on land or in the air is really something that is impossible. We should recognize that water is often used as a proper disposal area as an alternative to air or soil, and that the treatment of the wastes going into it, so that they do not affect our environment or ecology, is the proposal put forward under the Canada Water Act.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I recognize, as do other hon. members on this side, the concern that many hon. members have with respect to control of waste. The hon. member who just sat down justified the need to have effective control over waste. I suggest to him, when he says that under this bill there is no money for research, that he is not quite accurate, particularly in view of the fact that at present under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources comes the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, the Bedford Institute, and a number of other establishments which are either in being or are proposed to undertake research with respect to the quality and management of our water. The amendments, as proposed, do not meet

Water Resources Programs the basic requirements of the Canada Water Act, and I see no way that they can fit within the concept that has been advanced by the government.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone could be impressed by the argumentation of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am very disappointed that the minister has not spoken. Both the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) have made it clear that they have no pride of authorship in motions Nos. 8 and 9, and if the minister thinks that the language of the amendments can be improved, they would be delighted to have him or his officials do so. Therefore, to make a picayune point about the wording of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, saying it means that anyone who throws an empty cigarette package into the water will be violating the act, is merely high school debate rather than dealing with the substance of the question before us. Even if the minister disagrees with the positions we have taken, he owes it to Parliament and to the people of Canada to explain his disagreement. I hope he will do so, and will not merely sit at his desk listening.
There are two objectionable features with respect to clause 8, and the minister ought to rise to his feet, whenever he thinks it appropriate, to tell us we are wrong and the reasons why we are wrong. The first is a very profound problem, namely, whether or not clause 8 as presently worded has doubtful constitutional validity. I suggest to the House, as the hon. member for Greenwood did in great and learned detail, and as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka did, that one does not have to be absolutely convinced that clause 8 is in difficulty. It should be sufficient that a doubt has been raised for the minister and the government to want to do something about it rather than spend the next few years in litigation in the courts.
Even if the government of the province of Ontario says it will not delay the implementation of this legislation by going to court, that will not prevent a private corporation that feels aggrieved from trying to take advantage of the question if its legal advice is that clause 8 as presently worded is of doubtful constitutional validity. That is not going to prevent any private corporation from hauling the legislation into court. I am not a constitutional expert. I cannot claim to have the
May 26. 1970

Water Resources Programs experience in constitutional matters that others have had, and that to my knowledge the hon. member for Greenwood has had. But I have had a little experience and I have certainly studied constitutional law. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the case which the hon. member for Greenwood made is a pretty strong and convincing case, not necessarily that the clause is unconstitutional, because no one can be definite about that except the highest court of the land, but that the present wording of the clause makes it of very doubtful constitutional validity and opens it up to possibly successful attack.
It is a well established principle in the interpretation of our constitution that if the federal Parliament seeks to regulate any activity that is within a sphere normally under provincial jurisdiction, then the Parliament of Canada is going beyond its powers. This is what clause 8 does. It talks about prescribing the quantities and conditions with respect to waste disposal in certain water quality management areas. That is surely nothing else except regulation, and if it is done in waters which are under provincial jurisdiction, and with respect to activities which are under provincial jurisdiction, then clearly there is justifiable doubt as to whether the Parliament of Canada has the authority under the B.N.A. Act to pass such legislation. That is the first objection to the clause. The hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka in their amendments are in effect saying to Parliament, "Why get yourself into this morass of constitutional argument"?
May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that waste is defined in the bill. No one is talking about waste as you, Mr. Speaker, or I might define it, such as an empty cigarette package. I doubt very much if that is waste defined in the bill. We are talking about waste as defined in the bill which is a "substance that, if added to any waters, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters..."
What these amendments before the House say is that instead of getting into the questionable area of regulation, instead of getting into the morass of constitutional argument with the provinces, and possibly constitutional litigation in the courts, why not have the courage the situation demands to say simply that certain things are prohibited. This course would be clearly within federal jurisdiction because you would then be dealing with and enacting criminal law?


As I said the other day on another amendment, I cannot understand the minister's position on any of these things. He has not explained it. I hope he will. I have read his explanation on one other matter dealing with quality standards and I am darned, Mr. Speaker, if that came anywhere near an explanation. In fact, I doubt if the minister came anywhere near dealing with the subject, let alone explaining his position. I hope he will do better than that in this case.
I do not want to take too long because the area has been covered by the hon. member for Greenwood who gave a very full analysis of the legal problem involved. But I repeat to the minister: why do you need this? Why cannot you simply prohibit certain interference with water quality and thereby come clearly within federal jurisdiction, because you would then be dealing with criminal law? The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) will correct me if I am wrong but I believe he said that if anybody wants to change his language or his words he has no objection. He is not saying these are the best words, so it is not a question of the minister having to accept them. If he is willing to accept the idea, we would all be willing to stand this clause until he can communicate with his officials and come forward with an amendment which, in his view, better meets the situation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
That is the legal objection to it but there is also a basic objection of principle. I cannot understand why the minister is making ringing speeches against pollution saying that the polluter must pay, talking about the need for cleaning our waters and then providing in this, the main act for dealing with water pollution, for an effluent discharge fee prescribed by the government. Under what circumstances? I challenge the minister to tell this House what it is he foresees. What kind of situation, what kind of condition does he foresee which would justify people being allowed to dispose of waste in a water quality management area on payment of the fee? What circumstances can justify this?
I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this bill does not deal with all qualities of water. This clause deals with water quality management areas designated pursuant to certain clauses of the bill. If certain waters are designated a water quality management area and standards are set for the cleaning and the maintenance of them as
May 26, 1970

clean waters, I would like to know under what conditions anyone is entitled to pay a fee to pollute waters so designated. What has the minister or the government in mind?
What nonsense it makes of the minister's protestations about water pollution when he puts such provisions into the act. Individuals like yourself and myself are not involved, Mr. Speaker. What we have are corporate polluters, either large corporations, large industries or large municipalities, without the necessary equipment in some cases. In practice, they are the ones who are mostly responsible for the pollution. What situation, what condition, what kind of industry, what sort of quality has the minister in mind when he says that he is going to establish an effluent discharge fee? I suggest to the minister that those of us in this House who have the courage to challenge him to explain this outrageous situation are doing him, as well as the people of Canada, a service. I suggest to him that if the people around him, the members of his party, were expressing what every Canadian would want them to express they would ask these questions of him just as sharply as we are doing. Unless, of course, Mr. Speaker, they did so in some private caucus which I was quite happily unable to attend.
I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, why do you want an effluent discharge fee? Under what conditions are you going to permit an industry to pollute our waters as long as it pays a fee? Why should Parliament empower you to make regulations of this sort? We want to know if this fee is to be uniform right across Canada or if it will be possible for every agency, as defined in this act, to set its own effluent fee. If every agency is allowed to set its own effluent fee, as I think is contemplated here, then we will have competition between one area of the country and another as industry will realize it is possible to pollute some waters for a lower fee than others.
This opens the door, Mr. Speaker, to the possibility of destroying any effectiveness this bill might have. These are the two reasons for our objection to clause 8 and are the reason the amendments are before the House.
I am not asking the minister to get to his feet if he does not want to, but I say that he owes it to Parliament and to the people of Canada to explain, (a) why he is taking a risk on the constitutionality of this bill in clause 8, which is the heart of the enforcement provisions, and, (b) why he has asked Parliament to provide for an effluent discharge fee. In
Water Resources Programs other words, why is he providing for a fee which gives industry the right to pollute or to continue polluting. Why in Heaven's name is he doing these two things? Until he explains them to the satisfaction of this House the clause ought not to pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might point out to the House the suggestion put by Mr. Speaker on May 20, at page 7127 of Hansard, on these two motions is as follows:
Motions Nos. 8 and 9 appear to be on the same question, and I might suggest here for the consideration of hon. members that they be combined for purposes of debate, but that the question be put on motion No. 9 and the vote be considered as a vote on motion No. 8.


Mr. Brewin:: No, I do not agree to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course if there is objection, we can put the vote separately. There was no objection at the time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is an entirely separate amendment, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I did not hear this suggestion and it certainly does not agree with my-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am very accommodating in these matters and I am prepared to put the questions separately.


John James Greene: You should be in the House more often.


David Lewis: You should speak more often.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 8. All those in favour of the said 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.
The question is now on motion No. 9. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs


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. I might remind the House of the agreement reached on May 20 as recorded at page 7127 of Hansard:
Motions Nos. 10, 12 and 13 bear on the financial provisions of the bill, and I would like to suggest that these motions be combined for purposes of debate, with the House taking one single vote thereon.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I take it that is still the agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall now put
motions Nos. 10, 12 and 13 as follows.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) moves Motion No. 10 as follows:
That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out lines 40 to 43 on page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) the loans or contributions in respect of the cost of incorporation and operating expenses of the agency and the loans in respect of capital costs incurred by the agency that is to undertake the program, that".
Next, the minister moves Motion No. 12 as follows:
That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management cf the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out lines 44 to 47 on page 16 and line 1 on page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Except with respect to loans authorized to be made by it by the Minister or a provincial government as described in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 10, an agency does".
Finally, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources moves Motion No. 13, as follows:
That Bill C-144, An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, develop-
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.1
ment and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out lines 5 and 6 on page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"the agency, in respect of its operating expenses or in respect of capital costs incurred by it, and".
It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I wonder if the minister could give us an explanation?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I shall ask my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), who has been carrying the debate for the government on these amendments so ably, to introduce these amendments.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, Motions No. 10, 12 and 13 go together. They permit loans to be made to water management agencies for capital works. When the bill was originally introduced, this was one of the areas which still had not been completely covered. We discussed this matter at great length during the committee hearings and amendments were presented to the committee at that time regarding the question of capital loans. It had been our hope that possibly this matter could have been dealt with in committee; however, we were given to understand by the legal authorities that the matter should be brought up by way of amendment at the report stage in the House of Commons.
Our concept since the inception of the bill has been that the polluter must pay by service charges and effluent fees; but we also want to ensure that water treatment facilities are built as quickly as possible. Both goals can be achieved if we are permitted, under the bill, to make loans directly to the agencies. The loans would be paid off by service charges and fees, thus placing the financial burden where it should be, on those who deposit waste.
Motion No. 12 would permit the water quality management agencies to borrow from federal and provincial governments for capital works, and not necessarily from one level or the other by itself. Motion No. 13, as a consequence of Motion No. 12, provides that the amounts borrowed by the agencies for capital works shall be deposited with a chartered bank. As I indicated, during the course of our committee hearings there was extensive discussion on this matter by the committee members, and there seemed to be agreement that the motions we are proposing now
May 26. 1970	COMMONS
would carry without a great deal of discussion. That principle met with the general approval of all committee members.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the three motions before us now incorporate in part some of the suggestions I made during the second reading stage of the bill. However, they do not go as far as I would wish. I should like to see the bill contain financial commitments by way of contributions to the capital cost of projects undertaken under the Canada Water Act. However, the government has moved slightly by introducing loans for capital costs of projects, and I think this is good. We shall have no objection to that. We do not object to these three motions being passed together.
We must recognize that even though the minister has repeatedly said that the polluter must pay, a concept with which we agree in the main, there is much pollution in this country that cannot be attributed to any particular individual, municipal unit or factory. The concept that the polluter must pay envisions being able to identify the polluter. But if you cannot identify him, surely, there must be some government contribution or intervention in order to make sure the pollution is cleared up. These motions move in that direction, in that there will be loans with respect to capital costs of projects which clear up pollution, and to that extent I support the three motions being passed together.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the three motions we are discussing now will not be opposed by our party. We feel that they certainly improve the bill. We would not want the minister, his department or the government to feel that we are completely satisfied with the financial arrangements set out in the bill because, basically, the government has moved the burden of the cost of pollution to the provinces and municipalities. The Parliamentary Secretary said that those who pollute our waterways will have to pay the cost of cleaning them. I raise the point that we raised when debating the preceding motions. Why should people be allowed to pollute our waterways? That just shows you how stupid these provisions are. We ought not to have to collect effluent fees; we ought not to allow industry to pay money to pollute the waters which the citizens of this country must use.
I wish to make another point. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the polluter in the water quality management areas that must be set up must pay. I ask, what will
DEBATES	7343
Water Resources Programs happen in those parts of Canada in which no water quality management areas will be set up? Since there are no fees for those areas, will people be able to pollute with impunity? The Parliamentary Secretary and the minister are aware of this fact. What is going to be done outside the water quality management areas? We have been trying to get national standards established, and national enforcement, so that no one from one end of Canada to the other can pollute any of our waters. We fought through the various committee stages the need for some major changes as far as financing is concerned. These three amendments have made some small measure of change. We welcome these changes.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I wish to say a few words about the overall financial picture because these amendments deal with federal loans and grants. One of the main problems facing this nation is the fact that there is not enough money available to municipalities for the building of sewage treatment plants. Last year, $50 million was available through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This money ran out. There were dozens of applications from municipalities that did not have the money to lay on the line. They could not get grants to build the treatment plants which are needed to clean up a very sore spot as far as pollution is concerned. This year we are told an additional $25 million will be available.
I wish to put on the record one or two facts that I think the Canadian people should know. Sewage is one of the minor pollutants in Canada when compared to industrial pollution. A group representing the mayors and municipalities of Canada visited our committee. The cost of separating the storm sewers from the sanitary sewers in the city of Winnipeg, one of the first jobs they must do, will be $250 million. It will cost a quarter of a billion dollars just to separate the storm sewers from the sanitary sewers, and yet even after the expenditure of this amount not one treatment plant will have been built.
In the city of Toronto, a major portion of this sewer separation work has been carried out. It will cost an additional $200 million to split the balance of the storm sewers from the sanitary sewers before the job of building treatment plants can be undertaken. Practically none of the sewage in the city of Montreal is treated. The problem is the lack of funds for primary, secondary and tertiary treatment plants. These will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It is going to cost billions
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs of municipal dollars to tackle the problem of sewage. There is no provision in this bill to give hope for the solution of this aspect of the pollution problem which is facing Canadians. The government has not done a good job as far as the over-all financial aspects of this pollution problem are concerned. We are justifiably worried that this one phase of the financial aspect, the cost of the treatment of sewage, is going to be loaded primarily on the municipalities and provinces.
The $75 million available through CMHC this year will not go anywhere. There is now a backlog of projects that will more than eat up the money which the government hopes to provide through CMHC. I bring this to the attention of hon. members in the hope that something will be done. The minister has talked of loans. More loans will be available for projects within these water quality management areas. However, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) pointed out yesterday, it will take a couple of years before we have any water quality management areas set up in Canada to which loans could be made to start the process of water management. It makes one wonder why when we are dealing with pollution on a national basis, this bill is so narrow in scope. All it is going to do is tackle these small water quality management areas provided for in the bill. We have gone over this before.
A little later on we will have an opportunity to speak about finances. I felt that I should put these remarks on the record and indicate that, while we are going along with these measures, we are not at all satisfied with the way this government, this minister and his department are attacking the over-all pollution problems facing the Canadian nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motions 10, 12 and 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions 10,	12 and 13 (Mr. Greene)
agreed to.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: (11) That Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out lines 22 to 25, both inclusive, page 16 thereof, and substituting therefor in clause 13(3) "(c) undertake the collection of effluent discharge for fees prescribed to be payable by any person for the deposit of waste in those waters [Mr. Harding.)
but in no case shall an effluent discharge fee be collected for the deposit of waste in respect of any project commenced after the establishment of the agency."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I consider that this amendment is the most important one before the House. We all claim some pride of authorship for our amendments, but the proposal in this particular amendment is fundamental to the elimination of pollution in Canada. If we do not accept it, we do not accept our responsibility to the people of Canada. I call this amendment the factory fence amendment. The reason I call it that is that the proposal, if accepted, would require all new installations after the passage of this act, whether they be industrial, municipal or private, to contain their waste within the limits of their own property and not to dump it into the public waters of Canada. It is as simple as that.
In this particular bill, we have a system of effluent discharge fees. We in the opposition, and I speak for both major parties which have taken part in this debate, have objected consistently to the effluent discharge fee as a system. However, the minister says no, it is fundamental to the bill. The minister says it is necessary to include these effluent discharge fees and that is what will be done.
There were some amendments rejected in committee. We understand they will be rejected again. We must be realistic in this debate. The minister is not going to accept the elimination of effluent discharge fees. I am proposing that if any company, municipality or individual is now allowed to dump waste in private waters and pay for it, that they should not be allowed to do so after this bill comes into effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We cannot do too much to clean up the pollution which is now being caused by dumping effluents into Canadian waters. We have to accept the system which is being proposed. We cannot say next week or next month when this bill is put into effect that no more waste water shall contain any pollutant. It would be an impossible request. So, the government has set up provision for water management agencies through whose efforts the pollution now being caused can be contained and the effluents treated to the best ability of the agency. All right. We accept this. But we are not ready to accept that any company has a right, after this bill comes into
May 26. 1970

force, to dump effluents from a new plant into the water. The amendment says that in no case shall an effluent discharge fee be collected for the deposit of waste in respect of any project commenced after the establishment of the agency. We have to take a stand somewhere. When do we start? I believe we ought to start now.
It is no use saying we are suffering from pollution now and that it will have to continue. There must be a cut-off point, and I say that the cut-off point for the continued dumping outside the factory fence is now. For too long this country has permitted waste and effluents to enter its waters. This bill is intended, I suppose, to make a start, if only a feeble start, toward controlling the situation. We should certainly not use the agencies which are to be set up in such a way as to permit the continuance of the dumping of effluent into public waters.
I have some support for my amendment from another minister of the government, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). I wish to read what he said in an address to the 25th Annual Meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada in St. John's, Newfoundland, as summarized in the Montreal Gazette. These words are attributed to the minister, and he appears to be the author of this article. It reads:
Our message, essentially, is that pollution must be stopped at the factory fence. Harmful substances must be confined to the mill or the plant. Often large settling ponds have to be installed. The supernatant liquids from these ponds then have to be recycled back into the mill or the plant in question. Sometimes it costs millions of dollars to close these systems-but closed they must be!
Time never stands still. Technology is on the march. New chemical processes are introduced and new products put on the market. We must be, forever, on the alert. We must be on the lookout for new substances which can poison our environment.
We must be on the alert for new pollutants, especially those which can damage man himself.
That is the end of the quotation. It is my theory that the only way to clear up pollution in this country, and indeed throughout the world, is by recycling waste products. Recycling is the whole answer. Factories which are dumping waste must develop means of disposing of their waste products within their own premises. It can be done. To my knowledge most of the new factories in Ontario, the province in which I reside and in which I am particularly interested, are obliged to satisfy the Ontario Water Resources Commission that they will not be discharging effluents into the

Water Resources Programs water. Until their engineering has been perfected, permission to build a new plant is withheld. It is as simple as that. I have been involved with three or four plants which have been established in the area I represent. In each case, before the engineering had been completed, the Water Resources Commission representatives looked over the plant. They asked: "What are you going to do about your effluents?" The companies had to say: "We intend to instal settling ponds which will receive these effluents. We intend to dump water back in minimal quantities and that water will be pure, in fact, it will be purer than when we took it in." This has to be done. It has been done already in one province.
What will the situation be if the minister's water management agencies permit pollution on the payment of a fee and the Water Resources Commission of Ontario declines to do so? Who will win the battle. I hope it will be the Water Resources Commission of Ontario. I would hate to think that the rules the commission has set for new plants could be circumvented in accordance with the terms of this bill, and that new factories could once more discharge effluents and wastes on the payment of a fee. I hope this violent conflict will never arise, but it will if we pass this bill in its present form. I have mentioned Ontario specifically, but there are other provinces which are applying restrictions with different degrees of severity.
We ought to make a stand now. We cannot go on telling ourselves that some time in the future we intend to take action. Our environment is too badly damaged already. One thing we must do is improve the prospects for the future. Surely, that is why we are considering this bill right now. This is what we all believed the Canada Water Act was intended to do.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If pollution is not stopped now, it will never come to an end. No matter how hard I try, I can think of no reason for not accepting this amendment. There is already in existence a pollution problem, and under the water quality management agencies that are to be set up plants that have been in existence for 50 years and which employ 300 or 400 people will gradually have to cut back on pollution. What pollution is discharged will be disposed of within our resources.
If this is the intention of the act, namely to deal with the pollution that exists now, then we will have to accept it and I only hope the
May 26. 1970

Water Resources Programs legislation will be effective. But I cannot accept this approach for the future control of pollution. I cannot accept any interference with the good pollution control work now being done in several provinces which are not permitting the establishment of new industrial plants until this factory fence provision is brought into effect.
Over the years we have tried-by "we," I mean everybody in Canada who is interested in the preservation of our environment-to get public and private industry to cut back on effluents and make the economy of the country reasonably consistent with the ecology. There are many regulations in the statutes of Canada prohibiting pollution. There are provisions in the Criminal Code against pollution; there are provisions in the Fisheries Act against pollution; there are provisions in the Canada Shipping Act against pollution, and there are provisions in the present water act against pollution. Yet none of these regulations have been properly enforced. If they had, we would not have the serious pollution problem that we are facing today.
Nevertheless, we must face the situation as it is today, and we are now on the verge of passing a water act which we hope will assist in controlling pollution in this country. Without that hope there is no point in considering the legislation. But even though, as the minister has pointed out, this bill has been discussed over the course of many months both in the House and in committee, there are some who still regard its benefits as dubious.
However, regardless of whether the bill will be effective and able to do its job, I want to be sure that it will not make the situation worse rather than better. The proposition that I am advancing is that if the present proposal of the minister as it stands now is accepted, the bill will permit pollution to go on and on, with no time limit within which pollution must be checked. I also suggest that not only will conflicts of jurisdiction arise, but many other difficulties will be encountered unless some time limit is imposed in connection with this effluent discharge fee provision.
This is my reason for moving the amendment. I think it is worthy of acceptance. This principle has been adopted by the minister of fisheries. He has stated that we have to start somewhere, and I agree with him. The minister goes further than I because he says that we have to start cutting back at the factory fence on existing installations. I do not have the opportunity under this bill to go that far, but I do go as far as I can in this amendment,

which provides that this sort of pollution must cease when this bill is passed. The bill must not be used as an excuse for further pollution by new installations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for South Western Nova calling it five o'clock?


Mr. Comeau:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand): Sports, 1976 Summer Olympics- Implementation of White Paper proposals to assist in preparation of teams; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack):	National Defence-
Responsibility for aircraft sonic booms over Lennox county.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Public Bills.
October 30, 1969-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of Bill C-92, an act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. McBride.
Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-92 standing in my name. The reason for this request is that the subject matter of Bill C-92 is more adequately dealt with in Bill C-213.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.
May 26, 1970


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been certain discussions among members of the various parties and I believe there might be consent that certain bills to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be considered en bloc on second reading, in committee of the whole at the report stage, and on third reading. These bills are numbered C-62, C-75, C-130, C-153, C-162, C-168, C-177, C-178, and C-213 and stand as items 26, 36, 85, 99, 104, 110, 117, 118 and 144 respectively under Public Bills. If there is consent, this may be made an order of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill C-62, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Monteith.
Bill C-75, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Cullen.
Bill C-130, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-153, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Ethier.
Bill C-162, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Forest.
Bill C-168, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Howe.
Bill C-177, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Thomas (Mai-sonneuve).
Bill C-178, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Major.
Bill C-213, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. McBride.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe) moved: that Bill C-35, to establish the Canadian Heritage Foundation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in some ways the very general objectives of this legislation are contained in the title: and act to establish the

Canada Heritage Foundation Act Canadian Heritage Foundation. The purpose of this legislation is to establish a foundation, the primary objective of which would be to encourage the maintenance and preservation of those artistic and architectural treasures of our past which collectively we can describe as the Canadian artistic heritage.
In a few moments I would like to deal with the specific objectives of the foundation as outlined in clause 7 of the proposed legislation, but before I do that I should like to say a few words on the need which this legislation has been designed to meet, for there may be-although I hope there are not-some members in the House who feel that there is no real need for a set of institutions, for government activity or even for private activity, directed toward the preservation of our past. There are those who may argue that Canada is not, like the great states of Europe, the happy possessor of a proud heritage which should be preserved for our future. They might say that our country should look resolutely ahead but not pay too much attention to our roots in the past. Off with the old, on with the new.
I have spoken twice in the House on this general problem; first in November, 1968 and then in 1969. At that time I outlined not only what many other countries are doing but what I felt to be a very great need for increased activity by our government in this area. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that I then made about the importance to the understanding of the country's present, and its future, of the preservation of its past. But I would like to refer, with regard to the general question of need, to remarks made by Sir Kenneth Clark. I do not know how many members of this House have seen that splendid television series which is presented each Thursday night on the CBC called "Civilisation" in which Sir Kenneth Clark describes the history of buildings and their impact on the culture of their times. If you do watch that program, you can see how the spirit and culture of the times is infused in its architecture and its buildings.
At the beginning of the series Sir Kenneth Clark was quoting Ruskin. Ruskin said:
Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others, but of the three the only trustworthy one is the last.
Sir Kenneth Clark goes on to say:
On the whole I think this is true. Writers and politicians may come out with all sorts of edifying
May 26, 1970

Canada Heritage Foundation Act sentiments, but they are what is known as declarations of intent. If I had to say which was telling the truth about society, a speech by a Minister of Housing or the actual buildings put up in his time, I should believe the buildings.
I think this general principle is true, that the buildings, the architecture and the art reveal the truth about a society and its time.
In the past, I have spoken about what we should and could be doing in Canada to preserve such historic areas as the port area of Montreal; what should be done to preserve that gracious 18th and 19th century heritage of our buildings. It is a subject about which I feel very strongly because in my constituency every week there are buildings of real historical and architectural interest being destroyed in the name of progress. I have with me, and I will be delighted to show members of the House, a whole publication which has been prepared by King City, Ontario. It was a lovely town, full of early 19th century preconfederation buildings, the attractiveness of which has virtually been destroyed by the disrupting effects of placing a four lane highway running through the middle of it,-a development which the members of the community were powerless to stop.
It may be said by members of the House that the National Historic Sites and Monuments Commission has been designed to deal with this problem and that it is adequate to our needs. For the past two years I have demonstrated in speeches in the House the continuing inadequacies of that commission. What is one to say of a commission which, in over 50 years of existence, has managed to preserve only 30 buildings, or an average of just over one every two years? The type of project which the National Historic Sites and Monuments Commission is directed toward is that of a rather larger project than that of an individual home. They are doing good work at Louisburg, and they have undertaken considerable reconstruction in the Yukon. But they do not have the resources and could not, no matter how generous the government was with funds, have the resources to deal with all of these buildings which are now in private hands and which face, over the next ten years, almost certain destruction unless we take action to help preserve them, to maintain them against the developer's steam shovel and bulldozer.
The problem is an urgent one. We do not have a great deal of time if we wish to preserve this heritage. We cannot do it through direct government activity. We must do it
[Mr. Roberts.!
through encouraging and enabling the citizens of Canada themselves to undertake the restoration and preservation of our architectural heritage. One may ask: do they care? Do they wish to do so? From the correspondence that I have had in relation to this legislation, and from remarks which members of the House have made to me, I am convinced that there is concern. I might just cite one minor example of this, a letter which was written by Mr. Toye of Ottawa which appeared in the Globe and Mail. He was discussing the fact that Batterwood House, the home of the late Right Hon. Vincent Massey, was to be disposed of, including the treasures in that house.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Toye went on to say:
Just what must one do for Canada to insure that a historical presence will remain after one's departure from the scene? Obviously becoming Canada's first Governor General doesn't do the trick. Philanthropist? Patron of the arts? Forget it!
By the year 2067 maybe, just maybe, someone up in the Funny House on Parliament Hill will hold forth: "Say chaps," he will mutter not too audibly for fear of being heard, "ol' Vincent Massey did just about everything one could do in a lifetime to show us what being a Canadian is all about. Waddya say we buy Batterwood House and all its contents and turn it into a national historical site!"
And it will be done-at ten times the present price to the taxpayer. Assuming, of course, that the treasures sold at auction can be relocated and restored.
And it will be done-assuming that in the meantime the property is not turned into a used car lot. or a Sotheby's Auction House, or a warehouse for Honest Ed.
But, Mr. Speaker, by the time we get to 20o7 that property won't be there, nor its contents. If we wish to preserve the heritage of this country, its architectural and historic heritage, we must do it now, or at least within the next decade, or else we should forget about doing it at all.
Flow do we do it? I have argued in the past that the Historic Sites and Monuments Commission should undertake a much more expanded responsibility in this area, and I have proposed alternatives with respect to the Commission's objectives so that it could do this. However, I must admit that the extent of the problem is so great that we cannot leave it to that Commission alone.
The objective of the Canadian Heritage Foundation that I propose is to provide a means to encourage the citizens of Canada themselves to undertake this necessary task
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
of preservation. Clause 7 of the bill provides the foundation with the power:
-to hold, preserve, maintain, reconstruct, restore and manage the property of the foundation.
If one goes on to subclause (b), one finds, among other things, that the foundation will have power:
-to acquire property, whether by purchase, donation, lease, public subscription, grant, bequest or otherwise.
It will have power:
-to enter into agreement with prospective donors with respect to any conditions governing the use of property.
It can establish trusts in order to do this, and can provide the assistance of experts. It can borrow money, and invest money in order to serve the purposes of the foundation. What kind of things could such a foundation do? How would it work? Why would it help people? Why would it encourage them? What would be the advantage to them, with the assistance of the foundation, of undertaking the necessary work of preservation?
First of all, I would suggest that such a foundation should have a revolving fund, and this fund should have two basic purposes. It would be able to provide interest free loans to householders who had a desire to undertake restoration and improvement of their houses, in order to restore them to their original historic character. I am of course referring to houses constructed before the twentieth century, houses of some architectural or historic interest to the country. This would be a means, at little or no cost to the foundation, of encouraging people to hire the services of restoration architects to preserve the buildings in which they happen to reside and which have an historic interest.
Secondly, and perhaps a more adventurous proposal, although this is a course which is followed to a great extent in the United States, it should be possible for the foundation to purchase a site or building of historic interest, restore it to its original condition, and then resell it with a restrictive covenant to ensure that the historic nature of the building is preserved.
Another important reason for establishing such a foundation is to provide a means by which those who wish to donate or give to the country either works of great art or works of architectural interest may do so and have compensating tax benefits for doing so. At the moment, in order to receive tax free compensation for a gift, the gift must be made to the
DEBATES	7349
Canada Heritage Foundation Act government of Canada or to the provincial governments; in other words, to the Crown. The establishment of such a chartered public foundation would provide a means by which people with buildings or objects of historic interest could transfer them for the use of the people of Canada as a whole and not be penalized for so doing.
Another objective of the foundation would fall in the area of public relations. Many hon. members will be aware of the volume published each month by the American Heritage Publishing Company. Many of us have seen their monthly magazine dealing with historical questions and matters of architectural interest. I am sure such a publication would be too expensive to promote on a profit basis in Canada, but the kind of foundation I have described would be able to undertake such a publication, distribute it to schools, and stimulate a continuing interest on the part of our citizens in the history of our country, and in the architectural buildings which demonstrate the history of our country.
One of the great handicaps in pursuing a steady, consistent and deep program of preservation of our buildings is the present lack in Canada of restoration architects and engineers, equipped and trained to deal with this particular kind of architectural problem. One of the functions of the foundation could be, through scholarships and grants, to provide training facilities and encourage the training of architects and engineers in this area where there is such a great shortage of qualified people.
We have already in Canada many provincial bodies who occupy themselves with the kind of objectives I have described. I do not intend to deal at the moment at any great length with the activities of the Ontario Heritage Foundation, although it is doing much good work. I merely wish to point out that at the national level we need an umbrella, an over-all body which will co-ordinate the very useful work done at the provincial level.
A further objective of the foundation would be for it to work with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, because the authorities in the United States have found that it is through urban renewal programs that a great deal of very effective work can be done to restore historic areas which have on occasion fallen into the state of slums.
Many people have said to me, "It is all very well to have the kind of program you are describing in cities and countries in Europe, but there is no need for it in North America."
May 26, 1970

Canada Heritage Foundation Act But the United States experience, which is not so far from us, demonstrates the great deal that one can do in the North American scene through government activity. This may be slightly off the subject of the Canadian Heritage Foundation, but to demonstrate the possibilities of action I would like to refer to the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, passed by the American Congress, which amended another urban development program "to authorize grants specifically to finance historic preservation surveys and planning, for localities of any size." The act gives broad authority for carrying out historic preservation as part of urban renewal.
Agencies carrying out urban renewal projects in the United States now may use project funds to finance surveys to identify historic and architecturally significant property in the renewal areas, and to estimate the costs of its rehabilitation, to acquire and restore such property for resale subject to preservation requirements-I emphasize that this is talking about government activity- and to move historic and architecturally significant buildings to new locations within or outside renewal area. Also, such activities carried out by a locality through local public funds may be credited toward the non-federal share of renewal costs.
In addition, the act authorizes grants to states and local public bodies to help finance public purchase, restoration and improvement of historic and architecturally significant property.
There is a related law in the United States, the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, by which congress created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, made up of representatives of federal agencies and private individuals appointed by the President. This advisory council has the responsibility to review cases in which a federally assisted or approved undertaking would affect a property listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. Furthermore, federal agencies are required to bring such cases to the advisory council for review before taking final action on any application. If hon. members have time I would be happy to show them some books which indicate the many areas of restoration which have been undertaken by Americans under the authorization of these two acts.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The description of those two acts brings me to the last project which I think the Canadian

Heritage Foundation should undertake, and that is the one of inventories. As a matter of fact, we simply do not know where our historic buildings and buildings of architectural interest are in Canada. We do not have a comprehensive survey of them. On a private basis, in Ontario at least, many groups are trying to do this work in, necessarily, an amateur way rather than a thoroughly professional way, and necessarily without the complete devotion of time that such a task requires. But it is impossible for us to restore, to preserve and respect buildings if we do not know where they are, if we do not know their history and if we do not know their qualities. One of the first functions of the Canadian Heritage Foundation would be to do a national inventory of historic sites, of architecturally interesting sites, those of an aesthetic or cultural appeal which should be preserved.
There is a great deal that such a foundation could do, Mr. Speaker, and a great deal that requires to be done. There is a great deal which the institution of the present Historic Sites and Monuments Commission is not able to do. There are historic considerations, architectural considerations, there are even aesthetic considerations which require us to do much more than we have in the past to preserve our heritage.
The roots of the present are to be found in the past and unless we do something to maintain living examples of the grace, the concerns, the culture of a previous day, it will disappear forever. We cannot do this simply through government action, through government direction and we cannot do it simply through expanded programs of the Historic Sites and Monuments Commission.
We must help the people of Canada to do this for themselves. The problem is too great and the time too short for us to handle it simply through government fiat, government direction, government legislation, but we do have sufficient time if we establish an organization which, through the various means I have described-certain tax advantages, revolving funds which will encourage people to take interestfree loans-can do the things which need to be done. We do have time. We have models which have been used successfully in the United States. There are institutions available which can deal with this problem if we act urgently upon it.
The proposal of the Canadian Heritage Foundation is one which should appeal to members on all sides of this House. It is one which should appeal to a government which
May 26, 1370	COMMONS
is concerned, which is sensitive, to the needs of preserving the evidence of the past in the present. It is a practicable program now, but one which cannot be held up for three or four years or it will no longer be practicable because we will have very little left to preserve. It is one which should recommend itself to all members of this House, and I would urge members on all sides of this House to support it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate my strong and enthusiastic support for the hon. member, for whose ability I have the highest regard, and for this particular piece of legislation. He mentioned the Canadian heritage and the inferior feeling that some may have who, from time to time, suggest that we are so young that we have little which should concern us in this way. Of course when we compare this land with the ancient civilizations, the Roman, the Greek, the Egyptian, we are very young.
But we have a rich heritage, Mr. Speaker. We have a noble past and we have a hall of heroes and worthy ancestors whom we should honour for the creation of our country. The political process out of which this confederation evolved is not the least among the achievements of nation building in the course of human history.
For too long we have been indifferent to our past, too casual, too careless about our heritage. Too many of those things which symbolize our traditions have disappeared. Many of them have been destroyed and some that were movable have been purchased and have left the country. Indeed, I think we have reached the stage in this country where those things which properly may be designated as historic items and as archival material should not be leaving the country. I am shocked when I read of American universities seeking, and they are likely to succeed, to acquire the manuscripts and papers of some of the great men of letters and men of the political life of our country. I think we have reached the stage where this kind of intellectual and literary nationalism should be exalted.
A situation here in Ottawa recently concerned me greatly and that was the loss of a building rich in history and rich in beauty, both aesthetic and architectonic. I refer to the home of Sir Robert Borden, that beautiful residence called "Glensmere" on Wurtemburg Street. This is the home in which that distinguished Canadian statesman lived for a gen-
DEBATES	7351
Canada Heritage Foundation Act eration, a home to which the great of the world came both in his active life as prime minister and in his many years thereafter as a great elder statesman. Glensmere, which could so easily have become, perhaps, the residence of the Leader of the Opposition or perhaps the locale of the International Development Agency or a shrine whereby we could recall the architect of Canadian independence, fell before the builder's axe. This beautiful home was destroyed and in its place will rise yet another apartment block. Of course, we need apartment blocks and high rise living accommodation, but surely to God, they don't have to be built on the great historic sites of the country.
Perhaps if we had possessed this organization, the Canadian Heritage Foundation, broadly based and sharply oriented, something might have been done before it was too late. Alas, over many many months, the government was insensitive to the need for preserving this historic place. When I presented the idea to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the last session, I received a flippant reply. Months later when I brought it to the attention of the custodian of our culture, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), I received a gratuitous lecture. As week followed week, the destructive group came closer and now Glensmere is gone and with it a magnificent symbol of one of the great moments of our history when this country moved forward and on to the stage, taking its place on the international scene, moving finally and magnificently from the status of colony to that of full-fledged membership in the world of nations.
Before now in this House I have discussed measures not so precise and not so fully thought out as this one, but I have grieved about our lack of interest in our historic past. I called for more interest in the moments and the places which made for history, of which there are many. These are so often ignored and all the while private individuals are buying up our fine things.
In a few weeks Prince Edward Island will be honouring the Scottish settlement of 1770, a very fine bicentennial and a very important one. This is important. Everywhere we go, we see neglected areas. We see opportunities that have been missed because there has been no leadership and no money. It was our great humorist, Stephen Leacock, who wrote in the "Historical Review" long ago:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I did not realize that the old grave that stood among the brambles at the foot of our farm was history.
May 26, 1970

Canada Heritage Foundation Act
How many cemeteries alone have been neglected? How poor we are at genealogy; how poor and callous at remembering our great men. Today we have preserved the homes of only two of our prime ministers, out of 15. Every day one reads of some ancient structure being destroyed. In the last few years places in which the Fathers of Confederation lived, men, like Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt, have been destroyed. This we must discontinue. We must not ever become callous and casual in this field. One of the men who adorned this chamber in days past, Arthur Meighen, said:
The story of a nation's heroes is the fountain from which it draws the wine of its later life. There is no inspiration that quickens the ambition of youth, stimulates public service and deepens love of country like the memory of great men who have gone.
I have heard it said that people who ignore their history can be likened to an individual whose memory has gone. One of the tragedies that strikes us is the stage of forgetfulness when only the present touches us. A mature and wise nation honours its past. I think the hon. member who proposed this measure has brought forward a most valuable suggestion. In this I know he is very much in tune with the comment of Joseph Howe. For the fourth time in 13 years I will repeat that statement to this House:
A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its monuments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures, and fosters national pride and love of country, by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
If Joseph Howe were in this chamber now-he was in this chamber for a while-he would say that the hon. member is doing what should be done, stressing those things that should be stressed and directing our attention to that which ought to occupy our attention. I congratulate him for his effort and endorse heartily his suggestion.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) for bringing forward his bill. I think the establishment of a Canadian heritage is long overdue. I like the way the hon. member approaches the subject and the manner in which he stressed its urgency, because the subject is urgent.
We may be doubling our knowledge every four years, or whatever the time is, but surely we are bulldozing under our heritage at least as quickly. No people can be whole if it has no idea of its heritage and no feeling of

continuity with things past. It must be conscious of being part of the ongoing stream and must hand over its heritage to its descendants. We may be a great nation, but our foundations rest upon people of good heart, good brain and good fibre who worked for many hundreds of years to build what we now enjoy. I hope people of future generations will look back on the present generation, on the homes we lived in and the artifacts we used and judge us partly from the environment in which we operated and realize that we helped to bring the country forward.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) spoke very convincingly about the Borden home. He told us what has happened to it as a result of oversight and lack of concern in high places. I think he illustrated the fact that there must be a blend of both public and private concern if we are to preserve some of our history. Men of affairs in high places are too busy to worry about what will happen from day to day in this area. When you approach them they say, "Wait until tomorrow." But tomorrow comes without any action being taken, and on the day after tomorrow the bulldozer moves in-all because our men of affairs are occupied with so many matters that they may forget about our history. People in both the public and private sectors must be concerned in this field and this bill leaves the way open for that concern.
The hon. member for Hillsborough, whom I had not met until coming to this House and who comes from a part of the country far removed from mine, said that in Prince Edward Island they are celebrating the arrival of the first Scottish settlers in the island. On his saying that there was immediately a link between us across the floor of the House and across the country. There is a link between the people he represents and the people I represent. Although we are not celebrating the anniversary of the arrival of Scottish settlers, we in Manitoba are celebrating our 100th birthday and Lord Selkirk, who helped Scottish settlers in Prince Edward Island, also helped and was concerned about Scottish settlers who came to the Red River Valley in the 1800's and who provided the milieu from which a small but adequate civilization grew. That sort of thing links our people be they in Prince Edward Island or elsewhere.
The hon. member for Hillsborough also spoke about Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt, a giant of a man. Most people in Canada do not
May 26, 1970

appreciate that our constitutional discussions, which are of great depth and seriousness, may be repetitions of discussions of earlier days. When you tell them this, they become interested immediately. I know, because I have done that. Some of the great arguments raging today are arguments that raged between Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt and Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John won the argument, but I am not sure he was right. Perhaps we should look again at Galt's arguments. That would make our constitutional debate much livelier and more interesting for the citizens of Canada. Surely the average citizen of Canada would feel deprived if he knew that because of oversight in high places he cannot obtain a first-hand idea of what Galt's home was like, of the artifacts with which he liked to surround himself, and so on. Luckily we have some idea of how Sir John A. Macdonald lived, because the British government bought his home. We cannot thank ourselves for that.
May I talk once more about our Scottish settlers. There is much greater affinity between the settlers of Manitoba and those of Prince Edward Island than there is between these settlers and those who live just east of us from here. On the shores of Hudson Bay in Manitoba is a place called York Fort, or York Factory, that is subject to a degree of preservation on a sort of ad hoc basis so that it will not completely disappear. This is one of the great and sacred spots in Canada. At the moment it is relatively inaccessible. I say "relatively" because tourists are starting to go there, and oil exploration is being carried out in that part of the country. Overnight the uninhabitable shores of Hudson Bay could become full of shantytowns and boom environment. God help York Fort, or York Factory as it is now called. Surely to God that is sacred ground in Canada. Radisson and Gro-seilliers first landed there. They had the perception to see that the way to get furs was to take a ship in and get the Indians to take the furs down, instead of having to go thousands of miles through extensive river systems.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The Hudson's Bay Company which owned God knows how much of Canada did all its initial operations through Le Moyne d'Iberville, one of the greatest military minds ever bred in North America to the present day. He was engaged in the only sea battle of any consequence ever fought in Hudson Bay. One day within gunshot sound of Fort Nelson, 22375-47
Canada Heritage Foundation Act which later became York Factory, caught on a lee shoreline three British, Hudson Bay ships came in. He mistook them for his own ships which he had lost in an ice floe some time before. He went out to meet them and discovered that he was outnumbered three to one. He sank one, captured and dismasted the second and sent the third back to England. This was a pretty decisive battle fought by a Canadian in the 1600s. As far as I know there is not a damned thing on that there to commemorate this battle.
Then there is Kelsey who moved west and north. He was probably the first man to see the Prairies. He first realized the significance of the buffalo to the fur trade. It allowed the fur trade to develop food in the form of pemican. It allowed the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Company to move into the north and live and trade in remote spots. It allowed men like Fraser to go to the Arctic. It allowed Mackenzie and other giants of history to open up the country using dried buffalo meat as food.
The port of York Factory lies neglected and rotting. No one has the wisdom to realize that it is important enough to preserve. It will be left until such time as tourists want to get there. This is a big establishment. It was where the first white woman in the west bore a child. She came disguised a boy, chasing her lover who had left her in the Hebrides. She may or may not have caught him. However, she caught something because about 12 months later-


An hon. Member:: Nine months.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No. That is what is peculiar. Twelve months later she produced a child and went home on the next boat, the following year. Her trip was worth while even though I doubt that she ever caught the lover who left her in the first place.
We also have the Selkirk settlers, Manitoba's version of the Scots who arrived in Prince Edward Island. All these people travelled through this port. Sir George Simpson took over the Hudson's Bay Company when it was almost a complete failure. He took control, rebuilt it and turned it into the most tremendous trading company that the world had known up to that time. He even went to Russia and taught the Russians how to process and market their furs. When Sir George married his cousin and brought her to Fort Garry in Canada to settle, her piano was brought through York Factory, up the Nelson River to Fort Garry.
May 26, 1970

Canada Heritage Foundation Act
This part of the country in 300 years has seen life, activity, hopes, fears and disappointment. It lies neglected. It is not a little mud fort. It is the very seed place from which my part of the country has grown. It is the seed place of the whole west with its diversity, lust for living and its ethnic groups that give it so much culture and interest in life. It is from here that the facilities they have been able to use were first spawned.
Fort Prince of Wales still lies beside Churchill. It is not in a good state of repair. It is made of stone. It is much more ruggedly built and will probably last a while. Lower Fort Garry, near Winnipeg, has gone except for the gate. It was thrown out a long time ago to make room for real estate development. Fort Gibraltar and Fort Rouge, which predeceased it, were the original forts that went into the founding of Canada. They are gone. There are a handful of houses-probably six, eight or ten-in the whole of Manitoba that are of significant age and significant historical value. Luckily, they have been taken over by people with private means, or interested associations.
There is St. Andrews Church, the first Ecumenical movement in western Canada. The Hudson's Bay Company was determined the settlers would all be Anglicans, and the settlers were all determined that they would be Presbyterians. The Anglican minister preached a Presbyterian sermon and everybody was happy. The Ecumenical movement lasted for 30 or 40 years until the Presbyterians were wealthy enough to send to Kingston to get their own Presbyterian minister. Then all hell broke loose. That church needs to be sandbagged to keep it up. It is a structure of beauty. It is an old, stone church with lovely windows and fixtures. The congregation has moved away. The church stands in a commanding spot on a beautiful curve on the bank of the Red River. In a few years that church will be nothing but rubble unless a few interested people in my part of the world can hook themselves to an organization that has sufficient means to help them preserve that heritage.
What would be the criteria under which this Canadian Heritage Foundation would judge historic sites and their significance? It is bewildering. When I wander around Saint John, New Brunswick, suddenly I feel the United Empire Loyalists come alive. That is no mean feat, because my ancestors were not United Empire Loyalists. Although I have no particular affinity toward them, this is what I feel when I am in Saint John. Port Royal,
[Mr. Osler.l
although a reconstruction, is a good one. I can almost feel Champlain and his merry men there. Fort Henry has been taken over by the provincial government, as a tourist attraction I suppose. It is a good one. But from the point of view of the federal government it could easily have become the ruin toward which it was heading a few years ago.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I have had the pleasure of boating on the Rideau Canal. All one has to do is spend an afternoon reading the historical background on the life of Colonel By, look at some of the stones on the banks of the Canal and at some of the wooden gates to understand the wonderful craftsmanship, engineering skill and workmanship which went into this project. What a crime it would have been had all this been allowed to go. It was nearly let go down the chute; I gather it was only a few years ago that the federal government decided it was worth preserving. Things of this sort are not built today, and they must be preserved.
Go to Batoche on the banks of the Saskatchewan River late in the afternoon and look at the graves of the Metis who were killed in their last, misguided stand against the encroachment of the federal government. Then go into the little church and see the Sunday school notice. The same names are on it as are on the graves, the names of those who died at the battle of Batoche where the dreams of Riel were finally torn asunder.
Not more than two weeks ago I went through MacLeod, Alberta, where there is a reconstruction of old Fort MacLeod. Every Canadian should look at this and ponder over the great feat of the first Mounted Police detachment which headed west and made sure that the whisky traders and the opportunists were held down or stamped out and that the settlers and the Indians who lived there got a relatively square deal.


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


John Leroy Skoberg: I have no intention of talking out this bill, Mr. Speaker. I hope the motion comes to a vote before six o'clock. The party to which I belong deems it a pleasure to support the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) at this time. I am sure that most of us who have travelled throughout this country realize the desirability of seeking to preserve our heritage in one way or another. All of us have
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
received letters from people asking that we pass legislation which would set up a Canadian Heritage Foundation. In wishing to preserve their heritage, Canadians realize that it was our fathers and forefathers who built this great nation. As Members of Parliament today we owe it to them and to the Indians, Metis and Eskimos to set up a foundation which would preserve those things about which we feel so sincerely.
We realize that today things are moving at a rapidly increasing pace and that monuments from our past are in increasing danger of being swept away. In these circumstances we owe it to those who came before us to set up a foundation, as suggested by the hon. member, to preserve these things in the manner so ably spelled out in this bill. I have no doubt that all hon. members wish to support the measure. I realize, of course, that very seldom can a private bill of this kind count on universal support, and I therefore ask that all of us join in supporting this motion in the name of all those who have gone before us.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to support the motion advanced by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts). At the risk of sounding parochial, I would point out that the first Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, came from my area. In this community many buildings were constructed by that gentleman. Later, to commemorate his life, it was decided to erect a statue. It was a beautiful memorial but I remember thinking how much better it would have been had we been able to preserve at least one of the buildings he had built in the community, for example, the county court office or the registry office. For this reason alone I support the bill sponsored by my hon. friend. I regret that lack of time will not permit me to make the other points I had in mind.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Honey) wishes to contribute to the debate.
I must point out to the House that during the course of the discussion I have had an opportunity to study the provisions of the bill before us and I have the gravest possible doubts as to its admissibility. I did not want to interfere with the debate after it had been 22375-471
DEBATES	7355
Water Resources Programs launched, but I must say now that when the bill comes back on the next cycle, before allowing it to go further I should like to hear procedural argument.
For the benefit of hon. members I would indicate the areas in respect of which the Chair has misgivings. I would draw attention to clause 4 which provides for the setting up of a board of directors. I have reviewed clause 6 and clause 7. It seems to me that the achievement of the objects of the foundation would require the expenditure of money voted by this House. I notice that in clause 8 reference is made to the maintenance of a fund, and that in clause 9 it is stated that the foundation shall maintain a reserve fund. In my view, this bill is a money bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whose money?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am, of course, prepared to hear argument the next time the measure comes before us.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.


An hon. Member:: The Speaker talked it out.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[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, and motion No. 11 (Mr. Aiken).
Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we were discussing at five o'clock was one moved by my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). This amendment was considered for only a few minutes at one of the last
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs meetings of the committee, and if you will permit me I should like to read it again; it is very short. It seeks to change the wording of clause 13 (3) in these terms:
"(c) undertake the collection of effluent discharge fees prescribed to be payable by any person for the deposit of waste in those waters"-
The following words are to replace the existing words:
-"but in no case shall an effluent discharge fee be collected for the deposit of waste in respect of any project commenced after the establishment of the agency."
This amendment simply means that no new industry-I suspect it also includes a municipality or any other body-shall allow its waste to contaminate any waters after this act comes into effect. In other words, if a factory is established in a water management area, or for that matter in any area where there is water, it will be required to instal the necessary equipment to prevent pollution of those waters by its waste.
This has been referred to as a factory fence amendment and is something that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) espoused a while ago. Indeed, he has been talking about it for some time. In the amendments introduced by the minister to the Fisheries Act there is clearly enunciated the principle that an industry will have to instal the necessary equipment or will be required to show proof of such installation before being allowed to discharge its effluent into any body of water.
This has relation to the point we were discussing before. Two of the major bills dealing with pollution-there are others

the Canada Water Act and the Fisheries Act, are quite different one from the other. One provides much stronger measures with respect to effluent that is discharged into waters, which is what this particular amendment deals with. However, one wonders exactly which minister is in charge of pollution control and who is going to win this battle between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and the Minister of Fisheries. I suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should return as soon as possible and straighten out these ministers. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been arguing that the polluter must pay. I shall in a moment deal with that question in greater detail. He seems to be quite concerned about making headlines and is pretending that he is really going to do something about pollution. On the other hand, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry seems to be the one who is really
[Mr. Comeau.l
concerned about the matter and is doing something about amending the Fisheries Act.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This point was referred to when we discussed standards under the previous amendment. Again let me refer to the standards mentioned in the Fisheries Act. In the bill before us the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not showing a strong hand. So we have these two ministers disagreeing and this amendment brings it to light. They disagree regarding the method by which effluent discharge fees should be applied.
It is interesting to note what happened in the committee and the reasons the committee members gave for not supporting this amendment. On page 27 of the twenty-seventh report of the committee meeting of May 4 a government member, in speaking against this amendment, said the following:
-and it would discriminate against new industries attempting to get established.
This is the way he explained his opposition to the amendment.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member give us the page number and the date of the meeting of the committee?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Page 27 of the twenty-seventh report of the committee meeting of May 4, 1970. This appears in the first paragraph on the page, to be precise. I did not name the member because I do not know his constituency. This is the argument that he used for not supporting the amendment: he said it would discriminate against new industries attempting to get established. This simply means that we should not be as strict with established industries on one of the water basins as with new industry, and therefore we cannot apply the same criteria to new industries as we do to existing industries. The same argument was advanced by another committee member. Those were the only two members on the government side to refer to the amendment. The other member said:
If you establish a procedure that works for the benefit of those people existing on the waterway, it would be discriminatory and would prevent collecting funds in order to establish treatment facilities. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.
The two members used the same argument, that it would be discriminatory. We say that a new industry that is allowed to locate on a
May 26, 1970

waterway should instal the necessary antipollution equipment in order to prevent pollution.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member referred to the committee proceedings of May 4 at page 27:28. I wonder if he would outline his point a little more clearly.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I stated the page number, which is 27:29. If the Parliamentary Secretary has the report of the committee of May 4 he will see that I quoted from the first two paragraphs on that page. The quotations are quite simple. I cannot explain my point more clearly unless I read the whole report of the committee, but of course I do not have time for that.
It is in those terms that the two committee members spoke against the amendment. I say that it is very simple, that they were not really interested in preventing further pollution but rather in letting newly established industry pollute the water as all other established industries have been allowed to do in the past. This is the argument they were really using, and it does not only apply to industry but to municipalities and other groups as well.
I suggest that these government members were not sincere. They really want the same old criteria and the same old anti-pollution measures that were applied in the past to be continued after this legislation is passed, because new industry establishing on a waterway would then not be required to install the most efficient and the best equipment necessary to prevent pollution. The bill was probably introduced merely for political purposes so as to make the people believe that the government is really doing something about pollution.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry obviously disagrees with what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his Parliamentary Secretary are trying to do. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is strong, firm and has a strong hand. He says, "I have the power". I respect that minister because he is not fooling around. But the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources goes to the United States, makes a completely irrelevant speech and gets all the headlines. He goes to another area, makes another speech and gets the headlines. Then he goes to a third area and makes another irrelevant speech which gets the headlines. He tries to do the same

Water Resources Programs with the Canada Water Act in order to get the headlines and make people believe that he is really doing something about pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary wishes to rise on a point of order.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: It has been rather interesting to listen to the hon. member across the way-


William Arnold Peters: What is the point of order?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to recognize the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but I must hear the point of order first.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will judge the point of order when I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the House at the moment is with relation to the effluent fees to be collected for the deposit of waste with respect to projects commenced after the establishment of the agency. I fail-perhaps I have missed something-to see any connection between the program and policies of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and the subject matter in hand. I suggest that the hon. member, who is making a rather interesting speech, is not really making a speech in respect of the matter before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary is one that has been raised on previous occasions, particularly yesterday. I can only reiterate what I said yesterday and appeal to hon. members to try to restrict their remarks to the amendment before the House. That, of course, is the procedure in which we are involved. Sometimes it is a little difficult for the Chair to determine what limits to establish as far as relevancy is concerned. I have tried to be as generous as possible but I would appeal to the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) to try to restrict his remarks to the amendment before us.


Louis-Roland Comeau: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry to substantiate my argument
May 26. 1970

Water Resources Programs and to prove the point I was making that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is completely wrong and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry agrees with me. I am just about to quote from an article. I will not even quote from a press release but will quote directly from Bill C-204, to amend the Fisheries Act. I should like to quote the explanatory notes on sections 33A to 33D, which read as follows:
Sections 33a to 33d are new. They would authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry to call for plans and specifications In connection with proposed construction, alteration or extension of works that will form part or all of an undertaking the operation of which will result in the deposit of waste in water frequented by fish.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This is what the minister says. He says we can call for plans. This is what the bill says: we can require an industry to instal the necessary anti-pollution equipment. This is exactly what this amendment says. We can say to an industry, "You will not be allowed to deposit waste." This is exactly what the Fisheries Act does. This is what we are trying to do-put some teeth into this piece of legislation. If you will permit me to quote from a newspaper clipping explaining this point, when the Fisheries Act was before a committee-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Louis-Roland Comeau: This is my speech and I am trying to substantiate the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that when an hon. member rises on a point of order, the Chair must hear him.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the relevancy of the evidence given before another committee of the House to this piece of legislation which is now at the report stage. I would question whether the hon. member is staying with motion No. 11 which deals with the question of effluent discharge fees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have been paying close attention to the remarks of the hon. member since the last point of order was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary and my interpretation of his remarks to this point is that they are in order. As the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates, I am exercising a certain latitude here but it is latitude that has been extended to all hon. members.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize I am hitting a senstive spot over there, but the only reason I am quoting the Minister of Fisheries is that the Minister of Fisheries is not allowed to come into this House and make a speech.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is making accusations against the Minister of Fisheries which I think are completely unfounded, completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with the context of this bill. If the Minister of Fisheries wishes to enter this debate, it is up to him to say so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me we are
in what amounts to a debate right now, and I think we should allow the hon. member for South Western Nova to continue.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have already had an experience like this when a member who wanted to speak to an amendment was not allowed to do so. We have to speak for the minister by briefly quoting what he said. This is exactly what the amendment deals with. It says:
-in no case shall an effluent discharge fee be collected for the deposit of waste in respect of any project commenced after the establishment of the agency.
That is to say, after this bill has come into effect. There is an article in today's Globe and Mail with a large headline, "Greene Expects some Pulp Mills to Close Down in Pollution Crackdown." There is a subheading, "Polluter Must Pay." Part of the article reads:
The ethic is always: the polluter must pay. Accordingly, in the event a plant decided to close rather than comply with orders to clean up, the plant would be on its own in weighing the economic pros and cons.
We ask: Why allow an industry to set up in a water basin and then force it to pay an effluent fee under this bill? It is ridiculous. The Minister of Fisheries does not want it. Why cannot this minister agree? We argue that a polluter must pay and that existing municipalities, if they continue polluting, will have to pay. But we say that new industries that are established should not be allowed to pollute. It is very simple for new industries to install the necessary anti-pollution equipment right at the start, rather than wait five or ten years and then be compelled to install it.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says that existing industries will have to comply and that they will have to
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
install the necessary equipment at this late date. For many years industries have been allowed to pollute. Now the minister says, "I am going to crack down on them. I want them to stop polluting. I am asking them to bring in the necessary equipment to stop pollution." Our position is that new industries should instal the necessary equipment at once. Then no pollution problem would arise in ten years' time.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent new plants from becoming polluters. The government refused to accept an amendment dealing with pollution standards and now we do not know by how much industries will be allowed to pollute. But we do know that they will be allowed to pollute on payment of a fee. They will not be required to establish the necessary equipment in their plants to stop pollution, as the Minister of Fisheries wants them to do. These are the two points I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make a speech and let us know exactly what this bill means.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have been surprised at some of the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to the fear that new plants may wish to locate in areas that are not water management areas. This is back to the old game of designated areas competing against each other. The amendment is an excellent one and the Parliamentary Secretary should consider accepting it. The idea of the factory fence amendment is a good one. I assumed it was original but I find it was advanced previously, and probably was not original even then because with politicians nothing is ever really original.
The Globe and Mail of August 7, 1969, quoted the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) as having said:
Pollution, in other words, must be stopped at the factory fence. It must be confined to our industrial plants themselves. It must not be allowed to spill out into our rivers or to pollute our seas. Instead, it must be limited to the scene of its own beginnings. It must not be allowed to get away. It must not be allowed to contaminate the wholesome environment in which we live.
This is one more minister of the Crown who indicates that a decision has been made that pollution must stop at the factory fence. To me this is a logical development. I have been told that it will cost $200 billion to correct all the pollution of our environment caused by industries and municipalities. It would be doubtful if at election time the government would suggest it had money in that
DEBATES	7359
Water Resources Programs quantity to eliminate pollution. Surely we are not going to say to a new company, "For a fee you can pollute." Will the fee go to the water management agency to enable it to clean up the pollution? If so, it is a pretty useless exercise to have the company provide the money with which to clean up pollution in a new area.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The Parliamentary Secretary is bright enough to know that eventually we are going to end pollution. We are certainly not going to allow it to continue. I do not think too many people would say that even with $200 billion we could end it overnight, so there would be a time lapse in any case. But we are saying, surely, that inevitably all companies now polluting the waters will have to find a way to cease and desist. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) is to the effect that plans will have to be submitted for new plants, no matter whether in a water management area or other area, and that no pollutant will be allowed to destroy the environment. This is logical, in my opinion.
This afternoon I used an example given me by one of my constituents who came from a European company. An article appearing in the Globe and Mail would lead me to believe that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has talked to my constituent, because in this article he points out that a similar situation developed in the very rich industrial Ruhr Valley. The minister is quoted as saying:
Take the situation in West Germany, for example. In the Ruhr Valley there are eight million people depending on the flow of a small river-small by Canadian standards-which is also supplying the needs of more than 40 per cent of all of the industry of one of the greatest industrial nations in the world. True, the waters of the Ruhr are being used over and over again. They are being processed and reprocessed. But where the Ruhr enters the Rhine, there is no toxicity. There is no oxygen overload. Fish can live and fish are present in large numbers.
In this article the minister also stated:
One pulp mill, if it is allowed to dump all of its effluent into fresh water, can do as much damage as a city of half a million people. One chemical plant, if it is careless, can destroy an entire fishery. But pulp mills can clean up their "white water". Chemical plants can recycle their wastes, sometimes recovering valuable by-products as well.
It is one of the myths of politics, added to by the politicians and the press, that on the positive side of the Trudeau government is the solidarity of cabinet. I wish there was
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs some solidarity of brains in the cabinet. As far as the Minister of Fisheries is concerned, he has solved the problem. Fish can make a very critical assessment of water environment. If the water is not reasonably pure, they die. It is easy for the minister to decide, that before a new chemical plant or a new pulp and paper mill goes into operation it must properly cycle its waste in order to maintain the purity of the environment.
If the cabinet has total solidarity, what gives the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) the right to decide that in waters not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry industry will have to pay a fine, in effect an effluent fee, to pollute. Why does cabinet allow this minister the luxury of pollution when other ministers say it has to be corrected and will not be extended?
Two government members of the committee were most fearful that there might be competition for industry as between one area and another because areas without water quality management in effect would permit pollution for a fee, whilst those with water quality management would not. Obviously no one in his right mind is going to build a plant in an area with water management control; he is going to build it in an unrestricted area. If this amendment is passed, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there will be no such advantage. The two committee members in all sincerity felt that they could not support this amendment because it might create just such a differential, but if the amendment is accepted no new plants will have the advantage of paying effluent fees: they will not be permitted to pay a penalty for dumping waste into our waters and will have to organize their plants in such a way that there will be no pollution. The minister will need to have a pretty good reason before he can convince me that there is any reason why this decision cannot be made.
It will cost money to solve our pollution problem, Mr. Speaker, but I would just as soon have that cost paid by the manufacturers who discharge waste products as I would have it paid from the taxes of the nation. Otherwise, those industries paying the effluent fee would be able to take advantage of the environment, perhaps even destroy the environment whilst at the same time asking the citizens to pay for the control and the clean-up of pollution that must eventually develop.
[Mr. Peters.1
Most people will agree, I am sure, that the minister is wrong and that this amendment is right.
This afternoon I said that the minister does not seem to understand the implication of some of the amendments. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary understands either, because he disagreed with the last speaker. I listened very carefully to the debate because 1 was interested in the remarks of the hon. member. I think he was on all fours with the amendment and understood the bill. The difference in the philosophy was an apparent one. Obviously the Parliamentary Secretary does not understand this. I do not feel that this piece of legislation will accomplish for the Canadian people what the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would like to see accomplished, that is, an environment free from contamination by industrial waste. I am sure we are all working to that end, Mr. Speaker.
In the area of new plants the views of the minister may have some merit from an economic point of view, especially the provision allowing for a period of time before existing plants have to change over. In the province of Ontario most of the pulp mills have already installed some pollution controls though Kimberly Clark were fined another $4,000 the other day and were given a limited time to install pollution control. If they do not, they will be out of business.
Now that the Ontario government has established a branch of government representing northern Ontario, they will probably be receiving periodic representations from people in that area who are well aware of the problem. I think pollution control will take place in industries already established. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a question as to the time element involved in making this change, and the economics of it, but there can be no debate that a plant just going into operation should not be allowed to avoid providing the known and easily installed pollution controls necessary for cleaning and purifying the environment. There can be no exception to that.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If it was the intention to pass legislation providing for a pure environment in water, I submit the Canada Water Act will be less than the public demands, less than it can reasonably expect and much less than it can afford. We cannot allow new industries to pay effluent fees. I suggest there is no alterna-
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
tive for those interested in the bill, be they on the government or the opposition side, than saying that this provision is intolerable. I am prepared to argue-there is precedent for my saying this-that in its present form the bill is not acceptable to the House because if we accept the principle of effluent fees we are contradicting the spirit of another bill which the House passed during the present session, to amend the Fisheries Act, which provides that no company can dump waste in certain waters over which the Minister of Fisheries has responsibility.


An hon. Member:: It has not yet been passed.


William Arnold Peters: As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are not allowed to pass legislation that is contrary to the spirit of another act in the same field. I presume that we can raise the same argument at third reading if the Parliamentary Secretary does not mend his ways and conform to the rules of Parliament.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The hon. member is becoming as bad as his leader when he asks us to mend our ways.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has not the authority to change this kind of clause.


An hon. Member:: He has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the minister?


William Arnold Peters: A colleague of mine says that he has the authority to make that decision. In any event, I suggest that he should ask for this clause to be stood in order that he may later return to the House with a government amendment along the lines of the motion of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. That would bring this bill into line with the provisions of the amended Fisheries Act, because no new plant would be permitted to pollute our environment.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, it may be unnecessary for me to say anything, although I ought to add an exclamation mark after the words of the previous speaker and especially after those of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau).


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Howard Lundrigan: I believe I heard the Parliamentary Secretary telling me to sit down. I will do that in about 25 minutes, if I may have an extension of time.
DEBATES	7361
Water Resources Programs
In the Middle Ages the people had what were known as indulgences. We call them the indulgences of the Middle Ages. Under those you could pay your money and sin away. You could "go to it." That custom, prevalent in the Middle Ages, has reared its head again in Bill C-144. I do not think the Canadian people realize the implications of this clause of Bill C-144. Some people wonder why it is necessary to have Bill C-144 at all; after all, there is before the House Bill C-202, the pride and joy of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), and Bill C-204, the pride and joy of Parliament, the Canadian people and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis).
I am speaking to the amendment referred to by the hon. member for South Western Nova and I raise the same questions as he did. For a century the big problem with the Fisheries Act was not that it did not have teeth but that it could not prevent pollution taking place. The minister told us that it had more teeth than we knew what to do with. May I illustrate my remarks by reciting a little story for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary. He may have heard of Long Harbour and the great phosphate complex of the ERCO plant on the east coast of Canada.
Before the government took action last year, the Canadian people had not heard that this plant was guilty of polluting. Before action could be taken the plant polluted the whole bay and killed the fish. Someone had to take these dead fish, examine them and identify the cause of their death as phosphate pollution before anyone could point a finger at the plant. Even then compensation was paid only because the plant agreed to assume responsibility for the pollution. I doubt very much if a case against the plant would have stood up in court. In that case the government allowed the plant to kill a whole resource before taking action, because no one had any power to prevent pollution. And what did the Minister of Fisheries do? Being an observant and astute parliamentarian as well as a Canadian, he introduced an amendment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Let me finish. He introduced an amendment in the form of Bill C-204. That amendment was a preventive measure. In the amendment he tells plants, "We want you to give us an indication of all your aspects of production so that we can determine whether you are capable of pol-
May 26. 1970

Water Resources Programs luting and so that we can prevent pollution." The bill will force plants to build the necessary machinery, the necessary safeguards, the centrifuges, the saddle-tanks and the recycling processes-I think that is the term they use-in order that pollution may be prevented.
I am beginning to wonder whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is allowing a piece of legislation which will be totally ineffective to go through in order that the Minister of Fisheries may assume responsibilities that the bill he is piloting through the House says he must assume. Perhaps we are all wasting our time; perhaps we should allow this legislation to go through. It is a comedy of errors. I do not know if Shakespeare could have done a better job on this bill than has been done by the law officers of the Crown, the minister or whoever is responsible for drawing it up.
I have read carefully every aspect of the bill. I see the Parliamentary Secretary sitting back cosily and assuming that the amendment will be voted down and that that will be the end of it. The intent of clause 13 is that the polluter shall be allowed to pollute; in other words, if you want to pollute, pay the price. If the river or lake you want to dump your waste into has reached a certain level of toxicity, you will pay a certain amount. If the level is higher, you will pay more. Even if that is not the intent of the legislation, I submit that it could very well take place under this clause.
My colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), introduced an amendment which would bring the provisions of this bill into line with the provisions of Bill C-204, as the hon. member for South Western Nova indicated. As a matter of fact, the only reason for our spending many hours on Bill C-204 was that we wanted a bill which would prevent pollution from taking place and which would prevent the polluter from polluting. The Minister of Fisheries says that you will not be allowed to pollute, that plants must give the government pertinent information so we will know whether there is a capacity for polluting and so the government will know whether it needs to take action. The provincial governments agree with this. But along comes the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and says: "No. Go ahead and pollute." There is something wrong here.
Somebody is making a mistake. The opposition of course, as usual, is on top of it and the government refuses to admit it is wrong.

I predict it is quite possible that government supporters will vote against this clause. If that is the case, we might as well accept the fact now. I think the hon. member for South Western Nova will be quite happy, because it seems the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is merely going through a legislative exercise.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The minister is going to have a bill without teeth. It is weaker than the act which we are amending. It is contrary to existing government policy. I say this because the government has amended this new legislation for fisheries and inland waters in order to prohibit pollution. The government is now introducing a bill which permits pollution. The government has two policies. I have not been in this House very long, so I am not very familiar with this kind of situation. Perhaps this is a typical approach of the government. One bill forbids pollution and another bill permits pollution.


Gerald William Baldwin: They have three policies.


John Howard Lundrigan: The House Leader indicates they have three policies. I am waiting for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to introduce his legislation with regard to pollution. Perhaps that will be the third policy. This is a very serious matter. There is one saving grace which has been adequately dealt with by the hon. member for South Western Nova. The Fisheries Act is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. This act is being amended by Bill C-204 which prevents the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from permitting pollution. Through the Fisheries Act the Minister of Fisheries can prevent the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from carrying out what his own law enables him to do.
Companies are permitted to pollute under clause 13 of the bill. Thank goodness the Minister of Fisheries can override that provision and not allow our water resources to be polluted. This raises the question of who has jurisdiction. This matter was raised several times in the committee. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources decides that a company can put such and such an amount of effluent into a stream, the Minister of Fisheries may not be satisfied with that; he may want higher standards and a guarantee that there will be no pollution. I suppose I should not tell the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the Minister of Fisheries
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
has taken this necessary step because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has brought in his own legislation. Bill C-204 empowers the Minister of Fisheries to place the matter before the cabinet for a final decision. It is not left in the hands of one minister. This is not very satisfactory but we have to tolerate it for the present.
If we vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka we are telling the Canadian people that there are two pollution policies, one of the Minister of Fisheries and one of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If this happens, the Canadian people will really be confused. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the members who are working on this legislation will advise their colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this amendment this evening but I was aroused by the outstanding oratory of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
This is an extremely important matter. I have great faith in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Orange). I find him an engaging fellow with great personal charm and intelligence. I am sure he will accept the logic of the arguments presented here and do all in his power to convince the minister that this is a sensible and logical amendment. I regard him as a very calm and well-controlled fellow, even an athlete. I was very disturbed to see him continuously rising on points of order throughout the speech of the hon. member for South Western Nova. I am sure we did not hear all that the member would like to have said.
I think it is fair to say that members of the opposition have spoken out on the matter of effluent fees per se. This amendment admits that the opposition has failed to be completely convincing on the matter of effluent fees. It attempts logically and intelligibly to at least prevent the establishment of new plants and outfalls which cause pollution. It also prevents them from continuing to pollute and adding to the build-up of pollution. Instead, it envisages that any new structures, municipal or industrial, shall take into consideration anti-pollution devices before plant construction so that there will be no increase in the build-up.
22375-48*
DEBATES	7363
Water Resources Programs
The whole question of effluent fees revolves around the local management agencies. This fact concerns me because to a large degree the effluent fees will contribute to the administrative costs of the local agencies. These local agencies may not have the necessary expertise. Once particular standards have been established for a basin, the staff and expertise necessary may not be available to take adequate sampling to ensure that their standards, perhaps unsatisfactory, are adhered to.
There has been a lot of discussion in the House this year regarding the problems associated with pesticides, mercuric and other forms of pollution. No mention has been made of thermal pollution, perhaps because of our preoccupation with chemical pollution. The river basins of other countries have had a great many problems with thermal pollution.
I wish to quote from the book "The Frail Ocean" by Wesley Marx. I intend to quote what happened on the Hudson with the Con Edison plant. There was a tremendous problem of fish-kill. This particular passage is by Robert Boyle:
You do not build a power plant on top of a spawning bed of an irreplaceable fish resource. I would no more think of licensing a plant for that area than I would of slaughtering sheep in my living room. It is just not the place.
If the kind of an'i-pollution measures or anti-persuasion measures contemplated in this bill through effluent fees are permitted for existing outfalls as well as new ones, there will be an addition to the total amount of effluent and possible contamination of our river basins. I represent a riding that borders on the Fraser River. My riding is very close to the mouth of the Fraser River. We are very concerned about the estuary of the Fraser River because of its importance in the development of fisheries resources. The problem there is build-up of pollution. Even if there was an agency on the Upper Fraser with certain standards that might be tolerated, there could be a build-up of pollution agents in the bodies of water which flow into the mouth of the Fraser River. A water basin agency on the Lower Fraser would be powerless to control this kind of situation. It would not be in a position to monitor this type of situation. If the introduction of effluent fees is contemplated, it should go hand in hand with the expertise and staff which would make an accurate assessment of the danger being caused.
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs [DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The ecological balance of the ocean is frail and critical. The estuaries, the tide-lands, are the most important part of the ocean as far as the breeding of fish is concerned. These are precisely the areas which are likely to be outside the scope of the powers of water management agencies. I should like to conclude with a further quotation from the same book:
There are two prime reasons why the world's fishing industry focuses on coastal waters: (1) their convenience and (2) the fact that estuaries make the coastal waters rich fishing grounds.
I feel there is a limit to the amount of pollution to which river estuaries can be subjected. To add to it by allowing new industries and municipal structures on these basins is bound to make matters worse. I am thinking of the survival of fish stocks. There are areas in this country beyond the scope of these management boards, areas which to my knowledge will not be monitored. I should like to be assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that industries which might locate, for example, in his own riding in the Northwest Territories will not be free to pollute just because they do not come within a particular water management area.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, to listen to hon. gentlemen opposite one would think they had a band of angels at their shoulders saying they possessed all the logic, all the reason. Like King Canute they are going to say, "Stop all pollution as of Monday."


Mark Willson Rose: He never said that.


Steven Otto: If they do possess all this logic and knowledge, then they have more than the government and more than the people of Canada. I invite them to read the preamble to the bill, which states:
Whereas the demands of the water resources of Canada are increasing rapidly and more knowledge is needed of the nature, extent and distribution of those resources, of the present and future demands thereon and the means by which those demands may be met-
And so on. Let us consider the amendment. It is said that no fee shall be charged. What will you do? You will have to set a date and say that after that date existing industry shall no longer pollute. As long as we live anywhere we shall pollute. We shall consume. We shall use water, eat food and use manufactured goods. Industries will always pol-

lute. The question is whether we shall condone this pollution or work co-operatively to process the polluted water so that it may be returned in the same state to the source from which it came.
Members opposite say there should be no fees payable and that pollution should be prohibited. What will they do about the city of Montreal and its raw sewage? What will they do about Toronto, Saskatoon and 16 other Canadian cities whose sewer capacities are not nearly large enough? Will you say to these cities, "You will not continue to pollute; you will stop and put up a barricade of some kind"? What will you do with the effluent? You can say, "Oh, well; you can look after it yourselves".
The Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) is now explaining to the Committee on Estimates that there is not enough money available. It may be that hon. members opposite are suggesting that this bill be enforced selectively; that cities be allowed to continue to pollute but industry may not. Or will they argue that new industries will not be allowed to pollute, though established industries may do so? It cannot be done this way, and if members opposite carried the responsibility which the government has to bear they would not persist in putting forward this amendment.
The purpose of clause 8 is to enable all the people of Canada to work co-operatively toward ending pollution. It is all very well for members on the other side to say they want complete prohibition. It has to be recognized that the government has a responsibility to keep industry operating, to find out more about pollution and to isolate the cost of pollution control, to confine it to the users of water who should be treated like the users of any other material.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on this important amendment. I, too, feel the amendment is a sound one and I endorse it. I agree it does not make sense to have one amendment in the Fisheries Act which seeks to prevent new industry from pouring effluent into our waters while passing a measure which permits this to be done in water quality management areas on payment of a fee. I do not believe anyone would oppose co-operation between various levels of government and industry in an attempt to clean up pollution, but I tell the hon. member who has just spoken that you do not clean up pollution by
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
allowing an industry to go on indefinitely paying fees to pollute a body of water.


Mr.   Olio@: An industry never pays fees indefinitely. They understand money.


Randolph Harding: If it is cheaper to go on dumping than to put in the necessary control equipment, industry will continue to dump pollution into the water. It is no use kidding ourselves or trying to kid the Canadian people on that score. This amendment is an attempt to have pollution stopped at the factory fence. It is an attempt to encourage industry to recycle the water it is using. This can be done. Just yesterday there was an article in the Globe and Mail showing that one industry has been most successful in cleaning up pollution by this method. In fact, the water which was used was too pure to be drunk; they had to add some minerals to it to make it palatable. Recycling has been carried out successfully in many types of industry. This is the approach we are advocating and suggesting that the government put in the bill. This is the reason we urge these amendments.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Having talked about standards, I do not think there is anything more stupid than allowing plants in the pulp and paper industry, for example, to follow standards that differ from one part of the country to another. This is what will happen under the present terms of the bill. You might have a dozen different water quality management areas with a plant in each area, and each plant will be subject to different quality standards. If anything is going to create pollution havens all across the country, it is this type of policy.
This is the reason we are urging the government to set national standards which are enforced nationally. Then plants in the same industry would at least know they would not be subjected to unjust competition from plants in other parts of the country. This is why we contend that letting these water quality areas set their own effluent fees and standards is no way to tackle the pollution problem that is facing Canada today. This is something that the last speaker, and also the minister and the government, have failed to recognize.


Steven Otto: We have different jurisdictions, you know.


Randolph Harding: Let me get on to this question of effluent fees. There are no effluent fees paid by plants that are outside a water quality management area. They will pay not one
DEBATES	7365
Water Resources Programs penny; they are home free. Plants in the north where there are no water quality management areas will not have to pay to clean up their pollution. They can pour their effluent into the rivers, and down it will run into the bays and gulfs to destroy the ecology of coastal areas and of our lakes and streams. We have been trying to bring home to private members in the government ranks the fact that water quality management areas will not cover more than 2 or 3 per cent of the total water area of Canada. This small proportion will be subject to control, but the rest will be completely outside the water quality management areas. Plants located outside these areas will not pay one penny by way of effluent discharge fees.
Hon. members opposite say that this is the program of the Liberal party, but I say that we do not go for it. We want national standards, and we want national standards enforced on a national basis. We do not want industry in British Columbia to be subjected to unfair competition from industry in Newfoundland or any other area. This is the position we are taking and we think it is a sound one. I think the amendment is a good one, and it is my intention to endorse it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Barnett (for Mrs. Maclnnis) moved:: 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 numbering clause 18 to read 18(a) and by adding the following subclauses:
" (b) After January 1, 1971, no person shall manufacture for use or sale in Canada any cleaning agent or water conditioner that contains any phosphates or other prescribed nutrients.
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs
(c) After January 1, 1972, no person shall sell in Canada any cleaning agent or water conditioner that contains any phosphates or other prescribed nutrients."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), who is attending to other business relating to this Parliament, I have the pleasure tonight of moving this motion on her behalf. As hon. members know, the hon. lady has been taking a very active interest in the whole question of the impact of phosphorus into the waters of Canada over a considerable period of time. The Hansard record is replete with questions she has raised and references and speeches that she has made on the subject.
Indeed, prior to the introduction of this bill she went so far as to place a bill in her own name on the Order Paper to provide in the Criminal Code that the manufacture and distribution of phosphate in detergents should be made a criminal offence. While this approach as suggested in her bill is not under discussion at the present time, nevertheless the question of banning phosphates is, in effect, the subject matter of the amendment that we now have before us.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway indicated the other evening to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) when she spoke on this bill prior to her departure, this is one aspect of the bill which in general terms we would welcome being added. Indeed, as I listened to the debate this evening, were it not that at this point we are considering the first amendment at the report stage relating to Part III of the bill I would have been very inclined to rise in my place and move the adjournment of the debate. I say that because I think we would be much better off without Parts I and II at all.
I have in mind the fact that some discussion has taken place about the Fisheries Act, the amended version of which was distributed to us just today. I should like the House to give prior consideration to that bill before reaching a conclusion on Parts I and II of this bill. I think following our discussion of that bill, some of the hon. members opposite, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Orange), might come to a different point of view. I suspect some of his colleagues might help to do the convincing.
This amendment will put into legislative form a proposal which has been advanced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources,

namely, the setting of a deadline after which the use of phosphates in the manufacture of detergents will no longer be possible. Hon. members realize that clause 18 of the bill as drafted makes a prohibition but does not spell out any deadline. A few moments ago the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said that you cannot wave a magic wand and stop pollution overnight. No one in this House will quarrel with that statement. The amendment that we have before us is in effect a recognition of the fact that we cannot say right now that there will be no more phosphate detergents going into the waters anywhere in Canada.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
On the other hand, unless Parliament sees fit to take the necessary action to put a legislative deadline after which it will no longer be legal to manufacture phosphate detergents, I suggest we leave the government wide open to the various kinds of pressures that can develop which might be successful in convincing the government that for this, that or the other reason a further delay in implementing this part of the bill is necessary or desirable for some other reason than that concerned with the improvement of the water quality in Canada.
So I suggest that this amendment in effect will assist the government if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources means at all that he has been saying in this connection. If he is taking his own statements in this connection more seriously than he obviously has been taking some of his other statements, I suggest we are doing him and the government a favour, to say nothing of the beneficial results to Canadians, in putting forward this amendment and seeking to have it accepted by the House.
The question, of course, becomes quite complicated when one gets into the reason for this concern, which has come about rather suddenly, about the levels of phosphorus in various waters of Canada. The most noteworthy and glaring example of water deterioration is of course to be found in Lake Erie and most of the debate has centered around the situation there. It has been suggested that Lake Erie has become a dead lake. That is not quite correct, as was brought out in the examination of this matter in the Fisheries Committee. Lake Erie, far from being dead is suffering from an overabundance of a certain kind of life. These blooming algae are a form of life. It is their
May 26, 1970

overmultiplication that has created the situation where the lake and its uses have become less beneficial in many connections including, of course, the commercial fisheries which is one of the major concerns that I have as a member of this House.
So I think that in discussing this amendment and emphasizing the necessity for its incorporation into the bill it is right and proper to bolster the amendment by indicating some of the available evidence on the subject and the reasons why the removal of phosphorus as quickly as possible from Lake Erie and other waters of Canada is a pressing necessity.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last night spoke at great length about having consulted all the leading scientists on the matter of the maintenance of water quality, without naming a single authority when he was asked to do so. I suggest that had the Minister had a somewhat greater degree of exposure to the information and knowledge that is being disseminated by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, his speech last night might have taken on a very different tone from that which it did. In saying this I should like to pay tribute to the Fisheries Research Board of Canada and to the work that it has been doing over many years.
I suggest to the House that if one wants to have access to the best scientific knowledge available in the field of water quality, there is the source to which we should turn. Those of us who over a period of time have been members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries probably appreciate this fact more than do most members of the House, and very obviously more than does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Most of the information we have on the effect of phosphorus in bodies of water like that of Lake Erie has come about as a result of the kind of work conducted by the Fisheries Research Board.
I should like to pay tribute at this point to the team of fisheries research scientists from our freshwater research establishment in Winnipeg who spent some time at Burlington and participated in the scientific investigation into this question that was conducted under the aegis of the International Joint Commission, the subject of which has been set out in reports which are available to members of this House.

Water Resources Programs report to the International Joint Commission on the pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence River, because I think it can almost be called a little bible on this subject. I shall quote from it because I think this is the best way of dealing with the allegation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that we on this side of the House pay no heed to scientific findings in the matter of maintaining and improving the quality of our waters.
The report at page 69 indicates that the most serious water pollution problem in the lower Great Lakes having long-term international significance is the increasing eutrophication of the lakes. It goes on to discuss how this has come about as the result of the luxurious growth of algae and other plants in these waters, and makes it clear that this has happened as a result of the increasing input of fertilizing nutrients from municipal sources, industrial wastes and land drainage.
o (9:30 p.m.)
On the same page it is pointed out that phosphorus and nitrogen are recognized as important nutrients responsible for eutrophication. Then it goes on to discuss the question of just what causes this condition to develop within a body of water. Their findings indicate that in most natural waters the growth of algae is controlled more by the supply of phosphorus compounds than nitrogen compounds. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is quite familiar with the fact that phosphorus and nitrogen compounds are a very important source of plant growth on land. This report makes it clear that they are equally important as nutrients in the growth of life in the water. But from their research they emphasize that the phosphorus element seems to act as a catalyst, so to speak, with respect to this luxurious blooming of the algae. The report makes it quite clear, as a result of investigation by these scientists, that if the phosphorus elements can be removed, this growth will be greatly retarded. It goes on to discuss the factors involved in nitrogen enrichment and points out that if they could effectively remove the increasing input of phosphorus compounds, this over-eutrophication of the lake would begin to cease and that probably in a period of time the situation would correct itself.
I would like to base most of my argument The report also makes clear-I refer hon. on this amendment on the evidence that is members to page 71 for this information- contained in volume 1, the summary of the that when it comes to taking action to re-
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs move this over-enrichment by nutrients, fortunately, in view of the catalytic effect of phosphorus, it is much easier and more practical to remove phosphorus than it is to remove nitrogen. Mr. Speaker, I think this makes the whole question of the introduction of Part III of this bill logical and necessary. The amendment which I am discussing on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway seeks to strengthen the purpose of this part of the bill and to set a deadline so that we know that after a certain date action will be taken that will begin to rectify the situation as soon as possible.
The report does make clear, of course, that sources other than phosphate detergents are involved in the enrichment of the lakes. One of them is drainage from agricultural land. I hope that one of the activities of the Department of Agriculture in coming years will be the development of better techniques of controlling the leaching-out of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, from the soils of the drainage basins into the waters of Canada and that this element will be reduced. But this is something that cannot be done quickly or easily. It is, therefore, more in the nature of a long-range project and I would not suggest that all the farmers of Canada should be immediately ordered to cease using commercial fertilizers which assist them in raising bountiful crops.
Mr. Speaker, the main source of pollutant going into the lakes is municipal and industrial waste which carries phosphorus compounds, and of course another source is human sewage. The report makes it quite clear, and I quote from page 77, that-
If all phosphorous were removed from detergents and 95 per cent removed from municipal and industrial wastes by 1986, the total phosphorous loading to Lake Erie in 1986 would be only 37 per cent of what it was in 1967. Although there are no data on the total loading to Lake Erie in earlier years, there is evidence that mean phosphorous levels in the western basin increased about threefold from 1942 to 1967.
One of the facts that was brought out in the Fisheries Committee when we questioned our fisheries scientists on this matter was that in this period a rapid increase in the use of household and other cleaning detergents containing a high element of phosphorus compounds took place. So I think it is quite clear that the principal enemy in this increasing rate of pollution has been the use of phosphorus compounds in detergents. It is quite clear from everything that the report implies that it should be

brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. If one studies some of the graphs and tables in this report it becomes very apparent that the rate of increase is alarming. Hence the increasing concern that something be done about the problem.
The phosphate-producing detergent manufacturers have recently questioned whether the removal of phosphates would in fact be effective in this area. One of the reasons I have referred to this report is that it makes clear in a balanced way that phosphate detergents are not the only source of the eutrophication that is taking place, but they are the increasing source and they are the source that can be most easily removed. Their argument that we should wait until we have carried out more scientific investigations to see whether or not nitrogen is doing the damage is given the lie by the very text of this report, and they have not advanced any kind of counter-scientific evidence that over balances the weight of the findings of the report.
Of course, one has to think of the relative effect of phosphate detergents and phosphates that are carried into the lakes by human sewage. The question of costs enters into this picture. I refer to page 79 of the report where it says:
-it is estimated that treatment costs for phosphate removal at sewage treatment plants would be reduced by a half to two-thirds by removal of phosphates from detergents. At the present time 70 per cent of the phosphorus in municipal sewage in the United States and 50 per cent in Canada arises from phosphate-based detergents, the overall basin average lying close to that of the United States.
This, of course, at least in part arises because the volume going into the lakes is much higher on the American side of these international waters than it is on the Canadian side. While the report does make clear some of the things that should be done in regard to upgrading domestic sewage-treatment plants, it also points out the high capital cost of doing this and goes into the whole question of operating costs. Their considered view is that if we were to stop adding phosphate-laden detergents to municipal levels of sewage tomorrow-though this is not what the amendment is proposing-the treatment costs for plants that should be developed would be reduced by a half to two-thirds. When one is talking of the cost involved, one is talking about billions of dollars over a period of time in order to bring sewage systems on both sides of the lakes up to modem standards.
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The cost figures are rather interesting, Mr. Speaker. The report paints out that in the Lake Erie basin the annual cost of phosphorus removal from sewage treatment plants on the Canadian side would be $1.21 million. In the total basin the cost in Canada would be $6.62 million and with the removal of detergents the cost would be reduced by $5.21 million. In other words, with the detergents it would cost over $6 million, and without the detergents the operating cost of treatment plants would be $1.4 million annually. We are dealing with significant figures if one considers the financial plight of municipalities at the present time and their complete inability, under the existing policies of senior levels of government, not only to assume the capital costs of improving their plants but to face the additional operating costs that would result from treating sewage which still contains phosphate-carrying detergents. The report summarizes this situation by saying:
Replacement of phosphorus by an environmentally harmless substance in detergent formulations will achieve an immediate reduction in total phosphorus inputs.
It goes on to explain that in addition to these costs and the pollutant effect of sewage emanating from sewage treatment plants, there is a large additional drainage into the lakes from non-sewered areas or areas with a combined storm and sewer system such as exists in large parts of Toronto. The capital cost of modernizing such systems would run into hundreds of millions of dollars.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Is this the same speech?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This certainly will not be done overnight. In addition to the places where they have such facilities, removal of detergents would reduce the phosphate input from the non-sewered areas and the inadequately sewered areas. If one examines this report, Mr. Speaker, it becomes apparent how urgent it is that effective action be taken at the earliest possible moment to bring an end to this situation which is highlighted by what is happening in the Great Lakes area and what is happening to a greater or lesser extent in other parts of Canada.
It is with a view to strengthening this bill with a clearcut deadline, so that everybody concerned would know exactly where they stand, that my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway placed this amendment before the House for considera-
DEBATES	7369
Water Resources Programs tion. It should be obvious that with this kind of amendment giving, teeth to the proposal already in the bill, effective action would be taken because the manufacturers of detergents obviously want to sell them. One only has to look in any supermarket to see the variety of brands and the new brands constantly being brought forward, with added this and added that, to know how interested they are in selling their products.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You only have to watch the TV commercials.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) says one only has to watch the TV commercials, but I try to do that as little as possible. I am certain that if this deadline is enacted the housewife of Canada will not suddenly be left without anything for washing clothes or cleaning the floors. I feel it is in the interests of the Canadian people, and indeed in the interests of manufacturers of cleaning products, that Parliament clearly express its will by saying, "Get started now. Let's not have any shilly-shallying about this matter". We must make sure that as of the date proposed, these deleterious substances will no longer unnecessarily be moving into the waters of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, we have now got into the question dealing with phosphates in the Canada Water Act, which was not there when the bill received second reading. This amendment would add a completely new phase to the bill and goes very much beyond the original intent of the bill. However, since everyone was anxious that legislation should be brought in concerning phosphate detergents, the committee agreed to give the minister power to regulate the control of phosphate detergents and any other nutrients. I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment gives me more difficulty than any we have had to the bill. I have every sympathy for the purpose of the amendment and the hon. member who introduced it. She would prescribe in advance a prohibition on the use or sale in Canada of phosphates in cleaning compounds.
It was brought to our attention time and again in committee by the various witnesses that study and research on the whole matter of algae growth and the effects of phosphates,
May 26, 1970

Water Resources Programs nutrients and carbon is still unsettled and is still being carried on. Phosphates from cleaning detergents provide only a small proportion of the phosphates found in waste water. There is still a good deal of doubt whether the removal of phosphates from cleaning agents would materially affect algae growth. On the other hand, there is very clear evidence that phosphates in detergents are a contributing factor and can be controlled.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It is difficult to know, from the state of research at the present time, what timetable with respect to a phosphate ban is possible. I would prefer the minister to set up his own timetable. However, the minister has verbally stated his intention as to the regulations and this amendment is introduced to make sure that the minister does what he says he intends to do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He changes his mind so often.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As the hon. member says, he changes his mind so often. He says so many things and then reverses himself within a matter of weeks. It is therefore hard to tell where he stands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is like a weather-vane.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We cannot tell what regulations he may bring in. I very much regret that the committee which studied this bill refused to hear the representatives of the detergent industry on the question of phosphates in detergents. When the representatives of ERCO, which manufactures phosphates, wanted to come before the committee to discuss phosphates, the part we are now considering was not included in the bill and those people had nothing specific to discuss. Following the bringing in of this part of the bill the committee decided that it would not hear the representatives of the detergent industry, the soapers as they are called, even though they requested a hearing.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Will the hon. member permit a question? To clarify the record, I wonder if he would tell the House when the soapers, so called, made their request to be heard before the committee?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: They made their request after the committee had decided to hear no more witnesses and after Part III of the bill had

been introduced. That is what I consider unfair. Part III was introduced in order to limit the use of phosphate detergents. I feel that we should have heard these people. They were the accused and in effect stood in the dock, but we refused to give them a hearing.
I do not care what the Parliamentary Secretary says about timetables; we refused to give them a hearing and we ought to have heard them. Many people on the committee felt we did not need to hear them and that we knew all about the subject. I do not feel that way and this causes me some difficulty now. That is why I am hesitating somewhat, although I hasten to say that after all my agonizing I will support the amendment. I will say why in a minute. Nevertheless, I feel that we ought to have heard these people. We should have heard what they know about the effects of phosphates in detergents; what they think they can do about putting other ingredients in their product, and so on. We ought to have heard them, but we did not. That is a matter of regret. I will leave it at that. I feel less than qualified to form an opinion on this matter. I know many people thought that the representatives of the detergent industry were trying to push their luck too far, that they were the guilty people, and so on.
I also admit that only members of the official opposition on the steering committee agreed to hear these people or wanted to hear them at all. I will go no further. I do not feel that all the information was before the committee and, certainly, not all the information is before the House at present. For that reason I have some difficulty.
My second reason for having difficulty is that I am not sure whether the banning of phosphates will achieve the result we hope for. I am not sure that I want to go as far as the hon. member who has introduced this amendment. This amendment is a ban. It is not a reduction; if passed, it would constitute a ban. It proposes the banning of the manufacture of phosphates after January 1 of next year and the banning of the sale of phosphate detergents after January 1, 1972. I feel that these proscriptions are very severe and I am not sure that I want to go that far. However, the latest report of the International Joint Commission convinces us that phosphates are a very serious cause of pollution in the Great Lakes and will be in many other waters. Consequently, although not exactly sure of what regulations may be put into effect and realizing that this amendment is very severe, on
May 26, 1970	COMMONS
balance I think it would be better if we were to support it in order to bring about a timetable which the minister could meet. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I shall support the amendment, although with some hesitation, when we come to vote on it.


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


Randolph Harding: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member calling it ten o'clock?


An hon. Member:: You have a minute left. Continue your filibuster.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: We are trying to improve the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is now ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 28, I put the following question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro):
In view of the fact that Canada has been awarded the Olympic games for 1976, will the minister state whether his department is taking action to implement the proposals in the white paper on amateur sports so that our Canadian teams will be properly prepared?
A few weeks ago the International Olympic Committee paid Canada a great honour by picking this country to be the host country for the 1976 summer Olympics. I must say that great credit goes to the city of Montreal administration, and in particular to Mayor Dra-peau who is one of the greatest salesmen Canada has ever produced. I now come to my greatest concern.
While we may have one of the greatest salesmen, I am concerned that we might not have the best prepared and most competent teams in this field. There is no need for this. Canada is a country with a healthy and competitive young population. We are a sports-loving country and more and more Canadians
DEBATES	7371
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion are taking part in numerous amateur sports. We have many participants in minor leagues and school leagues at the high school and college level. We have old timers' leagues and business and industrial leagues in many sports -softball, hockey, curling, football, touch football, golf, tennis, soccer, rugger, swimming, skiing and so on. But all this participation has not produced people who could play on our national amateur teams. It is true that we have our Nancy Greene, Betsy Clifford, Elaine Tanner, Bev Boys, Bruce Kidd, Harry Jerome, Bill Carruthers and our national equestrian and national bobsled teams, but these have been bright stars in a rather uneven national performance.
The purpose of my intervention at this time is to encourage the minister and the federal government to give every possible support to our national amateur athletic organizations. A few months ago the minister produced a very constructive white paper on amateur sports. There is much in the white paper that could be helpful. I would like to know from the minister or his Parliamentary Secretary if he has authority to implement that white paper, and what progress he has made. I want to encourage our government to help with this program, not just because of the medals we could win but because of the great lift this could give the Canadian people and the basis it would provide for bringing Canadians together in a great national effort, meeting and competing in a friendly way with all nations of the world.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I remember the great pride we had when Nancy Greene and Anne Heggtveit won their medals. There was a great expression of national enthusiasm. There was even this enthusiasm when our horse Northern Dancer won the Kentucky Derby. I remember people watching their television sets and cheering for Canada, with the hope that this famous horse held out. Let us make sure that we have this enthusiasm often. Let us start with Munich in 1972 and reach a peak in Canada in 1976. We have to start now, Mr. Speaker. The Olympics in 1976 can be a great event for Canada. They could be a much greater event if we produced highly competitive and well prepared teams.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say in reply to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) that the sports policy for Cana-
May 26, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion dians is designed to increase the participation of all Canadians in sports and recreational activities so that all can derive the greatest benefit. The Department of National Health and Welfare is actively pursuing the proposals presented by the minister on March 20, 1970.
Sports and national associations are being invited into the National Administrative Centre being established in Ottawa. Priority ratings for sports based on the criteria of participation, potential for competition and nature of the activity have been set. These were announced by the minister on April 24, 1970. Plans for the implementation of sports scholarships are being studied and a program of achievement awards, recognizing the ability of young Canadians, is presently in the hands of the provincial authorities for their consideration. Finally, the proposal for Canadian Olympics contained in the proposed sports policy will be pursued once the National Administrative Centre for Sports and Recreation is established and the sports associations are available for consultation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Department of National Health and Welfare is well on its way to implementing the sports policy for Canadians, a policy that will benefit not only the top athletes who will represent Canada in the summer Olympic games in Montreal in 1976 but will also be of benefit to the physical well-being of all Canadians.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-RESPONSIBILITY FOR AIRCRAFT SONIC BOOMS OVER LENNOX COUNTY

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I thank Your Honour for giving me the opportunity of raising this matter tonight. On May 7, as recorded at page 6681 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of National Defence or the Parliamentary Secretary. It results from a long-standing nuisance in the southern part of my riding. There has been a recurrence of sonic booms which in past years resulted in considerable damage in the form of cracked masonry and broken windows for which the government has avoided paying so far.
The actual question reads:
-are Canadian forces planes the cause of the recent frequent and harmful sonic booms which have been taking place over the communities of Bath, Conway and Sandhurst in the southern part of Lennox county?
As Your Honour will note, there was a certain amount of hilarity and levity accom-

panying my question from members on the government side. This is no laughing matter. As early as 1964 I received complaints from houseowners in the village of Bath claiming damage to their footings, foundations, masonry walls, and windows by sonic booms. This was caused by either Canadian or American armed forces' planes practising and training, under NORAD, over Lake Ontario and/or its shores.
Sonic booms can be very harmful, destructive and damaging. The most recent damages were reported on May 6 by houseowners a little further west of Bath along Highway 33. Windows were broken and walls were cracked at Conway, Sandhurst, and in southern parts of South Fredericksburgh township. For those who have never experienced one, let me define a sonic boom. Webster's dictionary defines it as an "explosive sound generated by the accumulation of pressure in a wave preceding an airplane travelling at or above the speed of sound (1,087 feet per second, or 741 miles per hour). Where this wave meets the ground the variation in pressure is experienced as a loud report, and agitation of objects at that point."
In other words, the air is compressed ahead of the airplane and when its trajectory hits the ground it shakes whatever is situated at that point like a dog would shake a rabbit. The tremendous pressure created strikes a house like a battering ram if it is in the line of trajectory. Now, in my complaints of other years to the Minister of National Defence, the incumbent of that time would assume no responsibility because he said planes of the United States Air Force might be responsible and that I would have to provide information as to the date, day, hour and minute on which damage was caused. This information is very difficult to obtain. Even in connection with this last complaint I sought this information but did not receive it.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of whether Canadian planes or United States planes caused the latest sonic boom damage on the night of Wednesday, May 6, at Sandhurst, NORAD is responsible. This is a joint operation and both nations, the United States and Canada, are jointly and directly responsible for all damage done by these combined forces at any time. Moreover, what a strange and ludicrous anomaly of circumstances we find when Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a Crown corporation, lends money to citizens to construct houses whose owners must bear the brunt and expense of needless
May 2S, 1970	COMMONS
damage created by another department of government, namely, the Department of National Defence which is destroying those houses. The patient people of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington resent this carelessness and I ask the government to put a stop to it forthwith. I ask the minister to issue instructions to the pilots of our planes and to their United States counterparts in NORAD to carry out their supersonic manoeuvres in some more sparsely populated place.


Mr. David Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly bring the remarks of the hon. member to the attention of the Minister of National Defence. I can assure him that it is not the policy of the department to avoid its responsibilities in matters of this nature, but we do need his help to establish the cause.
In reply to the representations which were made by the hon. member on May 7, the department will undertake to investigate the situation but it was my understanding that the hon. member would endeavour to provide essential information such as the exact date, the approximate time, the location, the nature of the damage and the names of individuals
DEBATES	7373
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion whose property had suffered damage from sonic booms. As you will understand, Mr. Speaker, information of this type is required in connection with any investigation, particularly one which involves aircraft which might belong to one country or another.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
On receipt of this information the department was, and still is, prepared to undertake an investigation and to take appropriate action. To the best of my knowledge, the necessary information to initiate this investigation has not yet been received by the department. If the hon. member can possibly provide the information relating to this event, or any other similar event, he has the assurance of the department that every effort will be made to ascertain responsibility.
I should like to repeat to him in the presence of this House that it is not the policy of the department to avoid its responsibility, and he could help us reach a successful conclusion of this matter which troubles me as much as it troubles him.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.13 p.m.

Wednesday, May 27, 1970 The House met at 2 p.m.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in French and English-Mr. Duquet.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), for the following reasons:
1.	The delay in action by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to prepare and complete a report arising out of the Woods Committee recommendations is causing great concern and hardship to some nearly one million Canadian war veterans and their dependants.
2.	The committee has not met for four weeks and it appears obvious that the evident procrastination as to the reasons for the delay indicates the apathy and complacency of the government toward incapacitated and disadvantaged veterans who are in serious need of increases in order to meet the inflationary standard of living.
For these reasons my motion, if accepted, would be as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be reconvened immediately to submit its report to the House of Commons so that the necessary legislation may be passed before the end of the present session.


Mr. Speaker:: As is well known, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be proceeded with.



AERONAUTICS ACT REGULATIONS BILL


Donald Campbell Jamieson: for leave to introduce Bill C-218, respecting regulations made pursuant to section 4 of the Aeronautics Act.


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

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

Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	How many films were released for commercial exhibition in Canada by the National Film Board in each year since 1960?
2.	What exhibitors handled these films and in how many theatres in Canada were they shown?
3.	What audiences is it estimated saw these films?
4.	What rental fee was charged per film by the National Film Board?
5.	By year, how many of these films were feature films?'
6.	By year, how many of these films were short subjects?
7.	What was the cost of producing these films? [Translation]


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. 1960-61, 21; 1961-62, 26; 1962-63, 20; 1963-64, 25; 1964-65, 22; 1965-66, 29; 196667, 34; 1967-68, 35; 1968-69, 35; Total 247.
2.	During the period 1960 to 1969, a total of 1,700 theatres exhibited NFB films either occasionally or regularly. In all, nearly every theatre in Canada has used NFB films at one time or another during the period in question.

May 27, 1970
Questions
3.	The National Film Board does not maintain statistics on the size of audiences per film, per theatre. Using the known average number of showings, the average theatre capacity and the average ratio of capacity utilized (Dominion Bureau of Statistics), the following estimate is provided:
60 million Canadians saw NFB films in theatres during that period.
4.	The Board does not rent films directly to theatres. It sells distribution rights to commercial theatrical distributors who charge according to the normal practice in the trade.
The rates vary with the theatres, the locality, the potential attendance, etc. The National Film Board is satisfied that the rates paid for its films are comparable to rates paid for similar film from other sources.
5 and 6.
	Features	Shorts
1960-61	None	211961-62	None	261962-63	None	201963-64	3 (one version)	221964-65	1 original	211965-66	3 (2 versions)	261966-67	2 (one version)	321967-68	2 (one version)	331968-69 7. $6,330,085.	2 originals	33


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES OFFICES AND STAFF, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Moores: 1.	Where and how many offices does the Department of Fisheries have in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	How many people are employed by the Department of Fisheries in the Province of Newfoundland?
3.	What salary ranges are applicable and what are the gross numbers of employees in each salary range?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. The
Department of Fisheries and Forestry has some 29 offices in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador located in St. John's, Clarenville, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Labrador City, Bonavista, Burgeo, Carbonear, Port-aux-Basques, Grand Bank, Harbour Grace, Badger, Pasadena, Rose Blanche, Daniels Harbour, Englee, Gaultois, Ramea and Harbour Breton.

2.	Four hundred and five.
3.	Salary Range under $ 4000 $ 4001-	6000
6001- 8000 8001- 10000 10001- 12000 12001- 14000 14001- 16000 16001- 18000 18001- 20000 20001- 22000 22001- 24000
No. of Employees 5
189
37
3
3
2


MANPOWER OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What is the number of people who have received training under the Occupational Training Program of the Department of Manpower and Immigration since its inception?
2.	For what percentage of these people was the Department successful in locating employment?
3.	Has any follow-up study been made on these people and, if so, what is the percentage of these people still employed one year after finding employment?
4.	What were the costs to the Department of this program for each year that it has been in operation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Approximately 720,000 persons have been provided with training under the Canada Manpower Training Program, including part-time training, from the inception of the program on April 1, 1967 to the end of February, 1970.
2.	Precise statistics are not available. However a continuing follow-up survey of trainees instituted by the Department in 1969 indicates that 80 per cent of respondents are employed when surveyed three to four months after training. The remaining 20 per cent includes both those who are unemployed and those who have left the labour force. The survey also shows that only 40 per cent of respondents were employed before training.
3.	The survey has not been running long enough to provide the information requested.
4.	1967-68, $105,066,000; 1968-69, $189,967,000; 1969-70, $240,000,000 (Estimated).


CARTER ROYAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION
Mr. Saltsman: Since the publication of the Report of the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation, how many letters, postcards, telegrams, correspondence, etc., have
May 27, 1970

been received by the Government of Canada calling for the implementation of the recommendations of the Carter Commission?
Kon. Herb Gray (Minister wiihout Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, a precise count of the inflow is not available but it is estimated that more than 50,000 pieces were received calling for implementation of the recommendations of the Carter Commission.


CANADA MANPOWER SERVICE-ASSISTANCE TO RETARDATES IN FINDING EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What facilities, if any, does the Canada Manpower Service provide to assist retardates in finding suitable employment?
2.	How many retardates were offered referrals of employment by the Canada Manpower Service in the past fiscal year?
3.	How many such referrals resulted in placements and in what types of employment?
4.	Has there been any follow-up to determine the success, if any, of referrals and/or placements?
5.	What liaison, if any, does the Canada Manpower Service maintain with associations for the retarded with a view to assisting in the placing of retardates in non-sheltered types of employment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Canada
Manpower services does not provide special facilities for any particular group. However, certain Canada Manpower Centres, located near large provincial hospital training schools, maintain a close relationship with the institutions in relation to the placement of mentally retarded adults who are ready for referral to non-sheltered employment.
2.	It is not possible to give figures on the numbers of retardates offered referrals of employment by Canada Manpower Centres in the past fiscal year, because records of clients, according to handicap, are not kept.
3.	This information is not available.
4.	No.
5.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration maintains a close liaison with the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded and its provincial associations in a variety of ways.
The Department is represented on the Professional Advisory Council of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded. The Federal Government, through Agreements entered into with the provinces, under the provisions of the Vocational Rehabilitation
Questions
Act 1961, shares equally with them in the costs incurred in providing comprehensive rehabilitation services to handicapped persons. Almost all of the 114 adult training centres for retardates maintained by the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, benefit from this legislation through assistance with salaries of workshop personnel and payment of fees for assessment and work training. All returns for the 1969-70 fiscal year have not yet been received from the participating provinces. In the fiscal year 196869, participating provinces (all except Quebec) reported 481 retarded adults placed in fulltime employment through this resource. Approximately 1,000 additional mentally retarded adults were being prepared for fulltime employment in the community.
The Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded provides annual training courses in various aspects of rehabilitation workshop management. These courses are available to individuals working with all types of handicap. In the past fiscal year, the Department of Manpower and Immigration paid in excess of $27,000 to the Association for the provision of these training courses.


CNR RAIL SURVEYS, WESTERN LABRADOR
Mr. Peddle: 1.	Is Canadian National Railways now conducting rail surveys in Western Labrador?
2.	Have such surveys recently been conducted in Western Labrador?
3.	Have such surveys been conducted in co-operation with Quebec-Cartier Mining Co.?
4 What is the purpose of such surveys?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	International Consulting Division of Canadian National Railways has undertaken a railway location survey for the Quebec-Cartier Mining Company entirely within the Province of Quebec.
4.	The purpose of the location survey was to provide information for the preparation of a feasibility report and cost estimates for the construction of a proposed railway extension 88 miles long, to Mount Wright, Quebec, for the Quebec-Cartier Mining Company.
7378	COMMONS DEBATES	May 27, 1970
Questions
FEASIBILITY OF ORGANIZED LABOUR UNDER INVESTIGATION OF NWL FINANCIAL CORPO-ANTI-COMBINES LAW	RATION BY SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE


Mr. Robinson: Has the federal government considered the feasibility of bringing organized labour under anti-combines law?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In its Interim Report on Competition Policy the Economic Council of Canada in recommending that the per se provisions of a revised Combines Investigation Act be made applicable to all commercial activities including services stated that one of the major exemptions from this would be that which already exists in respect of bona fide trade union activities. In this respect section 4 of the existing Act provides that 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees'. In the revision of the legislation all matters covered by the Economic Council of Canada in its Report are being carefully considered.


UNITED STATES DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS
Mr. Noble: How many draft dodgers and deserters from United States have been permitted to enter Canada?


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


MOTOR VEHICLE SIDE IMPACT ACCIDENTS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to reducing safety hazards in motor vehicle side impact accidents by setting minimum strength requirements for side door structures?


Gérard Loiselle: After proclamation of the initial Canadian motor vehicle safety standards this summer, the evaluation of minimum strength requirements to resist side impact will be given high priority by my Department with a view to issuing an appropriate standard at an early date.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Has the federal Superintendent of Insurance investigated the recent acquisition of the holding company NWL Financial Corporation by the Residential Resort Developments Limited on Bahamas and, if so, what are the results of this investigation?
2.	Does Residential Resort Developments Ltd. have 30% of the ownership of NWL Financial Corporation which in turn holds 95% of the shares of Northwest Life Assurance Company of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The Superintendent of Insurance is investigating the effect on North West Life Assurance Company of Canada of the reported acquisition of a substantial holding of the shares of NWL Financial Corporation by Residential Resort Developments Limited. The investigation will continue but significant facts are as follows: (a) NWL Financial Corporation is a company incorporated in British Columbia and as a consequence no power exists under federal legislation to restrict the transfer of its shares, (b) Residential Resort Developments Limited is incorporated in the Bahamas and consequently is a nonresident within the definition in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. (c) If Residential Resort Developments Limited acquires control of NWL Financial Corporation, the latter will be regarded as a non-resident for purposes of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and will be unable to vote the shares that it owns in North West Life Assurance Company of Canada, (d) Residential Resort Developments Limited is recorded as owning enough shares of NWL Financial Corporation to be regarded as a substantial shareholder of North West Life within the meaning of section 33 of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. North West Life is therefore prohibited from lending to or investing in the securities of Residential Resort Developments Limited and is also prohibited from lending to or investing in any corporation in which Residential Resort Developments Limited has more than a 10 per cent interest.
2. Published reports have indicated that Residential Resort Developments Limited owns between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the shares of NWL Financial Corporation but the full extent of the holding is not yet clear since any recent purchases that may have occurred have not yet been reflected on the books of the latter company. Further investigation is therefore needed to determine the
May 27, 1970

full extent of the holding and the facts relating to control of NWL Financial Corporation.


KOREAN WAR VETERANS
Mr. Caouette: How many Korean War veterans are still alive and, of this number, how many receive (a) a pension for disability attributable to service (b) a veteran's allowance and, in each case, what is the total amount?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Preamble, information not available. (a) 1,993, $1,923,196; (b) 321, $500,605.


UNITED STATES DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS IN CANADIAN TEACHING PROFESSION
Mr. Noble: How many draft dodgers and deserters from United States are now employed in the teaching profession in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Since a person's military draft status in his own country has no bearing on his admissibility to Canada, no information on this subject is requested or recorded on immigration documentation. The Department therefore is unable to provide the statistical data required to answer this question.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Dinsdale: 1 Was the film "L'lnitiation" supported by funds from the Canadian Film Development Corporation and, if so (a) how much of the taxpayers' money was involved (b) what portion of the cost of producing the film came from non-public funds?
2.	What are the criteria under which CFDC operates in awarding public funds to assist with the production of private films?
3.	What other films have been sponsored by CFDC and what amount of money is involved in each case?
4.	How many films have been refused sponsorship by CFDC and what are the criteria used in refusing assistance to Canadian films?
Return tabled.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Government House Leader could say something about question 163 which has been on the Order Paper since October 23?


An hon. Member:: Which year?
Motions for Papers


John Edward Broadbent: I was given the impression some weeks ago that the answer would be available within a short period of time. I should also like to inquire about question 1449 which has been on the Order Paper since March 6. When can an answer be expected?


Gerald William Baldwin: "In due course".


An hon. Member:: "Soon".


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire when questions Nos. 770 and 773, both of which have been on the Order Paper since December 19, will be answered?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the answers to these questions should probably be given next week.
[Translation 1


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion papers No. 394 is acceptable to the government.


LOW-INCOME GROUP HOUSING-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CMHC AND POLYMER CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 394-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between CMHC and Polymer Corporation regarding the construction of housing for low-income groups in Canada as mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Housing in Hansard of March 6, 1970 at page 4465.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 354 and 454 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 354-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all the recommenda-
[Stage Direction]
May 27, 1970
Motions for Papers
tlons by all provincial governments on public housing in Canada as mentioned by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Housing and reported in Hansard of January 19, 1970 at page 2573.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 354 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 454-Mr. Barnett:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence received by the Postmaster General and his Department, and of replies thereto, on the subject-matter by amalgamating Sayward and Kelsey Bay post offices and of the naming of the amalgamated post office.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 354 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 157, 306, 374 and 400?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STUDY BY PROFESSOR G. PAQUETTE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 157-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Professor G. Paquette of Carleton University on Canada's Unemployment Insurance Program.
Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Professor G. Paquet of Carleton University participated as a member of a team reviewing long-term plans for the unemployment insurance program. The Unemployment Insurance Commission produced working papers as a basis for recommendations which are the subject of consideration by the government. These working documents were not designed

for publication but as a basis for developing proposals with the Minister of Labour. The substance of these proposals will be presented in the form of a white paper. On this assurance, perhaps the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre may wish to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to but I hope we will get that white paper soon.


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


SUBMISSIONS RESPECTING WHITE PAPER ON TAX REFORM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 306-Mr. Stanfield:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, submissions, commentaries, memoranda, briefs, petitions, protests, grievances, papers and other documents received by the Government of Canada in respect of the White Paper on Proposals for Tax Reform, including but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, material received, collected or assembled by the government pursuant to the invitation given and to the intention expressed in Chapter 1, paragraph 1, of the White Paper: "The government will welcome public discussion of the proposals, particularly in the parliamentary committee studying them. Detailed discussions are also planned with provincial government representatives." from the date the White Paper was tabled to December 17, 1969.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable to the government. Many of the documents disclose the tax or income position of individuals and companies. In the circumstances, the hon. member might agree to withdraw his motion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I call for a vote, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


NO. 97 INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION CIRCULAR
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 374-Mr. McCutcheon:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Unemployment Insurance Commission Circular entitled "No. 97 Insurance Contribution Circular dated January 28, 1970", together with a copy of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda or other data exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any other person in connection with the afore-mentioned Circular?
He said: Stand.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
May 27, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	7381
Inquiries of the Ministry
"OHONSAY" TYPHOID INCIDENT-EMPLOYMENT	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
STATUS OF DR. COX	

Motion No. 400-Mr. Baldwin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between Dr. Cox, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and superiors of Dr. Cox in the Department of National Health and Welfare about his employment status following the Oronsay typhoid incident in Vancouver.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to advise the hon. member that the material requested is privileged internal correspondence between officers of the department. The minister therefore is not prepared to table these documents and would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have had Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 32 on the Order Paper since October 23. Surely the Minister of Transport can indicate the functions and responsibilities of his department in less time than that. I wonder whether he could do something about it.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, there is a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers standing in my name which asks for the production of a report arising from the investigation into the towboat industry in British Columbia. Inasmuch as there is a strike in the industry at the moment and as the report reputedly deals with safety factors, which are of concern in the strike, I wonder whether the government would care to call the motion and produce the document, with the hope that it would contribute to the settlement of the strike by identifying the areas that are in dispute?


Mr. Mackasey:: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has requested a new forecast of the short-term prospects of our economy since the forecast upon which his budget estimates and budget speech were based? If he has requested such a forecast, can he say whether it shows a slackening in the prospects in the short term? I ask this question today especially in view of the statement reportedly made by the Chairman of the Economic Council in Toronto referring to uncertainties in the future.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, of course, yes. I am continuously seeking forecasts from my department as to what is happening in the economy. With respect to what the Chairman of the Economic Council said, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen those remarks and I cannot really be sure of what he said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did not ask the minister what the Chairman had said. I asked the minister if the forecast that he has requested reflected any further slackening in the economy compared with the forecast upon which the minister based his budget address?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would take time to read the budget address he would see that what was forecast in it is what has happened in the economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, in view of what has been happening, in view of statements concerning uncertainty and in view of the obvious change in the economic outlook, notwithstanding what the minister may suggest, he proposes to take any measures to restore some confidence and to show that the minister knows where he is going.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think you will have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, since he is now telling the House that he forecast everything which has happened to date, whether he will undertake to make a short statement forecasting what is going to happen from today on? It would be very useful.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall do so very soon.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, whom we are glad to see back in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the very considerable dislocation and unemployment on the Pacific coast which is being caused by the towboat strike, is it correct that the minister has a mediator there in the person of Mr. William Kelly? Also, can the minister give any information to the House as to what progress is being made and whether there is any immediate prospect of settlement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Mr. Kelly just a few moments before coming into the House and he was very encouraging about the meetings he has been attending with the union and management since Monday. Apparently they have been very fruitful. He is to meet again this afternoon with the union as well as with the B.C. Federation of Labour and has informed me that the climate is much more favourable than in the past.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the main difficulty does not seem to centre around wages nearly as much as around the manning and safety regulations, may I ask the minister if any agreement has been reached on safety and manning provisions to be included in the collective bargaining agreement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, although this matter comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, I do not think he will

mind if I inform the House that the meetings concerning such regulations in which labour participated last week were particularly fruitful. As Minister of Labour I am satisfied that the regulations being formulated will go a long way toward easing the differences of opinion between management and labour. Possibly they are the basis of Mr. Kelly's optimism.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I understand the agreement that was reached by the consultative committee dealt generally with ships under 1,000 tons but not with towboats. Has the minister any intention of providing additional regulations that will deal specifically with towboats and the problems of safety arising out of manning towboats?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have made some inquiries as a result of the last question asked by the hon. member on this score. I am satisfied that it is not particularly easy to make special regulations governing a particular kind of vessel because indeed this changes with the particular assignment for that vessel. I believe that when the new regulations are tabled they will illustrate that the result of the regulations we are now going to put into effect will in a sense create a separate category of regulations for towboats. I have also undertaken to take out of the total regulations those that apply particularly to towboats and to publish these separately. I hope to have a rough draft of at least some of these regulations by the end of the week, which I will be able to make available to hon. members.


FINANCE
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the restriction of consumer credit will slow down the demand for goods and services, thereby further reducing the steadily decreasing number of jobs that are available, can the minister assure the House at this time that the government does not intend to introduce legislation restricting consumer credit at this session?


Edgar John Benson: the government decides to change its policy on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I will announce it in the House.
May 27, 1970


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Does the minister not believe that, with the state of the economy at the present time and the uncertainty that exists, the country is entitled to at least one reassuring statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is argumentative.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is acting as Minister of Veterans Affairs today, but in view of the opposition of government members to the proposed motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe regarding veterans' pensions I ask the acting minister whether it is the intention of the government to announce increased pensions for disabled veterans and war veterans allowances at the Dominion Conference of the Royal Canadian Legion in Ottawa at the beginning of next week?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be available tomorrow to answer the question.
Som


a hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That is an example of the way this House is played with by these ministers. There are acting ministers. I want to know who the acting minister is and whether he has a reply. The veterans of this country cannot be treated with that contemptuous attitude.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the right hon. gentleman that I had no contemptuous attitude when giving that information.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if that was a natural attitude, then I certainly withdraw, but if it did not represent contempt I do not know what does.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is the acting minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no acting minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


RECIPROCAL PENSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It relates to a matter about which the minister gave assurances in November and January. Can he now report progress or success in the negotiations between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany regarding a reciprocal agreement respecting pensions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The last time I checked, and it was fairly recently, negotiations were still going on between Canada and West Germany. They were progressing fairly well but had not been concluded.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister inform the House whether the delay is due to difficulty in getting agreement from the West German authorities or whether there is some objection on the part of the government of Canada as to details?


John Carr Munro: I should prefer not to go beyond what I said in my previous answer. I believe the negotiations are now progressing reasonably well and that they will be completed shortly.


REQUEST FOR SMALLPOX VACCINE BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with aid to underdeveloped countries. The Connaught Laboratories is one of the top laboratories in the world manufacturing smallpox vaccine. It is my understanding that the World Health Organization has asked for some of this vaccine for storage in underdeveloped countries for emergency purposes. Why was this request by the World Health Organization refused?


John Carr Munro: The latest request has not been refused, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, Canada is a major contributor to the World Health Organization and to the United Nations development program. This is a request for additional aid. CIDA is

May 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry considering it in conjunction with my department and we hope to be in a position to give an answer shortly.


David Orlikow: Can
the minister tell us how long this request has been under consideration by his department and CIDA?


John Carr Munro: The World Health Organization first got in touch with my department on March 26 and negotiations have been going on since that time.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Having in mind the continued upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, is the government considering the adoption of any further means, such as the institution of a floating exchange rate, to combat this trend?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the very serious situation which is developing, will the minister not make a short statement to the House indicating whether there are any reasons for not reviewing the government's economic policies other than the hon. gentleman's misplaced belief in his own omnipotence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is not in order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the Minister of Finance, either now or in a day or two, give the House some indication of what action he is taking to keep the Canadian dollar pegged at its present level?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this information should be given by way of a statement on motions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know whether the government of Canada has

been in contact with the government of the United States in connection with the statement by President Nixon last Saturday suggesting that all countries renounce claims to undersea natural resources beyond a depth of 200 metres?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have received a communication from the United States government conveying the text of President Nixon's statement. This is now under consideration.


Frank Howard: I hav>e a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to what I understand to be a $100,000 program of an educational nature within our schools in relation to drug abuse. Could the minister outline what this program involves?


Mr. Speaker:: The question appears to be of such a general nature that the minister should give this information, if he wishes to give it, by way of a statement on motions. I wonder whether the question might not be rephrased.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could ask the minister if he can predict a date when he will be in a position to make some statement about this program with respect to education or information provided through the school system or elsewhere in connection with drug abuse, particularly its effect on young people?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as far as the federal government is concerned we have intentionally, rightly or wrongly, decided not to proceed with the educational program until we form some definite conclusions as to the direction the educational program should take. In this connection we are at least waiting until we receive a preliminary report from the LeDain commission.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. In view of the general lack of faith or trust that the younger people have in the scientific analysis of drugs, would the minister consider employing the services of people who have had long experience in the use or misuse of drugs to guide him in the development of such a program?
May 27. 1970


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take that suggestion into consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the minister not meet with some top professors from various universities, and is not the LeDain commission report now finished, translated into both languages, bound and ready for tabling in the House of Commons?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. It has not yet been presented to me, though I expect it to be presented to me within the next day or two. As I have indicated on several occasions before in the House, when it is presented to me I will be taking it to my colleagues and then the government will decide what disposition will be made of the report.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Without naming any professor, did not the minister meet a professor from a certain law school and admit to that law school professor that the LeDain commission report was properly translated and ready for study?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This seems to me to be cross-examination and not a proper question. Perhaps the hon. member might rephrase his question and make it acceptable procedurally.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has already said that he cannot recall. There was another member of the House who had selective amnesia, and now he is suffering from the same disease.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the report of the LeDain commission. Is the government seriously considering keeping the report, which involves so many Canadians, to itself and not making it public? If so, will the government change its mind?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have advised the House, the report has not been presented to me yet, though I expect it will be tomorrow. Then the government will have to make a decision one way or the other-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Simcoe North.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the prior question that was put to the minister. Will the minister undertake to table in the House the first report of the LeDain commission when it is presented to him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously a repetition of a question already asked.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a very important question. I respect your views, but the minister did not answer the question which was put to him by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister did not answer in the way the hon. member would have liked, but the question was asked and an answer given.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister why the police can have drugs analysed for the purpose of laying charges but a doctor cannot legally obtain such an analysis in order to treat a patient and perhaps save his life? I ask the minister whether the Food and Drug Directorate has stopped drug analysis and, if so, why?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise to the hon. member's question so I am not in a position to answer it.



POST OFFICE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board arising out of an answer that he gave me yesterday and events that followed later in the day. Yesterday I asked the minister whether negotiations with the postal employees were still continuing and the parties were getting closer to a possible settlement. The minister's answer to

May 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry both questions was yes. In view of the fact that later yesterday the chief Treasury Board negotiator made a statement to the effect that on the 10 or 12 major issues both parties were standing pat by the reports of their respective representatives on the conciliation board, would the minister like to correct the answer he gave me yesterday and give the House a more accurate report on the state of the negotiations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think I should like to correct the answers that I gave yesterday because they were correct. The hon. gentleman asked me whether progress was being made, and the answer was that progress was made, though not to the extent and not at the rate that I think we would all wish.
Unfortunately, yesterday afternoon it was discovered that the Council of Postal Unions had organized, or at least authorized, a strike to take place today in Winnipeg. On receipt of this knowledge, the government side suggested the appointment of a mediator under whom negotiations would be continued. The union did not wish to join in the application for a mediator but indicated that they would make no objection to our application.
As a consequence, application has been made to the Chairman of the Public Staff Relations Board for the appointment of a mediator. Judge Finkelman will be meeting with both the employer and employee sides tonight, looking toward the appointment of a mediator. In the meantime negotiations are continuing.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Just to get the matter into perspective, does the minister have enough detailed information to be able to tell the House whether any progress at all has been made on the major issues of wages, job security, vacations, overtime pay and the eight or so other major issues on which the two respective members of management and labour on the conciliation board disagreed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that on some of the issues progress was made; on some of the other outstanding issues no progress has been made. I myself consider a willingness on the part of both parties to sit down to discuss and further explore the points at issue progress in itself, in that presumably there will be a greater understanding of the relative positions. In this 
sense progress has been made. I do not think it would help the House if I were to try to make general statements without the kind of qualifications which would be needed really to convey the essence of the matter.
While I am on my feet, I undertook to provide to the hon. member for York South_


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether we might allow the hon. member for Edmonton West to ask a supplementary on this subject. Perhaps the minister would make his statement after that question has been asked.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to closing down postal services entirely, as reported, in order to avoid the complications caused by the rolling strikes that are now in progress?


George James McIlraith: There is no such plan, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of recent reports that fish samples from the Red River on the United States side of the Canada-U.S. border have confirmed earlier findings of the presence of mercury above the accepted level, has the federal government conferred with U.S. authorities in an attempt to determine the source or sources of this pollution?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in close consultation with the United States authorities in respect of this problem.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say at this time whether the source or sources have now been determined?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we do not know the answer to that. Perhaps the fish have been swimming upstream from Lake Winnipeg.



HARBOURS


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minis-
May 27, 1970

ter of Transport. In view of the importance of ferry service to the tourist industry in the two provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, can the minister now advise whether tenders have been or will soon be called for improvements to the ferry terminal at Caribou?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if they have not been called already-I am afraid I do not have that specific information-I know they will be called within the next few days.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government to place an additional boat this summer in the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service to take care of the heavy summer tourist traffic?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We have been looking into that possibility. One problem is obtaining a boat of adequate draft. There is a problem of dredging at the wharf location but a number of vessels are being inspected and there is some hope that something can be done this year.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare following upon previous questions I have posed on the same subject. May I ask the minister whether he is yet in a position to announce when optometric services for the people of Canada will be available and acceptable for cost-sharing payments with the provinces under the medical care insurance program?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do so. I do not think it will be until the provinces are all in medicare under its present terms and conditions.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the services of an opthalmologist are unavailable in many areas and the cost of travel to see one involves considerable expense, is it still the policy of the government to continue to place this burden on the backs of so many people throughout Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered the question. I do not think it is practical to keep extending coverage under the present medicare provisions until all the provinces are in the plan.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or his Parliamentary Secretary. Will the minister investigate immediately what appears to be a scandalous situation at Hay River in the Northwest Territories in that old age pensioners in public housing projects have had their rents increased from $69 a month to $109 a month, and would the minister make a statement on motions concerning the results of his investigation?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that. I will refer it to the department and to the minister on his return from Washington.



POLLUTION


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Fisheries regarding the possibility of more pesticide poisoning taking place. I understand that samples of fish were taken recently from Lake Okanagan for testing purposes. Have these samples been sent to a federal government laboratory, and if there have been reports what have been the results?


John (Jack) Davis: The results reported to us by the National Health and Welfare laboratory at Victoria show that the levels of DDT were unacceptable in the Kamloops trout in Okanagan Lake. The provincial government has been informed of this because it is responsible for the administration of the sports fishery in that area. There are no commercial fisheries there and no fish are offered for sale from Okanagan Lake.

May 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry related to one asked a few minutes ago. In view of the reports of a heavy degree of pollution in the waters of Okanagan Lake contiguous to the provincial constituency of the Premier of British Columbia, is this a federal or provincial responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LOCATING OF CONTAMINATED AREAS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, because of the rash of discoveries of intolerable levels of pesticides or poisonous substances in fish, has the minister's department any plans to embark on a large-scale sampling program to ferret out and find those areas in which fish may be contaminated?


John (Jack) Davis: We have a very extensive program under way at the present time and I think we are well ahead of the problem.



OTTAWA RIVER-ALLEGED CONTAMINATION BY FEDERAL HEATING PLANT

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Could the minister ascertain whether the heating plant situated on the south side of the Ottawa River which functions as the heating unit for certain federal buildings is dumping bunker oil and other pollutants into the Ottawa River? If so, what is the extent of the damage caused by the oil slick which we have all seen on the river, and what efforts will be made to clear up this situation?


John (Jack) Davis: I have no idea but will make inquiries.



LOW POLLUTION EMISSION COMBUSTION ENGINE

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services with reference to a circular recently sent to members of the House. Has the government made any investigation into a claim by Roto jet Turbines Canada Limited of Vancouver that it has a combustion engine with low pollution emission that has been available for development since 1959?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question which might well be placed on the Order Paper. It does not appear to be very urgent. If there is urgency it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Roberf McCleave (Halifax-Easf Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General whether he will review again the circumstances surrounding the suicide of Jacques Boucher at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in view of a recommendation by the sentencing judge that Boucher be sent to another institution? When he does that, would he also review the role that penitentiaries classification officers played in this unfortunate case?


George James McIlraith: will be very glad to look into that matter.



NATIONAL PARKS


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the Parliamentary Secretary advise if his department is considering a white paper proposal by the province of Newfoundland for a $50 million to $60 million integrated development plan to establish a tourist attraction area embracing the proposed Bonne Bay park and establishing two more parks in western Newfoundland?


Russell Clayton Honey: Negotiations with regard to Bonne Bay Park are still going on and have been for some time. The white paper to which the hon. member referred is part of the material being considered in these negotiations. I was pleased to notice a statement from the responsible minister of the Newfoundland government recently that he hopes an agreement will be signed by the end of June this year.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Along with the white paper proposal for an integrated development
May 27, 1970



plan, would he confirm that there is also a development plan not only for parks but also for all-weather highways, air strips, fishing facilities and cultural centres? You name it, the white paper has it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State. If he cannot answer perhaps the Acting Prime Minister can. Can the minister explain why the National Ballet of Canada, the only foreign ballet invited to Expo for classical presentations, has been kept off the Canada Day program for Wednesday at Expo 70? Was it because they decided to do Swan Lake rather than Hello Dolly?



FISHERIES


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. It involves a local matter but it is a question of considerable urgency as the poor people's march on Winnipeg would indicate. Can the minister inform the House when his current review of the decision of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to locate its new plant in Winnipeg will be completed?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to review a decision taken by the board of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. I understand that the board is to hear representations from the province of Manitoba at a special meeting on June 3. But the decision as to where the plant will be located is entirely a matter for the board since the board represents not only the federal government but as well the governments of the three Prairie provinces, Ontario and the Northwest Territories.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister indicate to the House whether his department is making its services and facilities available to the corporation during the course of its discussions with the government of Manitoba?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made an offer to the corporation. They
Inquiries of the Ministry know all the facts and I think the government of Manitoba is aware of the proposal we have made to the corporation.



AIR CANADA


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the low morale and nervousness among Air Canada employees, will the minister give every assurance that there will not be nationwide staff cuts?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes. I think that speaking for Air Canada I can certainly say there will not be nationwide staff cuts. The figure of 3,000 that has been mentioned is the total management group within Air Canada, and obviously there is no likelihood that all of them or even a small percentage will be eliminated.


Thomas Miller Bell: With respect to air service may I ask the minister whether he is still sticking by his statement made on February 24 of this year that there will not be any reduction in air service in the Maritimes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the hon. member is referring to route assignments of Air Canada or regional carriers, the answer is yes. It may be, of course, that the frequency on some of those routes will be changed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think I know what it is that the hon. member is inquiring about. I have had a representation from the Saint John, New Brunswick Board of Trade or the ratepayers' association and I can assure the hon. member that I will give this matter my immediate attention.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is now prepared to act on the repeated requests of the Economic Council of Canada that there should be established a unit for the purpose of short-term economic forecasting in view of the obvious importance of such a unit at this time and in spite of the fact that the minister said earlier

May 27, 1970
Inquiries of he Ministry that he has foreseen precisely everything that has happened recently, including presumably the decline in the stock market, because the minister may not always be as farsighted as that?


Gerald William Baldwin: Or with us as long.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the minister prepared to act on the repeated requests of the Economic Council of Canada in view of their obvious urgency at this time?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, I do not agree with the conclusions stated by my hon. friend. Even I cannot foresee as much as he sometimes tries to. But there have been suggestions that an economic forecasting unit outside the government might be supported by the government, and we have considered one proposal in this regard some time ago. The decision was made for budgetary reasons not to move forward at that particular time. But I should assure my hon. friend that there are economic forecasting units within the government, both in the Bank of Canada and in the Department of Finance, that try to make economic forecasts on a very current basis in the country. However, personally I see some merit in having an outside forecasting arrangement made provided this can be worked out with very competent people. I think it would be quite useful.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not use your letter writers, the $200 a day boys?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on
Monday the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands asked about the report of the task force on Cornwall. I am glad to report that my officers, who are working with the provincial and municipal authorities as well as other federal departments, are quite hopeful about the possibilities both of expansion of some existing operations in Cornwall and the establishment of some significant new industries. You personally are aware of these negotiations, Mr. Speaker, because you have played an important part in the discussions in your community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: There is no formal report by the task force because its work will be continuing for some timefMr. Stanfield.]


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the minister would like to return to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: Has the minister brought with him today a list of the other cities which he told us the other day have greater unemployment than the 20 per cent existing in Cornwall today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. I appreciate that perhaps the hon. member did not receive the answer he was expecting, but I suggest to him that he is simply repeating a question which has been asked a number of times.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if the minister might be permitted to complete his statement either by reverting to motions or by consent of the House? Failing that, I would ask him a supplementary question. Could he summarize what new industries are likely to be located in Cornwall this year, and has he any approximate figure as to how many jobs will be provided as a result of the plans which have been produced by the task force?


Jean Marchand: The only thing that was left out in the answer I gave previously was that there will be no formal report right now but that as soon as I have specific reports from the task force I will inform the House about the industries which are interested and how many jobs will be created.



CLINTON-ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIES AT FORMER ARMED FORCES BASE

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I should like to ask the minister whether he would give the same consideration to giving assistance in establishing industries at the Canadian Armed Forces base at Clinton which is being phased out by the government?



POSITION OF HUSTLER CORPORATION, BRETON VERSATREK AND RICHMOND PLASTICS

Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question for the minister who reports to the House for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. May I ask him today whether he is in a position to reply to the questions I posed recently regarding the future of the Hustler Corporation, Breton Versatrek and Richmond Plastics, all
May 27, 1970

firms brought to the island by the Cape Breton Development Corporation and which have since closed down without paying some of the men? Can the minister tell us how soon they will be resuming operations?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts whether the question is supplementary. 1 recognize that there is some relation between the two matters. The question having been asked, and in view of the fact that we have reached the end of the question period, I suggest that the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question.


Jean Marchand: I think it would be difficult for me to report on each of those companies. I know that in the first case legal procedures in California are involved and I believe we are awaiting the results of those procedures before we know what will happen to the company. So far as the others are concerned, perhaps I can give a report on them later.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I thought it might be useful to record the progress which has been made so far this session, and during the present Parliament, with respect to electoral matters. As a starting point I will take the statement which I made to the House on April 1, 1969, which may be found at page 7359 of Hansard for the last session. At that time I proposed the following timetable for dealing with various electoral questions which are before this Parliament. First, I suggested that committee consideration should be given to the report prepared by the Representation Commissioner on the alternative methods of preparing electoral lists, which report was tabled in the House in April of 1968.
Canada Elections Act
Second, I suggested that the general revision of the Canada Elections Act on questions other than election expenses should be undertaken by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Third, I proposed the presentation to the House after the committee study of a bill based on that study. Fourth, I suggested that committee consideration be given to the question of election expenses. Fifth, I suggested that the committee review the Representation Commissioner Act as required by section 22 of that statute. Finally, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) I suggested that consideration, if it be thought generally advisable, be given to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.
Where, then, do we stand on these various matters? First, the committee studies contemplated in the first two steps in that suggested timetable, namely, the consideration of the Representation Commissioner's report and the general revision of the Canada Elections Act, have now been completed. We are now in the process of engaging in the third step, consideration in the House of a bill based on those changes. With respect to the fifth step, committee review of the Representation Commissioner Act, this matter has already been referred by the House to the committee.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
On the question of election expenses and as a result of discussions which took place at the time of my statement, the House agreed with the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that that question should be referred to a special committee. I can advise, Mr. Speaker, that a draft motion to make that reference to a special committee has been circulated to representatives of the parties. I would hope to be able to put the motion within a few days and that the House might make the reference before the end of this part of the session so that the committee could be prepared to commence its work by fall at the latest. Assuming successful completion of their work, say by Christmas time, it would then be possible that a bill based on the committee's recommendations with respect to election expenses could be available for enactment before next summer, that is to say, before the summer of 1971.
We are now engaged in study of the bill resulting from the general committee study of the Canada Elections Act. During the time that I have been a member of this House there have been a number of recurrent themes in

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
the criticism of our Elections Act. These themes have included: Why must our election campaigns last so long? Why cannot the system of enumeration be made more effective, particularly with regard to urban dwellers, so that many eligible voters are not left off the voting lists? Why cannot all Canadians abroad be put in a position to exercise their franchise?
In the study of the Elections Act which was carried out by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections the committee, and subsequently the government, devoted themselves to trying to solve these particular problems so far as they can be solved. The most popular solution which has been put forward, particularly in the editorial pages of the press, has been the establishment of a permanent voters' list. This question, as I have already indicated, was studied by the Representation Commissioner, Mr. Nelson Castonguay, the former Chief Electoral Officer and a person well skilled in these matters, whose report was presented in April, 1968. This report was considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which committee, in a report tabled in the House on May 22, 1969, concluded that a permanent voters' list would not be appropriate or particularly helpful in dealing with Canadian electoral problems, and the committee reaffirmed that view in the report tabled several months ago.
One can see by reading the Representation Commissioner's report and by perusing his evidence before the Standing Committee that a permanent voters' list is not without disadvantages. What does not appear to be generally known in this country is that in Canada at the federal level we have already tried and rejected a system of permanent voters' lists. In 1934 the Parliament of Canada enacted the Dominion Franchise Act which was to provide a system of permanent voters' lists. The act called for the establishment in 1934 of a basic list of electors, followed by an annual revision between May 15 and July 1. An election was held under this system in October, 1935.
There were 60 days between the date of the issuance of the writ and election day, and a subsequent special committee of the House reported on April 6, 1937, and concluded that the basic lists prepared in 1934 were almost obsolete within six months after they were completed and that the annual revision held in 1935 was not an adequate remedy for the

situation. On the basis of these conclusions Parliament repealed the Dominion Franchise Act in 1938.
In the United Kingdom, despite some favourable comments on the system the permanent list is far from being an ideal solution. We can see this if we examine the timetable involved. The list is reviewed each year and comes into force on February 16 for a period of one year and serves for all elections, national elections and council elections, ordered during that period. Thus, if an election is held in January many people are deprived of their voting rights in the sense that the list has gone stale in the meantime. The same system exists in France, where the list comes into force on the last day of February for one year.
Perhaps the best system of continuous electoral rolls is that existing in Australia where in addition to an annual revision there is compulsory registration and where changes may be made to the list until the day an election is called, which is usually about 30 days before voting day. According to Mr. Castonguay, even though it is mandatory in Australia to register within 21 days following arrival at a new residence, 3 per cent to 5 per cent of the electors ignore this responsibility. Thus, if an election is held six months after the annual revision is completed, the list in Australia really is not up to date, and it probably would be worse in Canada because of the very great mobility of our population.
With our present system, that is to say, a specific enumeration for each campaign, the list is prepared only seven weeks before election day and there is provision for revisions on the nineteenth, eighteenth and seventeenth days before polling day; and in rural polling divisions an elector may vote, even if he is not on the list, by use of the vouching procedure. Apart from the question of the accuracy of a list, it would be very costly to establish a system like the Australian system. Mr. Castonguay, in his evidence before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, stated that-
-to establish the Australian system in Canada, it would easily take a minimum ol $1 per elector per year.
With 13 million electors it would cost at least $13 million a year, as opposed to the expenditure, on an average in every three or four years under our present system, of approximately $7 million to prepare the electoral list. Our system is certainly not perfect but it does offer the advantage that it permits
May 27, 1970

the preparation of lists which are more up to date than those of any of the systems having continuous electoral rolls and at a lesser cost.
My final point on this is a reference to a comment made by a disinterested foreign observer, Mr. Richard Scammon, director of the Election Research Centre at the Government Affairs Institute in Washington, D.C., who appeared last year before the Ontario Committee on Election Laws. He was chairman of the President's Commission on Registration and Voter Participation, established by the late President Kennedy. Mr. Scammon stated before the Ontario select committee: When we were doing our work for President Kennedy five years ago, we had some occasion to look at the Canadian system. Quite frankly, X must confess, I think it is better than ours. I say this, not in the sense of flattery, but simply because the main purpose of any election system, registration of voters, must be to make the task of registration as simple as possible for the non-committed electorate.
If it be accepted that we will not have a permanent voters' list in Canada as recommended by the committee, but retain the system of preparing a special list for each campaign, then we must abandon the hope of shortening the election period by one month. If the essential door-to-door visitation is to take place for the purpose of preparing the voting list, then the whole procedure will essentially have to be retained, including the instruction of enumerators, the period of enumeration over several days so that more than one call may be made on the elector, a period for printing and circulating the voters' list and a further period for correcting errors and omissions in the list by way of revision. The choice is basically between having an election finished in a shorter period of time or having one based on a more up to date voters' list. In Canada we have opted for the second of the two choices and the Standing Committee has confirmed that option.
It is fair to say that even if we did have a permanent list, projections of a shorter campaign, drawn on the English experience, would have to be subjected to scrutiny in Canada. It is obviously easier to run an election campaign in a unitary state which is smaller than at least half a dozen if not more of the constituencies in Canada, and which is very much centralized in communication and transportation. I think it could be expected that in certain parts of Canada, particularly in the case of inclement weather, it could take very much longer to prepare for an elec-22375-50
Canada Elections Act
tion campaign, apart altogether from the question of enumeration even if we did have a permanent voters' list.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The final word on this question I would give to Mr. Castonguay, who remarked to the committee:
My experience has been that if you talk to an urban member, he feels three weeks are sufficient.
If you talk to a member who has a rural constituency with a large town in it, he will say four or five weeks, but if you talk to a member with a hinterland seat, you will find he would like a lot more than 60 days to cover that constituency.
It is basically for this reason and based on the decision first and foremost that we would not have a permanent voters' list, and secondly because of some of the difficult geography and distances involved in Canadian constituencies, that the government and the committee has felt that the basic pattern of enumeration and the basic election timetable which we have had in our act cannot be changed.
The second of the questions or criticisms to which I refer is why so many people have been left off the voting list. We are familiar with charges in every election campaign that there is a degree of deliberation in leaving voters off the list. Personally, I do not feel that is accurate. The real problem is that in the relatively short time available for enumeration-as I have already noted, some people even feel that time is too long-it is almost impossible for even the most intrepid team of enumerators to make certain, by personal visitation, that every eligible voter in an urban poll is on the electoral list.
I do not hesitate to say that in some cases the reason for an eligible voter being left off the list, in my experience, is his general indifference to the question until it is too late for him to be added under the revision system. I think a great many more are left off, not by indifference or intention but merely because of the basic difficulty in a relatively limited number of visits of contacting people who by pure accident might not be at their residence at the time of the call.
The question is one to which particular attention was given by the government in preparing the bill. I might say one solution which appeals to me personally was our experience under the Elections Act of Ontario whereby urban electors might have a privilege analogous to rural electors of being vouched for at the poll on election day. I have noted, however, that the Ontario committee

May 27. 1970
Ccmada Elections Act
has been casting a critical eye on the practice as it is used in that province and I have found a general feeling among those experienced in elections at the federal level that under some circumstances this system could lead to abuse.
What seems to me, therefore, to be the best compromise under the circumstances is to remain with our present system of enumeration and revision and to seek through more extensive publicity by the Chief Electoral Officer and his appointees, through the public media at the relevant times-that is, at enumeration and during the revision period-to bring to the attention of electors the procedures followed in preparing the voters' lists and the steps that they should take to ensure that their names are on them. I know that the Chief Electoral Officer has been giving some attention to these questions of further and better publicity of the procedure under the act during an election.
The third of the criticisms to which I have referred is one expressed by Canadians who whether in the line of duty or by personal inclination find themselves living abroad at the time of an election. The Elections Act has for many years conferred on all members of the Canadian forces the right to vote in Canadian elections notwithstanding the fact that they are serving abroad. The suggestion has been made that there are many other Canadians living abroad, whether in the line of duty or by inclination, who have not had the right to vote. These would include employees of provincial governments, employees of international agencies such as the United Nations, missionaries, people working voluntarily abroad such as CUSO volunteers, employees of Canadian firms doing business abroad and, perhaps most particularly and most relevant to our immediate experience, members of the federal public service serving abroad including the departments of External Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Immigration. The conclusion of the committee on this point, which has been concurred in by the government, is that for administrative reasons it should be possible to extend the franchise to members of the federal public service living abroad, but for the same reasons it would be difficult to extend it to the other categories I have mentioned.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have a very tight system of control for electors living in Canada requiring, primarily, a personal visitation to determine whether a person is resident in the poll. It is felt that the same 
system of close control should be necessary to avoid a situation where by accident or design someone might appear on a voting list in more than one place. The basic problem with persons living abroad is that of keeping track of them. Through its records the federal government is able to keep track of its own employees-who is living where at a particular time, and particularly at election time- but it is very difficult to keep track of the other categories I have mentioned.
I know this is a controversial question and I take it that it was ultimately decided in committee, as it was by the government, on the basis of administrative difficulty rather than on the basis of principle. The decision of the committee, I take it, was that on the whole there could not be found an effective procedure for assuring that those other than members of the armed forces and Canadian public service employees living abroad would be able to vote without the risk of loss of effective control by the electoral system, and therefore no procedure has been developed to deal with these particular categories.
While I am referring to the special voting rules it might be appropriate to point out one change which was made by the committee and which has been concurred in by the government. It arises out of the requests by Canadian forces electors that the system be changed so that the late reporting of Canadian forces votes, and in the case of the new rules of all the special voters, be overcome and that their votes be counted along with all others on election night. The feeling was that the late reporting of the service vote approximately a week after election night inclined to focus public attention on the party preference of this particular group of electors. This was changed so that the votes of those voting under the special voting rules can be counted with the results on election night. The date for nomination of candidates has been advanced from the 14th to the 21st day preceding voting day, so the forces electors and other special electors may vote from 14 to 9 days before the election.
It will still be possible to segregate a particular category of votes, but under the special rules the preference of a particular category will be less apparent to the community as a whole. It will also overcome the problem known to exist from election to election-the uncertainty of the electoral result in particular constituencies for as long as a week or more. The conclusion of the committee has been that the timetable should be changed in
May 27, 1970

that respect, and the timetable then will affect the dates on which candidates must be nominated in ridings in Canada.
In addition to the foregoing matter, the government has incorporated a great many of the suggestions made by the committee, including the following among the major ones: First, to establish a system of proxy voting whereby fishermen, mariners, prospectors, students and permanently disabled persons may be able to vote at an election through a proxy appointed from among electors in the polling division. It is anticipated that this will add between 5,000 and 6,000 voters to the list or at least give the opportunity to 5,000 or 6,000 people, who otherwise would not have been able to do so to cast a ballot, to exercise their franchise.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The second major change in the size of the electoral group as such is the reduction of the minimum voting age from 21 to 18 years. It has been estimated by the Chief Electoral Officer that this will add approximately one million electors to the electoral rolls. Thirdly, the bill adopts the recommendation of the committee that the right to vote be confined to Canadian citizens and to those British subjects who were qualified at the last general election campaign and who have remained ordinarily resident in Canada on a continuous basis.
Fourthly, it has been determined that for the purpose of determining the place where an elector is to be enumerated, the enumeration date rather than the date of the issue of the election writ should be used. This will mean that a list can be made that is approximately ten days or so more topical than would previously have been possible, thus permitting a much better determination of residence closer to election day.
It has also been determined that a new form of ballot would be introduced-I gather that this is something the committee considered at length-which is intended to overcome some of the confusing aspects of the former ballot form which at times resulted in spoiled ballots. Also, in dealing with the question of spoiled ballots, which were a not insignificant factor in campaigns in the past, I may say that the stricter rules in the existing Elections Act will be relaxed with respect to the marking of ballots so that any mark on the ballot space may be accepted such as, for example, a check mark, a mark with a ballpoint pen or a mark in any other way. They
22375-50^
Canada Elections Act
will be found acceptable and the ballot will not be spoiled so long as the mark is not so distinctive as to identify the elector.
There are a number of points on which the government did not accept in full the recommendation of the Standing Committee. Firstly, while the government accepted the proposal of the committee that the party affiliation of the candidate on behalf of a registered political party should be included on the ballot, the government proposes an increase in the number of candidates at an election for the purpose of determining what group will qualify as a party to be registered. The committee thought that this threshold should be set at 10 per cent of the constituencies, which would mean 26 or 27 nominated candidates under our present system, and that this is a sufficient threshold to determine a party. However, the government has concluded that the threshold should be raised to a higher level for the purpose of determining what constitutes a political party at a national election, that is to say, 75 candidates at an election.
A further aspect which does not appear in the committee's report but which seems to be appropriate under the circumstances is that the qualification for a registered political party under the Elections Act should, alternatively, include any of the political parties which are represented in the Parliament immediately before the election by a minimum number of members, and the figure which has been chosen in the bill for this minimum is the figure which already appears in the Senate and House of Commons Act for the purpose of determining the payment of emoluments to leaders of groups other than the official opposition, that is to say, 12 members. Any party which was represented in the previous Parliament by not less than 12 members will be entitled to be registered as a registered political party, without the necessity of establishing the minimum number of candidates.
The committee was faced, as all of us in the last election campaign were faced, with an anomaly existing between the provisions of the Broadcasting Act which had been adopted one year or so before, and the provisions of the Elections Act concerning broadcasting blackouts. The existing Elections Act provides for a blackout against radio and television broadcasts for two days prior to election day, plus election day itself. The Broadcasting Act reduces the period of blackout to one day, that is to say, to the day

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
before the election day, and to 'election day itself. The committee restored the two-day blackout but the government has not accepted that recommendation and has reduced the blackout to one day prior to the election, and to election day itself.
In addition to these changes, a number of further changes have been proposed by the government in the bill which apparently were not considered in committee. Former section 8, which is succeeded by section 7 in the new bill, declared vacant the position of returning officers in each of the electoral districts across Canada. This was a practice followed when the Elections Act was last generally amended and re-enacted in 1980. But the Chief Electoral Officer points out that this involves a considerable dislocation in the election administration, and that it would complicate his already not inconsiderable administrative problems or tasks involved in preparing for an election under the new system if all the positions of returning officers were to be declared vacant. On this basis the new act departs from the practice followed in the 1960 bin.
Another matter which I gather was considered in the committee and rejected was the suggestion that not only should the minimum age of a voter be set at 18 years but that the age of eligibility for being a candidate should be at the same level. The government has concluded that if 18-year old citizens are to have the right of casting a vote at an election, they should equally have the right to stand for election after the usual nomination procedures have been followed. On that basis, the qualifications of a candidate have been stated as anyone qualified as a elector, which of course includes those who are 18 years old or more.
One question which I believe occupied much of the time of the committee was the effect of provincial laws, if the change were implemented, on the possible legal liabilities of an 18-year old candidate, particularly in the matter of contracting for supplies and services in an election campaign. The question was debated at length, I gather, as to whether it was desirable or even constitutional to include a provision in the Elections Act reducing the age of legal majority for these purposes to 18 years even though in some provinces-Ontario, for example-the age of legal majority remains at 21 years.
In view of the possibility that in the near future many provinces may change their law on this question of the legal age of majority,

and also because certain of the provinces already have changed the law and there is variation in treatment with regard to this matter, the government concluded that it was best to leave it to the law of any particular province to determine the matter of liability of the candidate. The only warning and free legal opinion I would offer to any contractor in Ontario undertaking to supply an 18-year old candidate is this: He should make certain that he receives an undertaking from a person of legal age for the payment of all debts. However, as was said at a public meeting which I attended last week, a fair number of 21-year old and older candidates who have become bad debt risks.


An hon. Member:: There are some in the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member can speak for himself. These are the principal changes involved in the bill, Mr. Speaker. I might mention that there have been discussions among the representatives of the parties as to the procedures which might be followed in committee of the whole when we deal with this bill. While certain of the articles in the draft bill are amended, by no means are all of them amended and the majority have not been changed in substance. My choice of the words "not changed in substance" is deliberate. The redrafting of the statute was taken advantage of for the purpose, in some cases, of modernizing the wording of the bill. So that there are a number of sections which in the opinion of the draftsmen have not been changed in substance, but the actual wording will not resemble exactly the sections as they existed before.
There have been discussions, and they will continue during the debate on second reading, as to the possibility of making an order to confine discussion at committee of the whole stage to such of the provisions of the bill as may seem to be particularly relevant for these purposes. I am sure there will be other comments and observations on the bill and the procedure to be followed. I will listen to them closely, Mr. Speaker, and will try to reply to them at the end of the second reading stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question? Just so that the matter will be clear, I take it that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has suggested only that these discussions are still going on with respect to
May 27, 1970

committee of the whole stage. It is clear that although there are discussions, agreement has not yet been reached.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows, I have not had a chance to talk to him about this matter since talking to him yesterday afternoon. Perhaps it would be better if our colleague for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) were here, and our colleague from the Ralliement Creditiste, so that this question could be finalized. Perhaps this could be done during the course of the afternoon.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the minister state that there might be a conflict if the legal voting age was not set at 18 years, since it is a constitutional problem coming under provincial jurisdiction.
Is the federal government considering the possibility of having talks with the provinces just the same, in order to establish in Canada a uniform system that would grant legal majority to young people of 18 and allow them for instance, to enter into contracts or to vote?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say that in my opinion the matter of legal age is solely a provincial responsibility and that it is therefore not for the federal government, except in the Northwest Territories, to determine what should be the legal age.
I feel that uniformity in this regard throughout Canada might be preferable, and particularly so for the purposes of the Elections Acts.
The Chairman of the committee might have a few comments to make on this subject. I believe the committee discussed the matter with provincial commissions and committees of the provincial legislative assemblies. However, I do not believe

perhaps I should consult my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner)-that any specific bill to reduce the legal age throughout Canada is contemplated.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question as I am under the impression that the minister did not quite understand my question.
On the basis of the principle that the federal government is the "big brother" of all the provincial governments and that the latter are quite willing to accept its suggestions, I
Canada Elections Act
would like to know whether the government would be prepared to have non-official discussions, for instance, during the federal-provincial meetings, with a view to suggesting to the provinces to co-operate in order to set a uniform legal age to take legal decisions, which would be most useful under the present circumstances.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the federal government has been in touch with the provincial governments in that respect. However, I shall inquire from my colleague the Minister of Justice about that.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I say to Your Honour, the minister and my colleagues that I welcome the legislation which is now being debated at second reading stage. We have waited a long time for it. Some of us in this House have been asking for a good many years to have the Canada Elections Act reviewed and studied by a committee. It has been a long-standing practice that following every federal election the document is referred to the appropriate Standing Committee for suggested amendments and improvements. While we have waited a long time, we are pleased that at long last it is before this House.
This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker, dealing as it does with the mechanics of a democratic government. What laws we in this chamber pass are, of course, important, but how we get here and how our public institutions are constituted and structured is, I submit, a matter of even greater import. I am confident that, as is usually the case in matters of this kind, the members of the House will approach this legislation with a minimum of partisanship and a maximum of desire to do what we can to improve the electoral machinery of this country.
The question of who has the right to vote and how the vote is taken is a matter of vital significance in any political democracy. We in this country have legislation which is honest, efficient and can properly be called a worthy vehicle of political democracy. We are fortunate in having a most excellent man at the head of operations in our electoral process. The impartiality, competence and dedication of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Hamel, commands the respect and confidence of all members of this House.

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The purity of our election machinery and the probity of our election officials was not always an earmark of our Canadian society. The idea of one man, one vote, secrecy of the vote, ease and freedom of the voting process was by no means the case in this country nor in many other countries which call themselves democracies, parliamentary or otherwise, a couple of centuries ago.
Thomas Paine, that great tribune of freedom, wrote as "men are born, and always continue, free and equal" and as "the end of all political associations is the preservation of the nature and imprescriptible rights of man"-it followed "the right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this class. The proposal, therefore, to disfranchise any class of men is as criminal as the proposal to take away property."
For a long time members of the community were denied the right to vote. Until the government of Sir Robert Borden and later the government of Arthur Meighen, women-that delightful section of our society-were not entrusted with the right to cast ballots. I suppose there is no one in the chamber old enough to remember when that happened. But it is not too long ago. To the historian it is merely yesterday. For a long time, too long, those who did not own real estate were shut out from the electoral process. Some of those who did own real estate were frequently given multiple votes. The man with much of this world's goods would have several votes, and the man less endowed would have no vote.
In some parts of the world devices were found to deny the franchise to certain groups in society for religious, ethnic or racial rea-s,ons. I am not just thinking of the deep south of the United States in recent years, South Africa, Rhodesia or parts of Europe; I am thinking of something a good deal closer to home. Under the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) the Indian people of this country were given their full and proper place in this electorate. This is a matter of only a few years ago.
IMr. MacquarrieJ
Today through this legislation we are extending further the franchise by the extension of the right to vote to those who in some legal sense are regarded as infants, namely, those between the ages of 18 and 21, or more properly put, under the age of 21. While I welcome this development because I always like to get the whole story on the record, I cannot refrain from saying that this government and this Parliament have been dragging their feet on the question. Many countries in the world long ago extended the franchise to those under the age of 21 years. An interesting example is the state of Israel. At the very inception of the establishment of that country the voting age was fixed at 18. In this country many of the provinces have shown leadership which the federal government is now following. I salute the provinces which made the advance in this field. Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have set the voting age at 18. British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland, for reasons I cannot understand, have set 19 as the magic age. Now the Dominion is moving in that direction.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
During the last 13 years many members of this House have presented private members' bills urging just such a course of action. While deploring the previous insensitivity of the government, I wholeheartedly give this measure my support and congratulate them on their belated conversion to this idea. In saying this, I do not withdraw the criticism I made earlier this session concerning the presumptuous arrogance of the government in forecasting this legislation in the Speech from the Throne, thereby showing contempt for a committee which had been charged with responsibility for examining the whole question of the voting age.
I have long believed that 21 was an unrealistic age to have chosen. The retention of this age is an interesting example of the retention of the archaic in modern times. A couple of years ago the United Kingdom Parliament set up a parliamentary committee on the age of majority. This committee produced one of the most interesting and readable documents I have ever had the opportunity of perusing. At page 20 of the report of the committee-Command Paper No. 3342 issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1967-we read under the heading "Historical Background-How the Age of 21 Evolved":
The fact that the later law of infancy has been constructed from the piecing together of a mass of
May 27, 1970

exceptions to an archaic principle has rendered it difficult and obscure. We who write history ought not to complain of survival; but in this instance we must admit the deplorable effect of this particular survival.
The quotation is from Holdsworth's "History of English Law". The report goes on to say:
In Roman law young people were divided, like Gaul, into three parts. First, there was infantia which was ultimately fixed as under 7-it is perhaps ironical that it is this word whose descendant has come to be used in our law for everyone under 21-
Roman historians state that the barbarians reckoned their young were old enough to carry arms and be counted as grown up at 15. And 15 became the general age of majority in Britain and northern Europe during the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, though not specifically linked with fighting ability. But by the time of the Norman Conquest there was a change of emphasis. The role of the mounted knight became more and more important, the armour heavier and heavier and the horses more enormous as time went on. By the time of Magna Carta the age for those holding in knight service had been raised to 21 and there is strong authority for the view that this was directly linked with the ability to hold up a heavy suit of armour and lift a lance or sword at the same time.
It was said, for example, that the profession of arms demanded an ability and strength not to be acquired until the age of 21. I mention these things in case there might be some who believe there is something sacrosanct about the age of 21.
It was interesting to hear the exchange between the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) and the minister. I think the minister was wise in being something less than precise in his replies. I can foresee a curious situation in which people would move in and out of infantile status as they moved from province to province. I think the minister was wise in withholding a full and considered reply on that aspect.
The British, it seems to me, showed their usual wisdom in parliamentary matters when rather than looking only at the question of the voting age they examined in detail the whole subject of majority. I might say that the committee to which I have alluded did in the end recommend that the age of majority be set at age 18. Of course, here in Canada we have multiple jurisdictions, the sine qua non of federalism, and the process will take more time. Still, it is something to which we should and must come because in terms of educational attainment, to mention only one field, there is no question but that present-day students are the recipients of a far more inten-
Canada Elections Act
sive and advanced course of training than were even those of us who are so young as to be merely at the half century mark.
While parents and educators-and I belong to both groups-are perhaps reluctant to admit the superiority of some things in the contemporary scene, I am confident as I look at what is going on in our schools that our young people are being presented with a far heavier and more varied curriculum than was available to us in our day. In many senses, people of 18 are at the apex of their physical and intellectual strength, or perhaps I should say capacity. I do not use the phrase moral or spiritual maturity because that is something which comes much later-a quality indeed which may not come at all to some people. On the other hand, there is likely to be a high degree of idealism and a lesser degree of absorption in the tedium of day-to-day routine. Perhaps it is in these years that a sensitive person comes closest to John Keats' ideal of a civilized person as being one to whom the miseries of this world are misery. It is a time of disinterested interest, if I may use a seemingly paradoxical expression.
I notice there are some sectors of this group between the ages of 18 and 21 which have shown no great enthusiasm for the franchise. This surprises me a bit and pains me a little. I am enthusiastic about the move. I have been enthusiastic for a great many years, not because I think it is so popular among the group about to be 'enfranchised but because of what it can and should do for the political process in enabling political parties in a democracy to flourish. Lord Bryce explained this long ago when he pointed out that political parties are older than democracy and that no great free state can function without them. As he said, no one has shown how representative democracy can work without them. In the political process and in the party structure surely everyone would concede that we can derive much from the ebullience, the idealism and occasionally the irreverence of youth. Where do we see the young, whether they be long-haired or short-haired, today? We see them in the streets demonstrating, protesting, parading. Sometimes we may be tempted to think that they are wrong, misguided or perhaps covertly directed by somebody or by some group which really does not have much idealism but something more mundane or sinister in mind.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However, I believe that whatever the situation, whatever the auspices and whoever the

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
stimulators, there is an energy, drive, commitment, dedication and concern among youth. I believe that a healthy, vital political party should not be content if these people are on the streets and not in the council rooms of the party. I am convinced that this is where the value may come in. I think the fulsome participation of those who are now too young to vote in political parties and in the democratic process generally will and should enliven our political institutions, make them more relevant, perhaps even more exciting. This new section of the electorate will, I am confident, add some elan, some action and some willingness to tread paths that some have said should not be trodden and others have said could not be trodden successfully.
There are some interesting items in the bill which were not reflected or recommended by the committee. I note the distinction between 18 and 21 in the age of candidates. It would seem to me that with candidates seeking to represent an electorate that is age 18 and over, there should not be any hiatus signifying that the candidates must be in that portion of the electorate which falls not within the years 18 to 21. In this instance I would say-and perhaps this is the last time I will say it-the government has improved on the recommendations of the committee. I thought it was inconsistent that the electorate should be 18 and that the people who represent them were required to be 21.
But there still remains the interesting anomaly which perhaps only lawyers can find needed satisfaction from, that while the voters need be only 18 and the candidate need be only 18, the returning officer must be 21. I think that returning officers are very important people in elections, but I do not think they are any more important than the electors or the people upon whom the electors pass judgment on election day. I think that is one little anomaly that is not, in my judgment, impressive. I do not think it is any more onerous a job than being a candidate or being a Member of Parliament. I do not think that the responsibility of a returning officer is all that great that he has to have these extra three years before he takes on his particular chore on election day.
There are some other items I should mention. Although I have been churning away, agitating for this measure to come before the House for many years now, I assure my colleagues that I have not been saving up all my thoughts and potential speeches, and that I

have no intention of unburdening myself at length today. The question of political affiliation is one which troubled me, and in this field I must confess to a conversion. When I had the honour of chairing this committee in the twenty-fourth Parliament I was stoutly opposed to the addition of the party label to the ballot. Being a good chairman, of course, like the present chairman, I would not have thought for one moment of inflicting my views on the committee, but I did think that that was a mistake. I thought it denigrated and downgraded the role of the candidate and overexalted the situation with respect to the party. I had in my mind the extreme case of the list system used in the Weimar Republic of Germany, where the proportional voting system and the list system brought about a situation whereby at a certain stage people were automatically sent into the Reichstag because their particular party had received a certain proportion of the votes. The individuality of the representative was a non-factor in the whole affair.
I am impressed by the increase from 26 to 75 candidates. This was not what you might call a burst of generosity on the part of the government. I did not think that the minister was too lucid or helpful in explaining why the 26 to 75 bump was insisted upon by the government. Perhaps when we reach the appropriate section of the bill at a later stage the minister will elucidate and tell the House the virtues and values of this particular change. There is always a problem, of course, when you get into the situation of the state taking formal note of political parties. For many years our political structure in a formal way knew not political parties. They were things that existed alongside the constitutional structure. But when you have the state recognizing this party and that party, you are into an area where the state and those charged with responsibility in this matter must tread carefully. However, in the long run I think it is perhaps helpful to have the party affiliation on the ballot. I do not know why it is important that the occupation be taken off, but I do think it helpful to have the political affiliation put on. I think we can count on the wisdom and good judgment of the Chief Electoral Officer to assure the proper working of the relevant parts of the act, which I expect will pass.
Although the minister did not mention it, I think a slight change has been made in connection with citizenship and British subjects.
I believe the governmental recommendation is
May 27, 1970

a little more restrictive than was that of the committee. Again, I do not know why this change has been made. There are two aspects to this question, of course. If you look at the question from the view-point of non-discrimination between various groups of people who have come to Canada from other countries, you may have one point of view. If you look at the question on the basis of the reciprocal franchise arrangement between the United Kingdom and Canada, then you might reflect upon the matter in a different way. On June 18 there will be Canadian citizens fully entitled to vote in the United Kingdom election. So that if this measure does go through, no longer will there be reciprocation from us in regard to extending the franchise to Canadian citizens who are properly domiciled in the United Kingdom at the time of the enumeration of the permanent list.
The proxy vote is an improvement. It will, as the minister says, allow people to vote who under the existing legislation would have neither the opportunity nor the mechanism to vote. However, it should be remembered that a proxy vote is a diluted or potentially diluted vote. It is something a little less than the voter himself actually marking his own ballot. It is not a substitute for his vote and it not a substitute for the absentee voting system which prevails in many countries.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I listened carefully to the minister when he spoke about the whole issue of the establishment of the permanent roll. He quoted from the Representation Commissioner's report. I have read the Representation Commissioner's report. I have heard his views many times and have the greatest respect for him. But on this matter, despite his strong arguments against the permanent voters' list I am very much like the old Presbyterian elder about whom John Buchan writes. The minister was castigating the old fellow for his views. He said to him that St. Paul had said thus, and so whereupon the elder said, "On this matter St. Paul and I disagree". I still think we will never have a satisfactory and really efficient voting system here until we do adopt the permanent list. It is all very well to say that the United Kingdom is a unitary state and a small country, smaller than parts of Canada, but I point out that the United Kingdom elects 630 members, quite a few more than we do, and they have an election in a month. They seem to do it very well.
Canada Elections Act
I would point out, also, that while it is very costly to establish a permanent list, anyone who has any idea that Canadian elections are cheap is not reading carefully the financial statistics of this country. It costs a great deal to rim an election in Canada. I do not have to rest my case on the economics nor on the quotations to which the minister referred. One of the most populous countries of the world, India, is a federal state. Everyone knows India must have some of the same problems in respect of distance that we have, and other problems which we do not have in this country. However, India, with all its difficulties, is establishing a permanent voting list.
I think with a permanent voting list one would not require the proxy vote. One could have a temporary residence in many parts of the world and have an absentee ballot. This could overcome a great many problems. I am delighted to note that federal civil servants and their dependants abroad will be given an opportunity to cast their vote. But I do not like to see private citizens abroad denied that opportunity. If we had a proper, fully established voting list we could, through the vehicle of the absentee vote, allow for this sort of thing. We all know that many United States citizens who are domiciled here can, through the absentee ballot, participate in the elections in their particular state. The minister says that if a list is drawn up at a given time of the year some people will be lost when the election comes up. Did we ever have an election in Canada when we did not lose a number of people? There are always people who are, unfortunately, not able to vote.
In one famous election which the federal government called quickly and hopefully, thousands of students were unable to cast their ballots. Our system is not perfect and under this legislation we will lose all sorts of people who will be abroad. We live in a mobile society. More and more people will not be sitting in their constituencies waiting for someone to call an election. I do not think we have yet faced up realistically to the question of the permanent list. I still hold to the view that this is the answer to which we should address ourselves.
I am interested in and pleased with the new ballot design. We are to have a little style on the back of the ballot and a circle on the right-hand side following the name. This will be interesting. I am also pleased that we have broken away from the restriction that the ballot must be marked with an "X" by a

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
pencil provided. We all know that in the age of the ballpoint pen people very easily mark an "X" with that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Sometimes the pencil is
removed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes, some of the pencils are taken. I would never take one with a string attached to it, but if the string were not there the pencil might pop into my pocket inadvertently. Here I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Code) who carried the torch in respect of this particular amendment. He has had personal experience of ballots being well and truly marked with something other than the pencil provided. I believe we should call this particular amendment the Code amendment because he is the author of it. I believe it is an improvement. We know the reason the provision was there: it was to preclude, prevent or diminish the possibility of identification. But during all the years of the Canadian forces regulations we had no problem although members of the forces were allowed to write the whole name in red, green, yellow or what have you. So I believe this amendment is an improvement.
I think the form of the ballot is interesting. Here, to show our ecumenical inspiration, I believe we are following the ballot that has been developed and used in Belgium. I believe the merging of the service votes is a help. Many members previously had to wait for the service vote to come in, and if they did not belong to the Liberal Party they probably waited in suspense for their defeat. Now, by moving the official nomination a week ahead and thereby linking the time for taking the military vote we have this vote coming out on the same day. This will make the situation similar to that of the advance poll. This is an improvement and I think we will all agree with it. Perhaps it would be even better if the military service vote was not only merged in time but merged in the general stream of the electorate. This, however, is not in the act at the present time.
I did not hear any convincing argument in the minister's statement on the question of the blackout on broadcasting being reduced from 48 to 24 hours. He said the committee restored the 48 hours. I say to him with respect, that is not the situation. It was not restored by the committee. The Canada Elections Act had never moved away from the 48-hour blackout. Since it was the Broadcasting Act which cited 24 hours in the case of the holding of elections, naturally the Canada 
Elections Act prevailed. I should like to hear the reason this is now considered to be an improvement. I do not think it is a bad thing to have a closing-out of the appeal through the media over Saturday and Sunday. Heaven knows, it is not a bad thing for the candidate and I have a feeling it is not a bad thing for the long-suffering electorate which has been subjected to appeal after appeal for many weeks beforehand. So I wonder why the government in its wisdom made that change.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
One thing I liked, too-we talked about this a good deal in the committee-is what I call the civilianization of the Canadian forces vote. I never liked the idea that one had to go to some military base, seek out the commanding officer and examine there the list to see if there were people on it who were electors in a given constituency. Now that these lists will be despatched by the Chief Electoral Officer to the returning officer in each constituency and then made available to the candidates, the situation will be much improved. I am heartily in favour of it.
I thought that the minister might have been a little more generous to the committee. It struck me that in the recent publicity and in the minister's speech today there was a feeling that the government was bringing its child to the baptismal font. That is the case technically with a piece of legislation that must emanate from the government, but I would like to submit that the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), the chairman of the committee, is far more the father of these improvements and amendments than is the minister or this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I thought that the minister might have found a minute or two to pay tribute to a very hardworking man. Although we had a little "set-to" at the beginning, I would say he was a very fair man and a very good chairman, and I salute his dedication to his work. I found it a great pleasure to work with him. I also want to commend the members of the committee. I had both the honour and the onerous duty of presiding over the committee when the 1960 amended act emerged. It is a very time-consuming, difficult, challenging and important task and I have the highest regard for the members of the committee who served and who came up with excellent ideas. It struck me that in the
May 27, 1970

discussions in the committee, partisanship was always left outside the door and we all worked as well as we could to improve our machinery for the electoral process. I am particularly grateful to colleagues in my party who functioned on the committee while I happened to be away in the Middle East for two or three weeks where there were other problems to deal with. I think my colleagues did a wonderful job.
I am not going to speak on the item of the relaxation of the liquor laws. Under this new dispensation, so far as this act is concerned, the booze shops need not stay closed for the whole day and after the election is over they can open the doors so far as this act is concerned. For different reasons there is sometimes a desire to seek consolation or extra jubilation on the evening of election day, and this may not be a bad idea. I am not making a personal plea in this case but rather a general observation. I noted in particular the minister's reference to the continuity of election officers even though a new act may emerge from time to time. This protection of officialdom is interesting and we will watch with considerable interest whether this protective instinct is extended to other areas of the national administration.
I welcome this piece of legislation and I will support it. We will have some amendments, we will have an interesting discussion, but it is my prediction and view that there will be no protracted delay in this important matter. I do regret that it was necessary to change some of the recommendations of the committee which did a good job. I do not want to make comparisons, but I remember that the committee report of 1960 was adopted by the government of that day without the kind of alterations which this present government found necessary, and oddly enough in 1960 the expression "participatory democracy" was not used very much.
In conclusion I should like to say that I give my support and I welcome this progressive move. I hope we will not end here but will continue to look at the question of the permanent voters' list and other means whereby we can make a good piece of election machinery even better.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who is about to speak on this bill. I caused to be circulated to representatives of the parties yesterday a
Canada Elections Act
very useful summary, prepared by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, of the amendments to the Canada Elections Act as included in Bill C-215. I wonder if it might be of general assistance to the House if I laid this summary on the table, and we could perhaps agree to have it annexed to today's Hansard for the general guidance of the House. It is a kind of index of the principal changes to the bill.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I say on this point that I am afraid the minister must have sent this document by mail because I did not receive any such document from him. I did secure one from the Chief Electoral Officer this morning after I had spent a day cross-referencing on my own. I think it would be a good idea to have it annexed to Hansard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since the hon. member complained about delivery of the document I should make it clear that I had it delivered to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Perhaps the hon. member should make his complaint to him.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: He must have sent it by mail.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the proposal of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For document referred to above, see appendix "A".J


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that an item such as the electoral law is considered by too many people to be somewhat a dull subject. It might be the view of many members of this 'House that it does not have much political sex to it which might enliven the debate or stir up massive public interest, let alone stir up interest among members of this House. In order to do so the minister might, in leading off, have tried to put some political sex into the bill and into his speech to encourage the rest of us to do the same thing, and he could have entitled his speech "Rolling in the Grass-Roots".
I add my congratulations to those of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) to the members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I admit that both my hon. friend and myself are somewhat prejudiced since we were members of that committee, but we spent scores of hours and

candidate for office, to form a party and run candidates or otherwise participate in the electoral process. Nor must the law discriminate in favour of a governing party or one or more established parties so as to impede unjustly the electorate from replacing those who govern them. Third, to as great a degree as possible the law should be simplicity in itself, so as to be most easily readable and understandable, to be easily abided by yet readily enforceable if broken.
Fourth, throughout all its provisions the law should have, in this order, regard for the voters, regard for the parties and the individuals representing them who are seeking elected office, and lastly regard as to administration and the efficiency of its operation. Fifth, the law should contain safeguards that serve to enhance the rights of electors and of those seeking election, as well as to prevent abuse. I would like to emphasize this point. This should be the first priority in the safeguards, that they enhance the rights of electors and of those seeking election, as well as to prevent abuse. Further, the law should contain penalties, which can be easily enforced, to deal with any elector, candidate, party or corporation that corrupts the law and perverts the democratic electoral process. Sixth, in the context of convenience, firstly for electors and those seeking to be elected, the law should be as administratively simple and efficient as possible, but administrative difficulty and greater cost should be accepted rather than lessening any opportunity for electors to participate.
I have tried to outline some fundamental principles that I think our election law should embody. No doubt other hon. members could state them better than I, add to them or expend on them, and I invite them to do so during this second reading debate. Now, turning to Bill C-215 may X try to examine how well some of its provisions meet these basic principles necessary in an electoral law for a democratic party system peculiar to Canada. How does the bill measure up to these principles? In increasing the eligibility of and maximizing the opportunities for citizens to vote, the bill has a number of improvements yet still falls short in several ways of fulfilling the first principle I outlined. Lowering the age eligibility of electors, candidates and election officials to 18 is a long-overdue improvement. It is about 25 years late, Mr. Speaker. I say that with some pride because my party and my province were the first to implement this principle nearly 26 years ago.
Canada Elections Act
I am perfectly happy that the government and the minister chose not to agree with a majority committee recommendation concerning the age of candidates. That was one of the few occasions in the committee when discussion became warm, if not heated, namely, when a majority of the committee felt that the eligible age of candidates should be kept at 21. I am glad the government and the minister disagreed with that recommendation and have in fact made provision in the bill for candidates to be age 18. I see no legal problem here, based on the experience in my own province of Saskatchewan. It is a rare case when any political party nominates anyone under 21, but it always has the right and the opportunity to do so if it wishes, and those under 21 have the right to stand for nomination. Even were it to happen, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the likelihood of any difficulty as between the age of the candidate and the legal age is so remote that we should in no way impinge upon the right to be a candidate at age 18.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The clause establishing residence as of enumeration day instead of the day of the election writ is a minor but good change. Improvements in enumeration and revising procedures should at least slightly increase the number of eligible voters. Proxy voting increases the opportunity for more people to vote, but because of the dangers inherent in such a system the provisions in the bill are necessarily restricted and narrow and still leave out a large number of people. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that experience will prove it to be a system that is cumbersome to administer and, at best, inconvenient to use.
There is one thing that I think goes against the grain of any citizen, and that is the possibility of one person casting a ballot for another. The provisions of the proxy system in this bill, particularly for those who are crippled or bed-ridden, is a marvellous move and will no doubt be of benefit as well to prospectors, mariners, fishermen and students. However, it still leaves out large numbers of people who because of their occupation will be absent from their usual place of residence as long as, or perhaps even longer than the people provided for in the bill. This points up what I submit is a major deficiency in the bill, the lack of an absentee ballot system no matter how circumscribed it may be.
In the 1968 general election 2,642,972 Canadians did not vote, that is 24 per cent of
740G

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
the electors on the voters' list. Even though the percentage of turnout was good compared with other elections in Canada and compared with other countries, it still means that far too many people did not exercise their franchise. No doubt some chose not to. But how many of them were prevented from voting by the inadequacies and restrictions contained in our Elections Act? How many tens of thousands more who were not enumerated, who did not and could not vote, could be added to this figure? We will never know how many. But there is no question that a large number of electors were eliminated from the electoral process because of the inadequate provision for advance polling and because of no provision for absentee balloting.
In a country as large as Canada and with a population as thinly scattered as ours, I fully appreciate the great administrative difficulties that a system of absentee balloting presents. I base this statement on personal experience. I fully appreciate the administrative difficulties pointed out when the subject was discussed in committee. But surely, Mr. Speaker, administrative problems should not be allowed to prevent the widening of opportunity for people to vote. There are many variations of an absentee ballot system that can be used. Surely we are capable of adopting ways of overcoming or at least minimizing administrative problems.
I am not satisfied that the committee, the government or this House have given sufficient attention to this question. There has been too great a readiness to discuss reasons why absentee balloting cannot be carried out and then to discard the idea. Not nearly enough attention has been given to arriving at how it can be done. The debate on this bill gives us our last chance to do something about the matter. Let's get at it. Our election law receives substantial revision at best every 8, 10 or 12 years. Surely we must make a further effort now in as bipartisan, positive and objective manner as we can to come up with a method of absentee balloting for the tens of thousands who will be prevented from casting a ballot.
The advance poll provisions are still the same, and I submit they are inadequate. A further method of enlarging the opportunity for electors to vote is to increase the number of days for advance polling. The addition of federal public servants and their dependants to the electoral rolls with the armed forces overseas is a step which we approve, even

though some might still consider there is a problem concerning identification of their vote because the results are published separately. However, the provision to announce the results of votes cast under the special voting rules by each returning officer no earlier than one hour after the polls close on election night seems to further diffuse the problem of identification and distract specific attention from those results. I suggest that a further way to lessen this problem would be for the returning officers to lump the armed forces and overseas vote results with the total advance poll results and announce them in one aggregate total on election night. It would mean that the ballots cast by those in our armed forces and those overseas would get even less specific attention. I hope the minister will think about that suggestion between now and the committee stage and agree that it would be an improvement.
There are still too many people who should be able to vote and cannot because they are not provided for, or are in this bill prohibited from being electors. The minister has mentioned this matter. What about CUSO volunteers, students and tourists who are temporarily overseas at the time of an election, or civilian employees of private business permanently stationed outside Canada? These groups will total in the thousands though the number will fluctuate widely from time to time. I submit that here is an important avenue for some sort of modified absentee balloting system.
Why could not these people, before leaving the country appear before the returning officer in their constituency and attain a certificate proving residence and eligibility to qualify as an elector in the constituency? Then, when a citizen is overseas this document could be presented to the nearest Canadian embassy, consulate or designated office at the time of a general election and he could be allowed to cast an absentee ballot. It could then be mailed to the Chief Electoral Officer and be counted, and the result passed to the appropriate returning officer. I throw this suggestion out as one of many ideas that have been discussed and examined. It is not original, but it seems to me it is a modified version of absentee balloting that could be applied when people are overseas. Surely we can devise such a system and include it in the special voting rules. What about the thousands of people in Canada who are working in the construction industry and other occupations and temporarily may be away from
May 27, 1970

their constituency for weeks at a time? Even the proxy system in the bill does not provide for them.
Why should not inmates of jails and penitentiaries vote? Why must we hang on to this nineteenth century attitude of punitive treatment instead of rehabilitation? With respect to this whole area of enlarging the opportunity and convenience for a maximum number of people to vote, I submit that this bill, even with its improvements, is still inadequate and does not measure up to the principles I outlined at the beginning of my address, those principles which should be embodied in the good electoral law of any free and democratic society.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The bill should not contain provisions discriminating against parties in opposition. I will be frank; I am particularly concerned about second and third parties in opposition. I urge even more strongly that it should not discriminate against new parties or parties presently unrepresented in Parliament. People change, times change and Parliaments change. No Parliament or government has the right to intrude in respect of decisions that should be made only by the voters.
Our provisions respecting election costs and expenditures are inadequate. Both our election law and electoral practices outside the law allow the continuation of money-raising and spending practices that are a hangover of the worst days of the pork-barrel, coercive and perverted conduct of the old line political parties of generations ago. Our electoral process is financed in a manner that stacks the deck in favour of those in power, those who have been established even longer and those who are already wealthy. It stacks the deck against the individual or party that is effectively prevented from acquiring sufficient financial resources to allow, at least, a nearly-equal presentation of alternative candidates and policies. A commission report on election expenses gathers dust. It contains the basis for real reform. It must be acted upon before the next general election. I submit that in this area more than in any other we find the cause of most of the disgust and dissatisfaction on the part of the public of Canada and on the part of reputable politicians.
I am trying to restrain myself from being too partisan. I do not suppose I shall succeed 100 per cent. I credit the present members of the House for having far better political motives, in terms of their determination to implement
Canada Elections Act
the democratic process, than did those who sat here in previous decades. But I still sense reluctance in some places with respect to the full disclosure of political party finances, the source of those finances and where the money is spent. There is still some reluctance to disclose the financing of something that ought to be public's business.
The further inadequacies in the act-I am talking of discrimination-are the result of an old hangover from pork-barrel days. The appointment of returning officers by Governor in Council gives an unfair advantage to the party in power, no matter which party it may be. It detracts from the impartiality of the officer and makes the returning officer subject to suspicion. It is unfair to him and I submit it is also unfair to the Chief Electoral Officer. Including a candidate's party affiliation on the ballot is an improvement in the law, but that provision is not completely in accord with the principle that we must not discriminate against minor or new parties or in favour of the established, larger parties. No government or Parliament has the right to introduce unreasonable prohibitions which would prevent minor or new parties being recognized. There must be no unreasonable prohibitions with respect to a candidate's political affiliation being included on the ballot.
The provision in the bill requiring 75 candidates to be nominated by the twenty-eighth day before polling day, although nominations in 253 ridings do not close until the twenty-first day before polling day, obviously constitutes a serious conflict in the bill. But more serious than that is the requirement with respect to 75 candidates: If that figure is not met by a party, its status as a registered party is withdrawn and the name of the party will not be mentioned on the ballots. The Standing Committee recommended that to constitute a party you should have candidates running in 10 per cent of 264 constituencies, or that to have 26 or 27 candidates running would qualify a party for registration and inclusion of political affiliation on the ballots. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the cabinet may feel that this figure is too low. I assure the government that this matter was discussed thoroughly by the members of the committee. The discussion was non-partisan. Even if the committee's decision was not unanimous, a great majority of committee members agreed on this point.
I think it is fair to say that most if not all members of the committee felt that access to

the bill to be good. It was certainly a good move to combine them so they could be found in one place.
In conclusion I say to the minister in as friendly and happy a manner as I can that I hope that during the debate on this bill he will wear a cap different from the one he wore during the debate on the rule changes. I think most, if not all, members of this House will want to keep the debate as non-partisan as possible. We are all anxious to make whatever contribution we can to ensure good and proper election laws and to improve even further the bill before us. I hope the minister will sympathetically receive ideas and amendments. I hope he will discuss them rationally and objectively without worrying whether some candidate, party or region may obtain a temporary or imaginary advantage. I trust he will be as anxious as the rest of us to improve the bill and enlarge even further the democratic process in our country.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to take part in this debate on the motion for second reading of bill C-215, designed to provide Canada with a modern elections act, adapted to its institutions, and to promote greater and more active democracy.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to make a few remarks and to take this opportunity to call the attention of the House to the dedication of the chief electoral officer, Mr. Hamel, and to the wonderful manner in which he discharges his duties. As a third party, our group had on several occasions to contact the chief electoral officer in order to make sure that our democratic rights would be safeguarded to the same extent as those of the so-called national parties, the big parties. Now, on every occasion, in a democratic and objective way, he made it a point to co-operate with us, not in order to give us more than to the others, but to protect our rights as much as those of the others. We are proud of him and I want to say here that he may be assured of our co-operation and of our appreciation of his work.
I am glad to mention that the chief electoral officer is a citizen of the Lotbiniere constituency. It is perhaps for this reason that he is an excellent chief electoral officer, and that the electors of the constituency have naturally elected a Creditiste candidate. I would not like to sound parochial, but it seems to me that there are a lot of good people in that constituency.
Canada Elections Act
As to bill C-215, I believe that the election of members is perhaps the most important thing in Canada, a democratic country. Indeed, Parliament is the highest institution in this country. It enacts laws, determines penalties, rules on administrative matters, levies taxes and collects them, distributes family allowances, old age security pensions, and so on.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, Parliament is more or less the cornerstone of the much-vaunted democracy.
Now, in order to elect members who will truly reflect the will of the people on whose behalf they wish to govern, there must be a link between this supreme institution, Parliament, and the people. This link is none other than the electoral legislation and to the extent that the electoral law of a country protects the interests of its citizens, Parliament will truly reflect the will of the people. When the electoral legislation tends to protect the individual and the petty interests of a particular political party, when it condones fraud or is not precise enough, many complications are bound to crop up and the election of representatives may not truly reflect the will of the people.
That is why, on reading the major amendments to be made to the Elections Act, we feel very happy. In fact, the proposed amendments not only will ensure the secrecy of the vote but also its effectiveness.
An elections act has important objects. I shall mention first of all the effectiveness of enumeration. When this is done in an efficient and honest way, preliminary and official lists are consisted with the number of franchised electors. To the extent that the enumeration is well done, the voting lists will be accurate. In this way, everything is above board.
It has been proved on several occasions that enumeration and the appointment of enumerators are tainted with partisanship. In the past, enumeration was done more or less honestly and accurately. One should not be surprised to note that several electors entitled to vote were denied that right.
I personally knew of people from a whole street block who were not enumerated because of two scheming enumerators and, at the time, the third parties were hard hit because they did not have their say.
In that regard, I feel that the federal Elections Act is sound legislation, as compared to the Quebec legislation which prevents the elector from defending himself, while under

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
the federal legislation, the elector who has not been enumerated may have certain recourses.
Here is what pleases me most perhaps: a person who has not been enumerated can, even though he has not received his notice of enumeration, go to the polling station to cast his vote.
Having said this, at the beginning of the debate I listened with interest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) who said that a permanent list of voters offered several disadvantages. Indeed, in view of what has happened in other countries, it might not be desirable to adopt a permanent list of voters in Canada. He said that it might cost some $13 million and that, consequently, it was too expensive. He then, dismissed that possibility offhand.
I agree with the President of the Privy Council about the experiment conducted in this regard in other countries.
However, I am still convinced that this is not a reason to maintain the statu quo and refuse to budge.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my intention to introduce, at the report stage an amendment to make it compulsory to carry an identity card. Perhaps, at first blush, the necessity of it is not too obvious, but I will try to explain.
Since a permanent voters' list does not perhaps meet best the needs of the Canadian voters, the annual checking of an identity card duly approved by the Governor in Council could certainly stop many abuses at the polls.
Arguing that it would be too expensive and that the experience of other countries has shown that it would not meet our needs, the government rejects the idea of a permanent voting list.
I would like to ask the President of the Queen's Privy Council to allow in the course of the discussion of this bill-and I know that with his experience the chief electoral officer would certainly have interesting proposals to submit in connection with that-the setting up of a permanent list, at least of a system which would enable all Canadians to exercise their franchise without losing between two elections their vested privileges. We must not only make sure that all electors exercise their right to vote, but also prevent any fraud in the exercise of this right. If, in the opinion of the President of the Privy Council, it is not desirable to establish a permanent list in

order to ensure that each voter be able to exercise his voting rights, something should be done, at the very least, to avoid fraud.
There are therefore two major goals to achieve and it seems to me that the government is shilly-shallying and does not seem willing to take all possible action to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
That is why I intend to move an amendment in due time in order to make it compulsory to carry an identity card, so that whenever the voter goes to the poll to exercise his franchise, he would have to show his card to the clerks or to the representatives of the various parties. If he is unable to show his card, he then should sign an affidavit or take an oath under the provisions of section 39 of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of many cases that prove that in all the electoral districts of Canada, human nature being what it is, many frauds may be perpetrated where there is no identity card. Up to now, I have taken part in several federal elections either as a candidate or as an organizer, and I found that a number of people cast their vote under another name than their own, thus depriving other citizens from exercising their right to vote.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This is why I feel that it is an important question to which I will come back in due course, but I am referring to it now, hoping that the President of the Privy Council, who is well-known for his broadness of mind, will consider the possibility of including that provision in the Elections Act. Thus, each Canadian voter would have a card bearing his picture and his signature and he would show it at the polling station. Naturally, it could also serve many other purposes.
To extend the right to vote to the 18-year old group and at the same time to deprive them from protection against fraud, would be to imitate the lobster who, we are told, takes one step forward and two backward. This illusory maturity line is finally done away with in section 14 and I vociferously applaud this long-awaited measure which now lowers the voting age to 18.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, our democratic and parliamentary institutions will be rejuvenated by the young people entering the political arena. I am not saying that their elders are not as good, but the presence of youth will force the middle-aged people to get out of the rut and closer to the grass-roots instead of being entirely obsessed with protecting their
May 27, 1970

public image. It is not that older people are less competent, but they will have the advantage of no longer being crushed by the Establishment.
This rebirth, due to the lowering of the voting age to 18 will give new life to our parliamentary institutions, which is a matter for rejoicing. I sincerely wish that lowering the voting age to 18 will produce a growing number of dynamic members who will consider their role in the House more important than the political party to which they belong.
In time, political mores will be renewed, the parliamentary institutions will be rejuvenated and adapted to new conditions thanks to the co-operation of middle-aged people and younger men without experience, but dynamic.
Democracy being our most valuable asset, it is imperative that all strata of society-even the young-be allowed to take part in it. Passing an elections act will not do it-unless quite indirectly-but it seems to me that women and young people should gain more say in our institutions.
Since democracy is our most precious possession, the Canadian people should trust their democratic institutions and be able to freely express themselves and to fully exercise their franchise; besides, strict measures should be taken against fraud.
From my humble point of view, this is an essential condition if we want our elections act and our democracy to be more than an illusion.
Mr. Speaker, our people must have faith in their democratic institutions, and an elections act can provide such confidence if it is well drafted. I consider that Bill C-215 can achieve those objectives and I am pleased to tell the House that I will gladly support it.
Mr. Speaker, one must respect the individual and protect its prerogatives and its right to vote. This is why I believe that to reach the goals which I have mentioned, making it compulsory to carry the identity card would surely be a welcome move and would give the population greater faith in our institutions.
The amendments in clause 4 of the bill state that where, by reason of some emergency, it has been necessary to suspend voting at any polling station on the ordinary polling day, the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to extend the hours of voting at the polling station after the hour fixed for the closing of the poll.
Canada Elections Act
Clause 4(4) should say more specifically how long the polling stations will be closed. If no time limit is set, it may be that the results of the vote will be known only two days after the election.
We should therefore set a time limit in clause 4(4), so that we might, within the shortest delay, solve a problem that could crop up at that time.
If no limit is provided for, we could then know how the vote went only two days after the election. This happened in Warwick at the last provincial election. A polling station was ordered closed and the results were known only the following morning. Such a situation was caused by someone at a polling station.
A time limit should be set so as to give more authority if possible to the officers in charge and to the chief electoral officer.
There is another point I must raise. Indeed, under clauses 1 and 3 of clause 14, the right to vote is granted to 18-year-olds, and it is stated that Canadian citizens only will be qualified as electors. It is also stated that every British subject, other than a Canadian citizen, who was qualified as an elector on the 25 day of June, 1968, and has not, since that date, ceased to be ordinarily resident in Canada, is deemed to be qualified as an elector.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), if the right to vote is granted at 18, I think we should very soon consider setting the legal age at 18 in every field.
I shall quote examples which will seem rather funny to my hon. colleagues. In the province of Quebec, if someone under 21 wishes to get married, he must ask his parents for their written consent.
I cannot very well imagine a Creditiste member and his prospective bride, both 19 years of age, having to seek their respective fathers' consent to get married.
If those young people were unfortunate enough to have a staunch Progressive Conservative father and an adamantly Liberal mother, they might never be able to get married since they would never obtain leave to do so.
It is certainly timely now to lower the legal age from 21 to 18 not only where the federal elections act is concerned but at every level.
I will now give another example of a problem which is bound to arise. Let us suppose that a 19 year old citizen is elected as a member of Parliament. He may be invited to

May 27, 1370
Canada Elections Act
a cocktail party at a hotel. If he is invited in Ontario or in Quebec either he will be prohibited from setting foot in the hotel or he will not be allowed to have a drink with his guests, and this, because he is not yet 21 years old.
There is some truth in these examples and we should certainly make 18 years the legal age in every case.
If at 18 someone can be a fullfledged citizen, cast his vote and be elected to the House, we should, I think, make that age uniform. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres was probably right in emphasizing his concern in this respect.
There is another clause to which I would like to draw the attention of the House and that is clause 16. It says that the residence of a person who wishes to qualify as an elector will be considered as of the first day of the enumeration date rather than as of the day the brief is issued.
The clause referred to is clause 16, in Bill C-125. I would like to commend those who drafted this clause of the bill which further enhances the possibilities for the voters to get their names on the lists of electors.
To my mind, the limit formerly in effect was unacceptable.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of clause 16 please me, and I think those of sub-clause 20 of clause 18 are excellent. They can be summed up as follows: an elector who has been enumerated and whose name does not appear on the preliminary list of electors can obtain a voting certificate without producing the notice of enumeration.
Here, I should like to relate a personal experience to prove to my hon. colleagues the importance of this section. During the last provincial election, in the riding of Lot-biniere, at Sainte-Croix, Sainte-Antoine-de-Tilly, Joly and Val-Alain, the names of over 120 persons had been listed on the preliminary list. The revising officers went around and took it upon themselves to remove the names of those 120 persons from those lists.
They reported to the county's returning officer without advising the people concerned, so that a few days before election day, those people, whose names appeared on the preliminary list, no longer had the right to vote. And the Provincial Elections Act provides that in the absence of complaints on the part of an elector whose name is deleted from the list, 
that same elector cannot by any means exercise his franchise. By allowing an elector to vote just the same without having his notice of enumeration, clause 18 is already an improvement fraud. Suppose some electors are willing to vote for a minor party, either the New Democratic party or the Ralliement cre-ditiste, and that one revising officer is Progressive Conservative and the other a Liberal, they might connive with each other to delete those electors' names from the lists without telling them, and those electors would then be helpless.
I wonder where the democratic right comes in. That is why I am happy to see clause 18, but it seems to me that it does not go far enough.
I should like to come back to section 13, which may be summarized as follows: The political parties wishing to support candidates in a federal election in Canada will have to file an application with the Chief Electoral Officer. I agree as far as that.
Moreover, the same clause provides that any new party wishing to have its name entered on the voting ballots must have candidates in at least 75 of the electoral districts of Canada on the twenty-eighth day before polling day.
Like the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), I want to say that I completely disagree with the second part of clause 13. The number of 75 set by the government means that it is up to the government to impose its definition of a national party.
The Ralliement creditiste was the first in this House to ensure the presence and to defend the democratic rights of a group of men who are neither Liberals nor Progressive Conservatives. It is not the responsibility of the government, in my opinion, to set up a minimum number of 75 candidates to ensure the recognition of a party. It seems to me that in such a case, the government shows discrimination against people who wish to elect a group of men who could do as efficient a job as any member of any other party.
Therefore, I should like to call the attention of the President of the Privy Council to clause 13 asking him to remove in the second part only, the figure of 75 and to replace it with the phrase: "a minimum of 10 to 20 per cent," as was suggested by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. Then it seems to me that the government would show its broadmindedness and that it would not close the
May 27, 197C

door of Parliament to the people. Mr. Speaker, we must be more broadminded.
The summary of the amendment mentions under clause 46: proxy voting-and this is an important part of Bill C-215-that can only be used on the ordinary polling day is instituted for fishermen, marines, prospectors, full-time students, who are performing their usual duties or pursuing their studies, are away from their usual place of residence on the advance polling day or ordinary polling day, as well as people who, due to illness or physical incapacity, are unable to go to the poll.
Mr. Speaker, proxy voting is an improvement over the former elections act. However, it is obvious that this system should be explained fully in simple terms so that voters whether educated or not are able to understand it fully and make use of it. It seems to me that this clause is worthy of support, because this is something both new and better.
I would like to mention, as an example, the Frontenac riding, which, as everybody knows, has no representative at the present time. Mr. Speaker, our present Elections Act has a deficiency which should be looked into immediately. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should be required to call a by-election in a riding where there is a vacancy within three months after the beginning of the vacancy.
Mr. Speaker, a riding such as that of Frontenac, like any other in Canada, has the right to be represented in the House and it should not be left to one man to decide, after six months or a year, whether that riding shall have a representative or not. It seems to me that such a practice is discriminatory and that as long as it is allowed under our Elections Act, the population will not have confidence in our democratic institutions.
This is all the more true as the people are entitled to be represented in the House. There should be incorporated in the Elections Act a specific provision stipulating that within three months following a vacancy in a constituency, the prime minister must order a by-election. Thus, the democratic rights of people concerned would be respected.
And on behalf of the electors of the Frontenac constituency, which is close to mine, I insist on the government calling a by-election as soon as possible. The people there need to elect once again a Creditiste to represent them in the House, and they are eager to be able to do so.
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-215 is an improvement but it will remain quite limited as long as the financing of our political parties is not put in order.
Mr. Speaker, whatever elections act we pass, however honest the provisions designed to prevent any fraud may be, the citizens' democratic rights will not be safeguarded unless specific measures are adopted in order to protect the decision of the people and to prevent money from being the prime factor in democracy.
If one believes in democracy and wants to live up to it, what is most important is the will of the people and not the undue influence of money.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If we refuse to pursue an ostrich policy, if we are sincere and straight-forward, we must admit that in politics, both in Canada and in the United States and in other countries, money has always been the determining factor of a man's success. It is money which today elects our rulers, our political parties and our members of Parliament, regardless of their competence, their ideas or their objectives. Money is all-powerful. The richest is the strongest. So long as the financing of political parties is not put in order and their expenses are not checked, our elections act and our institutions will remain a farce, because in the end, it is still and always money which sends our members to Parliament. It is money which elects them, which influences them at election time, and which decides afterwards whether they will be reelected or not, according as they have served or not the interests of finance.
Bill C-215 is a fundamental bill. It tends to modernize the Elections Act in order to give the Canadian people a little more faith in our parliamentary democratic institutions. But it is only a drop in the ocean. Until something is done to implement the studies which have been made and are gathering dust on the shelves, the electors will be the losers. Earlier the President of the Privy Council said that these things will perhaps be discussed early next fall, that is in a year from now.
Now that we are about to pass Bill C-215 which tends to modernize our parliamentary democratic institutions, I would like the President of the Privy Council to assure us that the report of the committee inquiring into election expenditures will not remain a dead letter. I say and I repeat that until we overcome the problem of money in politics, until

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
we give the same rights to all political parties insofar as money is concerned, as long as the candidates of the various political parties are enslaved by money during election campaigns and as long as governments kowtow to finance, democracy will only be a farce.
There are perhaps many young people and older people too who believe less and less in democracy, because they know as well as I do that money is the master in politics. That is why I can only urge that specific regulations be enacted with regard to the expenses incurred and authorized by political parties during an election campaign.
Before I close my remarks, I again urge my colleagues to consider seriously the possibility of amending Bill C-215 in order to make it compulsory to carry the identity card. Then we will have shown our intention to avoid as many fraudulent acts as possible when using our franchise, this being an essential right in any democratic society.
There, Mr. Speaker, we wish the adoption of the bill under study, and soon afterwards, the adoption of another bill for the control of electoral spending, in order that the hon. members really be true servants of the people and not of Mammon.


Mr. Ovide Lailamme (Montmorency):: It
would be wrong of me, Mr. Speaker, not to speak, at least for a few minutes, during consideration of the motion on the second reading of the bill amending the Elections Act, were it only to thank very sincerely my colleagues who sat on the committee responsible for the consideration of the bill and who a while ago made some quite flattering remarks about me.
I would like, however, as chairman of the committee responsible for the amendment of this legislation, to put on record the fact that during the few months during which we worked together, we have truly attained that essential kind of discussion which excludes any partisanship and I think that we have worked harmoniously together, so that almost all our decisions were unanimous. I believe that this reflects favourably on the report which together we have drawn and tabled in the House just before the drafting of the bill by the legal officers of the Crown.
As someone just said and as it was repeated this afternoon, the Elections Act does provide an extremely important democratic mechanism. It is all the more so that, if we compare it with that of electoral legislation in

other countries, we conclude that the proposed electoral system is as good if not better than that of all other democratic countries where permanent electoral rolls have been established and voting made mandatory. Generally speaking, it can be said that implementation of the proposed Canadian electoral legislation will, I think, make our electoral machinery one of the best that can exist in democratic countries.
As for the various amendments that have been considered, I would like to express my personal feelings. I will deal particularly with the fact of allowing the 18-year-olds to vote. Before doing so, I want to talk about an interview I watched on the French television network of CBC. Some negative questions were put to the chief electoral officer; he was asked why the idea of having a permanent voting list had been given up.
I am alluding to the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). If he had taken part in the committee proceedings, he might have understood why on two occasions, we studied the opportunity of establishing a permanent voters' list. The committee rejected the proposal for various reasons, which had little to do with the reasons that were brought forward this afternoon.
It was not sufficiently emphasized that the committee refused to consider favourably the setting up of a permanent list on account of the high cost of such an endeavour which is estimated at $13 million a year. Besides, due to the shortcomings of our present democratic system, two factors combined make it impossible to prepare an absolutely effective permanent list.
The members of the committee were gainst an expenditure of 13 million a year in view of the fact that despite this outlay of money the list would not achieve all the objectives intended.
The great mobility of our population has also motivated the decision of committee members. As a matter of fact, according to statistics, 25 per cent of the population move every four years. Considering also that elections are not held at set dates and that it is up to the Prime Minister alone to set the date, a permanent electoral list would not be efficient.
In fact, the enumeration would have to be done over every six months because of the mobility of the people. The committee mem-
May 27. 1970

bers have also concluded that such a permanent list, while attempting to deprive as few electors as possible of their right to vote, would have the very opposite effect.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This list, which after all would cost 13 million dollars, to be of any use, would have to be adhered to without the necessity of frequent revisions. Therefore, the factors I mentioned, i.e., the mobility of our population, the prime minister's prerogative to call an election, and never at any fixed date, added to the annual expense of 13 million dollars, and our concern with depriving as few voters as possible of the exercise of their rights have resulted in failure to achieve the objective we sought.
Elimination of the principle of a permanent election list on grounds of inefficiency rather than of cost, however heavy, involves eliminating a system of absentee voting, which is only conceivable if there is a permanent list.
But the permanent list being eliminated and the absentee voting system having gone overboard, since it was essentially predicated upon a permanent list, other means had to be found. But which means? The setting up of a system depriving the least possible number of citizens of their right to vote, an extension of the structures, so as to make the former rules easier and more flexible. Voters who went to the polls would be deemed to ordinarily reside in the electoral district in which they lived on the enumeration date, and this is another improvement.
We have also considered a revision system of electoral lists which would make the rules more flexible and remove the possibilities of clerical errors in the setting up of the electoral list.
We further considered a way to make it easier for the voter to exercise his franchise in such a way that he would not have to inscribe only a crossmark or an "X" as was the case in the past, and to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.
If we analyze the whole legislation, we have to come to the conclusion that in spite of its defects, it has reached the main objectives that we had in mind, that is to say to reach the greatest number possible of voters, for the reasons I have set out, discarding thus the principle of a permanent list of voters which would have, as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out, made easier an absentee voting system, fraught with difficulties and shortcomings.
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Speaker, the question of proxy vote was also dealt with. It does not equally apply to all social strata,-we realize that-because if according to the principles of democracy, we wish to extend the franchise to the greatest possible number of people, we should understand however that the voter, even when rather apathetic, will try to take part in a democratic electoral system and do his best to exercise his right to vote. By changing the provisions of the act concerning temporary polling stations, by making voting by proxy more convenient for the voters, there is a distinct improvement. In fact when the majority of the people wish to change government, there is always a possibility that a small number of voters do not exercise their franchise through carelessness, negligence or lack of interest rather than inability.
I am coming back now to a major provision of the bill concerning the lowering of the voting age to 18.
If I am not mistaken, everyone has said that this was an improvement. I can conceive that this is an improvement, perhaps a major one, because another 10 per cent at least of the voters, who are among the youngest members of society, will be allowed to vote. This imposes upon political parties a heavy responsibility which is basic in my opinion.
Unless I am totally misinformed I submit that none of the federal political parties is sufficiently structured to communicate and dialogue with the young people of 14, 15 and 16 who will have the right to vote come the next general election.
This means, if we are to analyze quite objectively the social impact of the amendments to the act on the Canadian electorate as a whole, that at the time of an election, the children of 14 will be those who, at the next election, will be in a position to overthrow the government from which they will be far removed, due to their school or other activities, if some machinery has not been set up.
There is a potential danger there-and the people will have to get used to it. Parliament must set up the necessary machinery so that it can communicate with the young while respecting their yearning for objectivity and making allowance for their readiness to defend ideals which are not always commendable and are more often than not negative rather than positive, as experience has shown. Young people have, indeed, generally adopted a negative rather than a positive approach; they have dedicated themselves to the quest of ideals basically opposed to their

May 27, 1970
Canada Elections Act
primary interests. This means that in a well organized democracy-and I emphasize the fact-this idea will have to be accepted as such. Some deans or professors will also have to be in a position to influence the youths of 14, 15 and 16 who might be called upon to vote in the next election. We shall have to provide the political parties, through their representatives or otherwise, with some kind of means of reaching the young people in our high schools, and in the other places they haunt, in order to talk to them so that they are not just geared to some kind of idealism, often very far removed, from reality, but to reality itself.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
My remarks stem from what has been the case in Quebec where he voting age was lowered to 18 years for the last election. In that province, between 60 and 75 per cent of the young people got enthusiastic over a political philosophy. But, when four political parties are competing in an election, and when it is realized that a huge majority of a certain sector of the population, namely the young people, vote in favour of a certain party, that is something dangerous, if we do not devise new structures so that the young might be informed about public administration at both the provincial and the federal levels.
Provided that objective is reached, 10 per cent of the young people, that is perhaps the best element of the population, through their usual dynamism, and their normal eagerness in their search for the truth, will contribute to our society. Thanks to that mechanism, our electoral mores can be purged.
Members of all political parties should dialogue with the young, instead of leading them to seek ideals which are not always praiseworthy. Let them instil ideals in the young people of 14, 15, and 16 years of age, and set objectives in their best interest and those of the Canadian people as a whole: then we can lay claim to having improved something.
I feel that, in the analysis of the revision of the Elections Act, which delves deeply into several sectors, particularly where the vote by proxy is concerned, which applies especially to students, we should allow the students to vote in their respective ridings, where they are known, for the very good reason that
they should not be deprived of their franchise because their functions, their work, demand that they attend a university, very often far away from their usual residence or that of their parents.
On the whole, an analysis of the bill reveals that its objects are those that I listed very briefly a while ago. Compared to earlier amendments to the act, and considering the extent of some of the present amendments, the government should, of necessity, enable the chief electoral officer to dispose of far more funds than he has now, to inform the people through the normal media, namely television, radio and newspapers, so that they might, long before elections are held, be better informed about the new election machinery that will be in force in the future.
For that purpose, the Chief Electoral Officer needs additional funds and much greater freedom, and he has neither at the present time.
The pros and cons of the amendments were pointed out a few moments ago. I will say it again: all the committee members who studied this bill really tried to be objective and to find the best possible means of providing the Canadian people as a whole with an election apparatus that would be every bit as good as in other countries.
In conclusion, I will just point to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who demanded that the law be amended to allow for a by-election in the Frontenac constituency that such an amendment should be made rather to the House of Commons Act, which gives the Prune Minister a six month-time-limit, which may seem very long to order the holding of an election. Should the House of Commons Act ever be revised, that would be the time to make suggestions.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the few comments I wanted to make.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 5.56 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
May 27, 1970



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Office of the


[Stage Direction]
1.	The French terminology suggested by the Staff of the Statute Revision Commission is adopted.
2.	The duties and responsibilities which, under the Canada Elections Act, as amended, are at present assigned to the Representation Commissioner are transferred back to the Chief Electoral Officer (Sec. 4(2) and (3), Sec. 61(1) and Sec. 70).
3.	Any reference to a specific salary to be paid to the Chief Electoral Officer is deleted from the Act and, instead, his salary is equated to that of a puisne judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, including any additional salary authorized by section 20 of the Judges Act (Sec. 3(4)).
4.	Where, by reason of some emergency, it has been necessary to suspend voting at any polling station on the ordinary polling day, the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to extend the hours of voting at the polling station after the hour fixed for the closing of the poll (Sec. 4(4)).
5.	Failure on the part of a returning officer to revise his polling division boundaries as instructed by the Chief Electoral Officer is a cause for removal from office (Sec. 7(3)(f)).
6.	A vacancy in the office of returning officer will be filled within 60 days from the date on which the Chief Electoral Officer has been informed of the vacancy (Sec. 7(5)).
7.	Returning officers in electoral districts specified in Schedule III are allowed to appoint additional election clerks on the authorization of the Chief Electoral Officer (Sec. 8(10), (11) and (12)).
8.	Polling division boundaries will be established to include approximately 250 electors, or a multiple thereof, per polling division (Sec. 10(2) and (3)).
9.	The Chief Electoral Officer is given the power, when requested not later than the date of the issue of the writ, to declare built up areas abutting incoporated towns and
cities of 5,000 population or more urban polling divisions, if he deems it expedient (Sec. 11(3)).
10.	The Chief Electoral Officer is given the power, when requested not later than the date of the issue of the writ, to declare areas within incorporated towns and cities of 5,000 population or more rural polling divisions, if he deems it expedient (Sec. 11(4)).
11.	Voting age is reduced to eighteen and only Canadian citizens are qualified as electors (British subjects, other than Canadian citizens, who were qualified as electors on the 25th day of June, 1968, and have not ceased since that date to be ordinarily resident in Canada, are deemed to be qualified as electors) (Sec. 14(1) to (3)).
12.	The residence requirement to be qualified to vote will be determined as of the first day of enumeration, instead of as of the date of the issue of the writ (Sec. 16).
13.	Ministers, priests and teachers who change the place of their ordinary residence from one polling division to another between the first day of enumeration and polling day, will be allowed to have their names entered on the list of electors for the polling division to which they have moved, even if such polling division is in the same electoral district (Sec. 17(9)).
14.	The privilege accorded ministers, priests and teachers is extended to persons seasonally employed in the fishing industry, other than fishermen (Sec. 17(9)(c)).
15.	The distinction between persons temporarily engaged in public works and those in non-public works is abolished (Sec. 17(12) and (13)).
16.	A candidate who was a member of Parliament on the day before the dissolution of Parliament immediately preceding the election, is entitled to vote in the electoral district where he is a candidate; this right is extended to his spouse and dependants (Sec. 17(16)).
[Stage Direction]
May 27, 1970
17.	The procedures for appointing urban enumerators, revising agents and substitute revising officers are clarified and their duties and responsibilities clearly defined (Sec. 18, Sched. A, Rules (4), (27) and (68)).
18.	The returning officer and revising officer are nermitted to correct clerical errors made by the enumerators or the printers in the preparation of the preliminary lists of electors (Sec. 18(4) and Sec. 18, Sched. A, Rules (42) and (43)).
19.	At the request of the returning officer, the revising officer will be allowed to rectify mistakes made by the enumerators or revising agents (Sec. 18, Sched. A, rules (41) and (80)).
20.	An elector who has been enumerated but whose name has been left off the preliminary list of electors may obtain a certificate to vote without producing his enumeration notice in Form No. 7 (Sec. 18(2)).
21.	With the prior approval of the Chief Electoral Officer and for good and valid reason, a returning officer will be authorized to amalgamate two or more polling divisions (Sec. 18(29) and (30)).
22.	Only postmasters of post offices in the urban areas of an electoral district will receive a notice of revision (Sec. 18, Sched. A, Rule (34)).
23.	The days for the sittings for revising the preliminary lists of electors, in both urban and rural areas, are advanced by one day (Sec. 18, Sched. A, Rule (39) and Sched. B, Rule (13)).
24.	Revising officers are authorized to take names off the preliminary lists of electors at the request of the persons themselves who want their names to be removed from the lists (Sec. 18, Sched. A, Rule (42)).
25.	Revising agents are authorized to accept statements from relatives by blood or marriage (Sec. 18, Sched. A Rule (76(b)).
26.	The number of copies of the statements of changes and additions supplied to candidates is reduced from five to three (Sec. 18, Sched. A, Rules (63) and (64)).
27.	The proclamation will be printed in both official languages in every electoral district in Canada (Sec. 19(1)).
28.	The procedure for the nomination of candidates is set out separately from the
provisions dealing with polling day and nomination day, and is precisely set out (Sections 22 and 23).
29.	Political parties in Canada wishing to endorse candidates at an election for the House of Commons will have to register with the Chief Electoral Officer; in addition, any new party that wishes to be identified on the ballot papers must have candidates officially nominated in 75 electoral districts in Canada on the 28th day before polling day (Section 13).
30.	The age to be a candidate is reduced from 21 to 18 (Sec. 20).
31.	Persons who are specifically disqualified from voting are ineligible as candidates (Sec. 21(l)(h)).
32.	Persons who consent to be candidates at an election knowing that they are ineligible will be guilty of an offence (Sec. 21(4)).
33.	Returning officers will be permitted to centralize up to ten polling stations and, whenever possible, shall locate their polling stations in schools or other public buildings (Sec. 33 (6) and (9)).
34.	The rights and obligations of candidates and their agents in polling stations are clarified and more precisely set out (Sec. 36).
35.	The Friday immediately preceding polling day, instead of Saturday, will be the last day for receiving applications for transfer certificates (Sec. 43(1)).
36.	The procedure for voting is clarified and precisely set out (Sec. 45).
37.	Anyone who records the serial number of a ballot paper is guilty of an offence (Sec. 45(10)).
38.	Where an elector is unable to mark his ballot for any reason, a friend or relative accompanying him will be permitted to mark the ballot on his behalf (Sec. 45(14) to (18)).
39.	A system of proxy voting, exercisable only on the ordinary polling day, is instituted for fishermen, mariners, prospectors and fulltime students who, in the normal course of their employment or studies as such, are absent from their place of ordinary residence on advance polling day and ordinary polling day, as well as for persons who, through illness or physical incapacity, are unable to attend and vote at a polling station (Sec. 46).﻿May 27, 1970
[Stage Direction]
40.	The proxy provisions relating to fulltime students are in lieu of their prior entitlement to be on two lists.
41.	The format of the ballot paper is changed to contain a small circular space at the right of and completely separated from the space where the name of the candidate is printed, in which space the elector will indicate his choice (Sec. 31(2) and Form No. 37);
The Chief Electoral Officer is required to prepare a new design for the back of the ballot paper (Sec. 116).
42.	The political affiliation of a candidate who is endorsed by the leader of a registered party or his designated representative will be printed on the ballot paper (Sec. 31(1) (b)).
43.	The requirement to indicate the address and occupation of a candidate on the ballot paper is deleted.
44.	A ballot paper will not be rejected solely because it was marked with a writing instrument other than a black lead pencil or with a mark other than a cross (Sec. 51(4) (b)).
45.	A returning officer will apply to a judge for a recount if, on the official addition of the votes, there is an equality of votes between two or more candidates and an additional vote for one of such candidates would entitle him to be declared elected (Sec. 53(7)).
46.	When a judicial recount is conducted, the persons who are entitled to attend and the election material to which the judge may refer, are clearly set out in the Act; the judge is entitled to hire clerical assistance and is empowered to summon before him a deputy returning officer or poll clerk, if necessary; the attendance of an election clerk is no longer mandatory; a judge will be permitted to terminate a recount at any time upon request (Sec. 56).
47.	The Chief Electoral Officer is authorized to pay revising agents by warrants, give accountable advances to returning officers and withhold payments to election officers who have failed to carry out their duties (Sec. 61(4), (8) and (16)).
48.	The penalty and offences provisions of the Canada Elections Act are consolidated, whenever possible, and the penalties incorporated into a single section (Sections 65 to 79).
49.	The outlets for the sale of alcoholic beverages are closed on ordinary polling day only while the polls are open (Sec. 67).
22375-51J
50.	A candidate and his official agent are prohibited from providing alcoholic beverages during an election period for election purposes (Sec. 66(3)).
51.	The restriction for paying transportation of electors to the polls is deleted. (Sec. 15(3) (d)).
52.	Any form of tampering with the election material or campaign literature of a candidate is an offence (Sec. 73).
53.	The right to vote at advance polls is extended to persons confined to wheelchairs or otherwise incapacitated and these polls will be located in places providing ease of access to such incapacitated persons (Sections 91(6) and 93).
54.	The notice of advance polls will be published thirty days before polling day, rather than twelve days as in the past (Sec. 92(3)).
55.	It is now an offence to make a premature count of the votes cast at an advance poll (Sec. 95(9)).
56.	The minimum age for all election officers, except returning officers, whose minimum age shall continue to be twenty-one, will be eighteen (Sec. 98(2) and (3)).
57.	Political broadcasts are forbidden only on the ordinary polling day and on the one day immediately preceding it (Sec. 99 (1)).
58.	The provisions relating to premature publication of election results are amended to make it possible to take action against corporations as well as individuals (Sec. 105(2)).
59.	The present provisions of the Canadian Forces Voting Rules are extended to public servants posted abroad and their dependants as well as to dependants of the members of the forces serving abroad and for this purpose, Schedule II of the Canada Elections Act is re-titled "Special Voting Rules" (Sec. 109).
60.	Persons entitled to vote as Veteran electors under the Special Voting Rules are entitled to choose, as their place of ordinary residence, the institution in which they are resident while receiving treatment, provided they have been there for at least one year (Sec. 67(3) (b) of the Special Voting Rules).
61.	A candidate or his accredited representative will be authorized to inspect, in the office of the returning officer, the list of Canadian Forces and Public Service electors, entitled to vote under the Special Voting
[Stage Direction]
May 27. 1970
Buies, who are ordinarily resident of his electoral district and make extracts therefrom (Sections 12(2) and 28(D).
62.	The list of Canadian Forces electors prepared by each commanding officer is no longer open for inspection by candidates or their representatives (Paragraph 29 of the present Canadian Forces Voting Buies).
63.	Nomination day in electoral districts other than those specified in Schedule III will be on the twenty-first day before polling day at a general election, instead of the fourteenth day, and the days and times specified for the doing of anything under the Act or Buies will be advanced to permit the vote under the Special Voting Buies to be announced on the ordinary polling day (Sections 22(5) and 52).
64.	The writs of election for a general election will specify the date on which they are returnable (Form No. 1).
65.	A clear distinction is made between the terms "qualified as elector" or "qualified elector" and "qualified to vote".
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 28, 1970