1970-01-21

PRIVILEGE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled a letter bearing my signature. I was out of the House attending a meeting with the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, in the company of the Premier of Manitoba, the Manitoba Minister of Industry and Commerce and the mayor of Brandon.


An hon. Member:: What a group!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The meeting was convened to discuss ways and means for continuing the present class one air service into western Manitoba which has been threatened by Transair's application to suspend the service. Because of the implications of the proposed change in regional air policy for continuing economic progress in western Manitoba, I think you will agree that the meeting had top priority. This, then, is the first opportunity I have had to deal with the minister's action.
The issue raised in the House yesterday brings into focus the whole question of leaseholds in western national parks. It is also closely tied in to the feeling of isolation and alienation that is growing to an alarming degree in western and northwestern Canada, as has been pointed out recently in press articles. The government has demonstrated a congenital incapacity to deal with the serious special problems in these important areas of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. gentleman immediately to remind him that he has the floor now under very special rules and the requirement at this time is that he should indicate how his privileges as a member of this House have been violated by the tabling of the letter to which
he alludes in the notice he has given me. If he will indicate in what way he thinks there has been a breach of privilege, then further action might be contemplated. Certainly this is not the time to discuss the general policy which is perhaps the background of the tabling of the letter yesterday by the minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I merely made that reference because the problem is peculiar to the west inasmuch as there are no national parks in Quebec and only minor ones in Ontario. In tabling the letter the minister implied that it endorsed a policy that the Liberal government has been pursuing in respect of western national parks since 1963.
My question of privilege revolves around two fundamental matters: first, the right of the minister to table a letter signed by another Privy Councillor without first seeking the customary permission from the author and, second, the ethics of using this kind of cheap politics to stir up further trouble in the west.
The letter, of course, in no way endorses what the minister is attempting to do in the western parks today. It merely outlines the orderly plan that was adopted in 1962 for the development of national parks in western Canada based on the principles of wise management and multi-use that emerged out of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference in 1961. It carefully preserves the right of perpetuity in the original leases.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the letter was tabled. It is now the property of the House. It was tabled without my permission, and I do not think hon. members will have the opportunity of perusing it unless they make special efforts to do so.
The implication was left by the minister that it endorses his policy. I shall be as brief as I can on this fundamental point. It does not endorse that policy because the minister has arbitrarily cancelled perpetuity in original leases. The issue was taken to the Exchequer Court by the residents of the western parks and their position was upheld by that court. The minister has now referred the matter to

January 21, 1970
Privilege
the Supreme Court, hoping to get that decision reversed. It is because of these situations that there is a growing feeling of alienation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the same situation is involved in the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford with reference to the rental reassessments that are now taking place in the national parks. This, again, was a policy agreed to only after long consultation with the advisory councils and the people in the parks, and it has nothing to do with the current increases of up to 4,000 per cent.
On the strength of the points I have made, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I be allowed to table some documents, with the consent of the House, which put the record straight. I am sure all hon. members would want this to be done in light of the distortions arising from the discussion yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated a moment ago, the hon. member got the floor on a question of privilege of which he had given the Chair due notice according to the Standing Orders. The observations of the hon. member were not followed by a motion so that in the ordinary way we cannot pursue the matter further. In any event, I have serious doubts whether there is an actual question of privilege.
The minister tabled the letter or document yesterday under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) which gives a minister the right at any time to table a document or a paper. The hon. member suggested that the minister should perhaps have obtained his prior consent or permission. This is certainly not a requirement under the Standing Order and the Chair has to be guided by the Standing Orders.
I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that it would have been competent for any hon. member, under a motion for production of papers, to request the tabling of this and any other paper in the possession of the minister, under the terms of the Standing Orders. This is perhaps all obiter dicta because the hon. member has made his point. He has not followed his point by a formal motion which the Chair would have to put to the House. That would conclude my ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member.
As a sequel to his observations he has suggested that additional papers might be tabled. The House is responsible for its own procedures. The House can accept the tabling of any documents whether it be by a minister or

by a private member on one side or other of the House. If that were the wish of the House I am sure that so far as the Chair is concerned there is no objection to the tabling of the documents to which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has alluded. But that would not be in accordance with any of the Standing Orders of the House. Standing Order 41 to which I have referred, under which the minister has tabled the letter in question, provides as follows:
A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of a Minister, may, in his place in the House, state that he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government-
That Standing Order does not appear to extend to a private member. If there is unanimous consent the papers can be received at the table. If there is not unanimous consent perhaps the hon. member would wish to seek another way of bringing them to the attention of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: No.


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't, Macdonald.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: For my own information, Mr. Speaker, do I take it from your decision that ministers have the right to table partial documentation that distorts the situation and misleads the House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: We should not get into debate on this matter. I do not make the rules. I took the trouble of reading all of the Standing Order and it gives the minister the right to table the document. If there is agreement by all hon. members that additional documents be tabled the Chair, as I said, has no objection, but my ruling is simply a reading of the Standing Order. I did not write it. The Standing Order is a rule of the House, and I can only bring it to the attention of hon. members. It is unfortunate if the Standing Order has the effect that the hon. member suggests and difficulties result, but I would not think I am in a position to rectify the situation as a procedural matter.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I rise on a question of privilege, Your Honour. This matter arose as a result of a question I directed to the minister yesterday. The minister requested permission to
January 21, 1970

table the document in question to clarify his answer and of course all members of the House, including myself, gave the minister permission. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is shocking that the President of the Privy Council has taken this attitude. It is very unfair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in French and in English-Mr. Lessard (La Salle).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That the abandonment by the government of the Canada Newstart Program be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development for consideration and report, and
That the Standing Committee on Regional Development be convened for purposes of organization.
By way of brief explanation, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Standing Committee has not yet been organized although there have been several requests from hon. members interested in the many questions of regional development which urgently need examination. One of the most urgent problems to be considered is the apparent abandonment of the hopeful Newstart program, which is causing great consternation amongst the native and other people in all areas where the program has been in operation and in particular in the Lac-la-Biche area in Alberta. The Lac-la-Biche centre has been occupied by Metis and Indian people since last Saturday and some immediate response from the government and Parliament is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion of the hon. member for Athabasca. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent the motion cannot be put.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Is the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare undertaking special studies to evaluate whether drug tests submitted to the Directorate by pharmaceutical firms are ineptly designed and deficient, as disclosed in some tests reported in the United States.
2.	Is the government considering legislation which would take away the major responsibility for evaluating new drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers and give it to the federal government?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Food and Drug Regulations require pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit details of all animal and clinical studies to the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare before a new drug is marketed. This research data is carefully assessed and evaluated by officers in the Directorate. If the safety and effectiveness of the drug has not been clearly demonstrated, either by reason of deficient or poorly designed studies, the Notice of Compliance is withheld until properly designed studies have been conducted. In addition, officers of the Directorate frequently discuss proposed plans for both animal and clinical studies with manufacturers and with individual investigators.
2.	The majority of new drugs that reach the market are the result of the research and development activities of the pharmaceutical industry. Existing legislation under the Food and Drugs Act ensures that a proper evaluation of the safety and efficacy of all new drugs is made before they reach the Canadian market.


IMMIGRATION APPLICATION, DR. A. A. SOLOOJEE
Mr. Nyslrom: Did a Di\ A. A. Soloojee, a citizen of South Africa apply for immigration to Canada and, if so,

January 21, 1970
Questions
were any conditions laid down by the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding Dr. Soloojee's application?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Dr. Saloojee's application for admission to Canada as an immigrant was assessed and approved under the same standards used for all immigrants. No special conditions were laid down in his case. Because he was engaged to be married to a person whose application had been refused, both Dr. Saloojee and his fiancee were informed that should he proceed with his plans to migrate, this would result in separation from his fiancee. In addition, he was asked to sign a document which in effect indicated that he had been given this advice and understood its significance.


ADMISSION TO CANADA OF MISS EDNA WILCOX
Mr. Nysirom: Is Miss Edna Wilcox, of South Africa, being denied admission to Canada and if so, what is meant by the statements of officials of the Department that her admission would not be in the national interest?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, because she is prohibited for admission to Canada under subsection (1) of section 5 of the Immigration Act.


SUBSIDY TO DAY AND ROSS, TRUCKERS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What is the present subsidy being paid to the trucking firm Day and Ross, Hartland, N.B., under the Atlantic Region Freight Rate Assistance Act?
2.	What are the specific reductions in both its class and commodity rates of the above trucking firm as mentioned in the Department of Transport's news release of October 3, 1969?
3.	Have all other trucking firms operating between the Atlantic Region and Central Canada instigated similar rate reductions and, if so, what are the names of these trucking firms and for each, what have been the specific rate reductions?
4 Which trucking companies have not reduced their freight rates?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Department of Transport advise as follows: 1. To be answered by the Canadian Transport Commission.
2.	The rate reductions are on file with the highway transport boards of Quebec and Ontario and can be obtained from that source.
3 and 4. To be answered by the Canadian Transport Commission.

The Canadian Transport Commission advise as follows: 1. The present subsidy being paid is that provided for by sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. As of October 23rd, 1969, $56,125.43 had been authorized for payment to Day and Ross, Hartland, N.B.
2.	To be answered by the Department of Transport.
3.	No.
4.	Information not available.


NEW JERSEY GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME PLAN
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: Norih Centre):
1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare sent any officials or outside consultants to investigate the guaranteed annual income plan introduced in New Jersey in the United States?
2.	If so, who are the officials, and what was the specific purpose of their investigation?
3.	For what time period were these officials in New Jersey?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. The Department has obtained information about the guaranteed annual income plan introduced in New Jersey in the United States. Information about United States developments in social security and other anti-poverty measures is obtained by the Department of National Health and Welfare from government agencies in the United States directly and through the Canadian Embassy in Washington.
Discussions concerning social security and other anti-poverty measures which included the New Jersey pilot project, have taken place between departmental officials and U.S. officials in Washington.
These officials include the following: Dr. R. B. Splane and Mr. L. Shifrin, in December, 1968.
3.	Discussions were with officials of the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Health Education and Welfare in Washington. Officials were not in New Jersey.


SOUTH AFRICA-WITHDRAWAL FROM COMMONWEALTH
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: Norih Centre):
1.	On what date did South Africa withdraw from the Commonwealth?
January 21, 1970

2.	On what date did Canada cancel Commonwealth trade preferences with South Africa?
3.	If preferences are still granted to South Africa, is it the government's intention to cancel them?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. May 31, 1961.
2.	Canada continues to exchange preferential tariff treatment with the Republic of South Africa under the provisions of the Canada-South Africa Trade Agreement, 1932.
3.	No.


'MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS COMPLIANCE TESTS
Mr. Mather: Will motor vehicle standards compliance tests be conducted by the federal motor vehicle safety authority and, if so, will the results of such tests be published?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-137 (Motor Vehicle Safety Act) envisages the use of a national safety mark for motor vehicles, and in connection with these marks there will be required a statement by the manufacturer indicating that such vehicles and their components comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer will support his statement with tests which may be subject to scrutiny by federal inspectors. Consideration is presently being given to the need for additional independent tests by the federal government to verify compliance as certified. The benefit that might accrue to the Canadian public from the publication of test results is also being studied.


BREATH ANALYSIS OF DRIVERS
Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government giving consideration to a change in the present breath analysis legislation to reflect the widely held view that 0.10% blood alcohol concentration level is the point at which all human beings, regardless of their drinking habits, are considered impaired in respect to safe performance of the driving task?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned: No. Our information indicates that there is more support for .08 including support from such sources as the Canadian Bar Association, the British Medical Association (the Canadian Medical Association recommended .05), the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and by resolution of 21611-281
Questions
the Manitoba Legislature adopted on May 22, 1968. In fact, it was considerations related to this greater support that led the Government to change the figure from .10 in Bill C-195 to .08 in Bill C-150.


CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS, PORTNEUF
Mr. Godin: 1.	Since 1966, has the federal government undertaken to contribute financially to the construction of schools in the Constituency of Portneuf and, if so, for what types of schools were such grants given?
2.	How many such schools have been built to date and where are they situated?
3.	How many projects have been approved to date or are being considered at the present time?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. Yes. For schools which provide occupational training facilities.
2.	Eight: Ancienne Lorette, Donnacona (2), Neufchatel, St. Emile, St. Raymond, Charles-bourg, Loretteville (1961 to 1969).
3.	Ten. Including those in 2 above.


'MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT DEATHS
Mr. Southam: 1.	What action if any, is the government taking in relation to the heavy increase in motorcycle deaths and related high injury rate on our Canadian highways?
2.	What scientific research, if any, is presently underway in Canada with a view of curtailing this heavy death toll due to motorcycle accidents?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the answer to question No. 550 is somewhat detailed and lengthy and that I would probably not be allowed to read it in full, I beg leave of the House for the reply to that question to be taken as read and reported in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Of the 29 motor vehicle safety standards that are already available as a basis for issuing regulations after passage of the proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Bill C-137) there are 9 that will include requirements applicable to motorcycles. An additional group of 5 safety standards are also under consideration.

January 21, 1970
Questions
The Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety office has also undertaken to correlate research being done in Canada that will deal with motorcycles as well as other motor vehicles. The office is also participating in international efforts aimed at greater uniformity in traffic signs and rules of the road that should make driving safer for all types of vehicles.
In addition, the government is financially supporting the work of the Canada Safety Council and the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, organizations that promote safety research and driver training programs that contribute to the safety of motorcycle drivers. It also is anticipated that implementation of the recent amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to the blood alcohol content of persons in charge of motor vehicles will also tend to decrease accidents involving motorcycles and their drivers.
2. The Ontario Department of Transport has studies underway to determine the effectiveness of protective devices, in particular headgear, in reducing motorcycle fatalities and injuries.


CANADA MANPOWER CENTRE, VICTORIAVILLE
Mr. Fortin: How much has the Canadian Government spent annually on the premises reserved for the Canada Manpower Centre in Victoriaville since its opening (a) on administration (b) on rental (c) on maintenance (d) on repair (e) for other purposes?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Public Works as follows:
1962-63	1963-64

(a) Administration:
Salaries
Operations
1964-65	1965-66

1966-67	1967-68



106,000.	109,000.
6,000.	6,400.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration records for Victoriaville cover the above mentioned periods only.
(b) Rental	5,225.	11,280.	11,208.	11,280.	11,280.	11,280.	11,280.(c) Maintenance	140.	225.	205.	256.	(d) Repair	656.	637.	174.(e) Other Purposes:	Electricity	446.	1,106.	1,028.	974.	950.	905.	831.Moving	227.	370.	Freight	2.	8.	24.	Note: Canada Manpower Centre	opened in	Victoriaville	on September 14,	1962.


INDIAN AND METIS UNEMPLOYMENT, ALBERTA
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many Indian or Metis people are presently unemployed in the Province of Alberta?
2.	How many of these would be suitable for work, if trained, in Alberta's coal mining industry?
3.	How many miners are required for work at Grande Cache, Alberta at the present time and in the foreseeable future?
4.	How many miners have been brought to work in Grande Cache (a) from other parts of Canada (b) from countries other than Canada (c) how many from each of the countries, other than Canada?
5.	What financial assistance has been made available to each of these miners and their families (a) for moving them to Grande Cache from other areas of Canada (b) for moving them to Grande Cache from countries other than Canada?

6. Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have plans to train Canadian Indians or Metis for employment at Grande Cache and, if so, how many trainees will be trained and when will training begin?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by several Departments as follows: 1. and 2. Information not available.
3. The Company at Grande Cache has a staff of about 216 persons. The Company is not hiring additional workers at this time because of the need to consolidate their existing staff into an effective working group. Eventual requirements are not known precisely but the best estimate possible at this time is 400 to 600 employees when the full work force is developed.
January 21, 1970

4.	(a) About 100 workers are from outside Alberta, (b) About 65 workers are immigrants, (c) Nearly all immigrant workers have come from the United Kingdom.
5.	(a) Seven workers and their families were assisted under the Manpower Mobility Program to move from other parts of Canada to Grande Cache at an average cost of $671. The Company made private arrangements with other workers, (b) Immigrants proceeding to Grande Cache from other countries receive from this Department all ordinary assistance available to immigrants which could include Assisted Passage Loans if required.
6.	There is a nucleus of 150 experienced miners at Grande Cache and in addition approximately 50 inexperienced workers have been recruited by the Company and are reported to be in training now. More unskilled workers will be phased in during the next two or three years through training on-the-job. Manpower officials will continue to press the Company to hire as many local workers as possible, including Indians and Metis. If Indian and Metis workers require any special training in order to qualify for the Company training on-the-job program then the Department of Manpower and Immigration is pre-
	Permits	Acres
Fiscal Year	issued	issued1967-68	1	42,23811	478,9306	294,69818	815,8661968-69	8	247,8285	192,8065	197,0305	327,31223	964,9761969-70	Nil	NilTotals	41	1,780,842(c) All permits issued since 1967 are still in force.	(d) No permits or leases were	issued in theStrait of Georgia	during the	above designated periods.
2. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has no record of approvals that may be issued by the British Columbia Govern-
Questions
pared to consider the provision of the necessary training under the Occupational Training for Adults Program.


OIL, AND GAS EXPLORATION PERMITS, WEST COAST
Mr. Harding: 1.	How many oil and gas exploration permits were issued by the federal government for the west coast area of Canada for each of the years 1967/68, 1968/69 and 1969/70 to date, and (a) to whom were these permits issued and what was the acreage involved in each case (b) what was the total revenue from these leases for each of the above fiscal years (c) how many of the leases are still valid (d) did any of the leases cover any part of the Strait of Georgia and, if so, which leases included this area, when were they issued and what was the acreage involved?
2.	Have any permits for seismic testing for oil in the Strait of Georgia, apart from the above, been let by the provincial government and, if so, was approval sought and obtained from the federal government prior to the issuing of the permits?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. (a) and (b) No oil and gas leases have been issued to date off the West Coast. Oil and gas exploratory permits issued off the West Coast for the periods designated are as follows:
Revenue (Permit fees)
Ranger Oil (Canada) Ltd. $	250.00
Offshore Oil & Gas Corpn. 2,750.00 Chermarc Developments Ltd. 1,500.00

Offshore Oil & Gas Corpn.	2,000.00
Shell Canada Ltd.	1,250.00
Ranger Oil (Canada) Ltd.	1,250.00
Citizens Pipeline Ltd.	1,250.00
$ 5,750.00 Nil

ment for marine seismic programs. The federal government has approved, prior to their commencement, four seismic programs in the Strait of Georgia since 1967, all of which were carried out with air-gun type seismic equipment which is harmless to fish. The duration of these programs ranged from two days to ten days.

January 21, 1970
Questions


ABM SAFEGUARD SYSTEM-BIDS BY CANADIAN FIRMS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Are Canadian firms presently, under the Canada-U.S. Defence Production Sharing Agreement, attempting to bid for components, materials, etc., to be used in the construction of the U.S. ABM Safeguard System and, if so, what firms and specific materials are involved?
2.	Is the International Programs Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce presently attempting to pursue contracts for Canadian firms regarding the construction of the American ABM Safeguard System?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The Department is not aware of any Canadian firms bidding for contracts relating to the U.S. ABM Safeguard System although, under the Canada-U.S. Production Sharing Program Canadian companies would be eligible to compete.
2. The International Programs Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not actively seeking contracts for Canadian firms regarding the construction of the U.S. ABM Safeguard System.


EXPORTS TO U.S. BY ALCAN
Mr. Broadbent: For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 to date, what products, and in what financial magnitude, have been exported to the United States from the Canadian firm ALCAN, under the Canada-U.S. Production Sharing Agreement?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not releasable since it is provided to the Canadian government for statistical purposes only and on the understanding that it is to be treated as commercially confidential affecting the competitive position of the company involved.


EMIGRATION OF McGILL GRADUATES TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	During the past ten years, how many students from McGill University have emigrated to the United States upon completion of their studies?
2.	What percentage is this of the total number of students graduating from that institution?


Yves Forest: I and
2. Information not available.


REFORM OF EXCHEQUER COURT
Mr. Fortin: 1. What stage has been reached in the studies relating to reform of the Exchequer Court?
IMr. Orange.]
2. Is the government studying means of improving judicial control of government decisions so that citizens may be better protected?


John Napier Turner: In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned: The government is studying ways and means of improving judicial control of administrative decisions and it is anticipated that legislation will be introduced during the present session dealing with the Exchequer Court and judicial control of administrative decisions.


PAYMENTS UNDER HOSPITAL INSURANCE AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES ACT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
What was the total amount paid by the federal government under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to each of the provinces for 1968?


John Carr Munro: Newfoundland, $18,042,070; Prince Edward Island, $3,451,496; Nova Scotia, $26,338,314; New Brunswick, $21,056,614; Quebec, NIL; Ontario, $264,800,153; Manitoba, $32,943,818; Saskatchewan, $33,800,232; Alberta, $55,281,166; British Columbia, $65,772,481; Yukon, $459,634; Northwest Territories, $1,028,417; Total: $522,974,395.
The above payments are advance payments and amount to approximately 97 per cent of the estimated contributions by Canada. Final settlements for 1968 will be made when all the audited cost returns have been submitted by the provinces.
Payments are not made to the Province of Quebec under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, but equivalent contributions are allowed to that province under an agreement made under the provisions of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. Had advance payments been made to Quebec for 1968 under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, these advances would have totalled $223,398,983 for the year.


DEMURRAGE CHARGES, SHIPS WAITING FOR GRAIN
Mr. Korchinski: What amount of demurrage charges were paid for ships waiting for grain in the last two years and at what ports were the delays?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: As indicated in the Annual Report of The Canadian Wheat Board for the 1967-68
January 21, 1970

crop year, $86,187 was paid in respect of demurrage charges in that crop year. Of this amount $80,601 was applicable to vessels loading at the port of Vancouver and the balance of $5,585 to vessels loading at the port of Montreal. Particulars of demurrage for the following crop year, that is 1968-69, will appear in the Annual Report of The Canadian Wheat Board for that crop year when it is tabled in Parliament.


AEROMAGNETIC PROSPECTING, ABITIBI
Mr. Laprise: Has the federal government ceased aeromagnetle prospecting in Abitibi and, if so, when and for what reason?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: 
'REGIONAL AND ECONOMIC EXPANSION-NUMBER OF PROJECTS APPROVED
Mr. McKinley: 1.	What projects have been approved in Canada under the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion within the conditions contained in Bill C-202, passed in the First Session of the 28th Parliament?
2.	How many projects have been approved under this Act in each province of Canada?
3.	What amount of money has been approved under this Act in each province of Canada?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that the numbers of offers made and accepted are available in the report tabled each month in parliament, and details are given in that report of all projects under way.


RURAL POST OFFICE CLOSURES, HALIFAX COUNTY
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Since 1965, how many post offices servicing rural areas in Halifax County have been closed?
2.	Where were such offices located and how many jobs were eliminated through the closing policy?
3.	What alternate service is being provided with respect to money orders and other services?
Questions


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. This information is not available by county. However, two post offices have been closed since 1965 in Dartmouth-Halifax East Electoral District.
2.	(a) Post Offices: Gaetz Brook and Oak-field. (b) Two positions were eliminated.
3.	Alternate Service: Head of Chezzetcook R.R. No. 1 and Enfield R.R. No. 1.


WATER POLLUTION-CHARGES LAID UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 to date, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources responsible for the enforcement of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: 1.	None. The Navigable Waters Protection Act and Regulations are administered by the Department of Transport and not by this department.
2. Not applicable.


WATER POLLUTION-CHARGES LAID UNDER FISHERIES ACT
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 to date, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the Fisheries Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. and
2.
1963-64	Charges 11	(a) 9	(b) 1	(c) 11964-65	5	4	1	-1965-66	12	11	1	-1966-67	7	7	-	-1967-68	5	5	-	-1968-69	13	9	2	21969-70	12	11	1	-65	56	6	3
January 21. 1970
Motions for Papers


COST OF FREE DELIVERY OF FEDERAL MAIL
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, is the annual cost to the Post Office Department of the free delivery of federal mail?


Eric William Kierans: 1968-69- $8,386,700.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Benjamin: What is the total value of Canadian government purchases of computers and auxiliary equipment, by manufacturer, that were purchased in the last fiscal year?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 211 and 315 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions No. 211 and 315 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRAINING MATERIALS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 211-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Strathmere Associates on the planning and production of training materials for community development for use by the Company of Young Canadians in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 315-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report on the Canadian Electronic Mail In-Farm Management Information System, undertaken for the Department of Agriculture by the firm Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,452 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 260 and 268 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions No. 260 and 268 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CBC TELEVISION ADVERTISING REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 260-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the CBC regulations regarding TV commercial advertising as mentioned in answer to Question Number 153 reported in Hansard on page 864, November 17, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 268-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all research studies undertaken by the Resource Research Centre of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources mentioned in answer to Question Number 86 as reported in Hansard on pages 1137-38, November 24, 1969.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the following notices of motions: Nos. 21, 125, 156, 200, 209, 221, 247 261, 262, 301, 304, 310 and 325?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


NATO COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Lewis:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the memorandum of agreement among eight participating NATO countries, including Canada, regarding the second phase of the NATO communications research program established in 1967.
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the document referred to in this motion is a memorandum of under-
January 21, 1970

standing between the governments concerned, and is classified. Such confidential documents are considered to be privileged and I wonder if the hon. member from York South is prepared to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, since the minister was kind enough to let me have a detailed press release on this subject which he issued-

I am pleased to withdraw my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.

Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


CANADA-TJ.S.S.R. WHEAT CONTRACT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-Mr. Gleave:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the wheat contract between the Government of Canada and the Government of the USSR signed on June 20, 1966, on the sale of 336 million bushels of Canadian wheat to the USSR.
Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council:	Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) wishes to inform the hon. member that it is not the practice of the government or the Canadian Wheat Board to make public wheat sales contracts as such information might be prejudicial to the board's marketing operations. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Gleave:: Stand for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


METRIC MEASUREMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 156-Mr. Peters:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interdepartmental committee report on the applicability of metric measurement in Canada as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,706 as reported in Hansard on October 22, 1969, page 11,702.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the report of the interdepartmental committee is a report to ministers which includes recommendations and is, in consequence, an internal memorandum and thereby privileged.
Motions for Papers
The white paper on metric conversion, tabled last week, sets forth the conclusions of the government. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Pelers:: Because of the importance of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it should be privileged and I therefore ask Your Honour to put the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


SUMMER JOBS FOR STUDENTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 200-Mr. Broadbeni:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the plan of the Special Task Force to study the question of summer jobs for students as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his address to the Canadian Vocational Association on May 23, 1969.
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested in the present motion are working papers for internal use, for the officials of the department and, as such, traditionally privileged.
I therefore request the hon. member to kindly withdraw his motion.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I think this document is precisely the kind of document that should be readily available to every Canadian; therefore I request that the question be put.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 209-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Simpson, Riddell, Stead and Partners on the financial management in Air Transport Command undertaken in 1966 for the Department of National Defence, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to in this motion was classified by the consultants undertaking the study and was for internal use in my department. Under the

January 21, 1970
Motions for Papers
circumstances I wonder if the hon. member for Moose Jaw is prepared to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Skoberg:: I see no real national security involved and I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN FURNITURE INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 221-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Woods, Gordon and Company on research and development In the Canadian furniture industry undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this particular consultant report was already tabled in the House in response to a motion for production of papers in the last session, No. 119, which was dealt with in the House on July 2, 1969. The member may wish to consult sessional paper No. 289G. I would be pleased to send the member a copy of this study. In view of this, the member may wish to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


INTERNATIONAL MARKET FOR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 247-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Acres Intertel Limited on international market for satellite communications systems undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 196869, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this particular consultant report was already tabled in the House in response to a motion for production of papers in the last session, No. 119, which was dealt with in the House on July 2, 1969. The member may wish to consult sessional paper No. 289G. I would be pleased to send the member a copy of this study. In view of this, the member may wish to withdraw his motion.
[Mr. Cadieux (Labelle).)


John Leroy Skoberg: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


&quot;PROJECT PHOENIX&quot; CORRESPONDENCE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 261-Mr. Nysirom:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, agreements, etc., between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments regarding "Project Phoenix".
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I had some correspondence with the hon. member for York-ton-Melville regarding this motion and it is my understanding that he is prepared to withdraw it.


Mr. Nystrom:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


&quot;PROJECT PHOENIX&quot; PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 262-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Department of National Defence's Program "Project Phoenix"-a five year plan aimed at organizing the recovery of Canada after an all-out nuclear attack on North America.
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have had some correspondence with the hon. member for York-ton-Melville regarding this motion and he has been provided with a copy of the Project Phoenix Report. Under the circumstances I wonder if he is prepared to withdraw this motion?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON WATER
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 301-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interdepartmental committee report on water, referred to by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as reported in Hansard, November 4, 1969, on page 468.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any such report as requested by the hon. member is available.
January 21, 1970

The interdepartmental committee on water has not yet completed its study of this matter of water pollution through the input of phosphates. As the minister stated in the House of Commons on November 4, he is to receive the ICW recommendations as to appropriate federal government action in this regard and refer them to his colleagues for consideration.
The minister expects to be in a position to take this action in the latter part of January or in February following completion of the ICW study of and report on this very complex subject. I would therefore request withdrawal of this motion.


Mr. Harding:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHEAT BOARD AND V/O EXPORTKHLEB
Motion No. 304-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the agreement entered into in June 1986 between the Canadian Wheat Board and V/O Ex-portkhleb for the sale of Canadian wheat and flour to Russia and a copy of any agreement, letter of understanding or other documents pertaining to the extension of this agreement beyond its expiry date.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) wishes to inform the hon. member that it is not the practice of the government to make public details of Canadian Wheat Board sales agreements as such information might be prejudicial to the board's marketing operations. In view of this, the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Burton:: I cannot agree to withdraw this motion, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that the question be put to a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.


CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON LANGUAGE AND CITIZENSHIP COURSES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 310-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents covering the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec under which 50% of the cost of language and citizenship courses available to Quebec immigrants will be paid for by the federal government.
Motions for Papers
Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: There is an agreement between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec covering the sharing of costs of language and citizenship courses. If that is the document required by the hon. member, the motion is accepted subject to the consent of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Orlikow:: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, does the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 325-Mr. Thomson (Baftleford-
Kindersley):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the reconnaissance report undertaken by General Gilles Turcot, Commander of the DND Mobile Command, regarding military exercises in the Canadian North.
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As this report is an internal military document which was prepared by a group of officers for the Commander, Mobile Command, and Canadian Forces Headquarters, it is considered to be privileged. Under the circumstances I wonder whether the hon. member would be prepared to drop his motion?


Mr. Thomson (Baffleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, had the minister communicated with me as he did with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, I might have agreed. As it is, I should like the motion transferred for debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an inquiry about motion No. 256 which has been on the Order Paper since November 20. I wonder when the government might be prepared to call this motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I shall inquire of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and try to reply to the question.

January 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanlield (Leader of the Opposition):: I am happy to see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the House today, Mir. Speaker, because I tried to get some information from the Minister of Finance yesterday and he did not seem to know too much about the subject. I should like to ask the minister this question. In the event of an agreement being reached at the forthcoming conference with regard to pricing criteria to be followed by Canadian firms during 1970, is it the intention of the government to use sanctions in cases where the Prices and Incomes Commission reports a departure from those criteria by a Canadian firm?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, we are working in very close harmony with the Prices and Incomes Commission. I think the Minister of Finance answered that question yesterday.


Mr. Benson:: You just did not understand the answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understand a snow job when I see it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from the answer of the minister that the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission did not have the approval of the government when he said that in the case of departures from the criteria established, should an accord be reached, it was the intention of the commission to ask the government for sanctions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think the Leader of the Opposition is misrepresenting the statement made by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. It is his hope, and it is our hope, that the program of restraint he is endeavouring to work out will be as effective as possible, and it is our intention as a government to make it as effective as possible. In this I hope we shall have the co-operation of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just one other question, Mr. Speaker. Would it be correct to assume that the program of the government as far as this

announcement is concerned is still one of purely voluntary restraint and that there is no question of government sanctions being involved? Is that correct?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Chairman announced yesterday that a meeting will be held to word out procedures by which a program of price restraint can prevail across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance in connection with this matter of restraint or lack of restraint. Bearing in mind the recently disclosed information that the Minister of Finance led all cabinet ministers in travel expenses at $10,000 a year, can the hon. gentleman say if that is where he gets his ideas about living on $30 a week?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: The Public Accounts Committee will have full opportunity to question the legitimacy of departmental expenditures, including travelling expenses. I believe the people of Canada wish to be informed concerning matters of interest to them. Indeed, it should be the duty of ministers to visit various parts of Canada to keep them so informed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have doubts about whether the original question was in order. The minister was allowed to reply to it in any event, but I do not think supplementary questions on that subject should be allowed.



INCREASE IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the announcement by the insurance companies that they intend to raise automobile insurance rates by approximately 13 per cent with effect from February 1 in most areas? Since the minister is the custodian of the rights of consumers I should like to ask him whether he has looked into the question of possible collusion in view of the fact that all the companies seem to be applying an increase of approximately the same amount at the same time. Has the minister looked into this matter and can he indicate what action he proposes to take?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The situation relative
January 21, 1970

to the law and to jurisdiction is an extremely complicated one, but since the announcements were made the matter has been receiving urgent examination.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Bearing in mind that the only areas in which these increases will not come into effect are those in which government car insurance is in operation, or where the possibility of introducing government car insurance is under study, has the minister given any thought to the possibility of promoting a government car insurance scheme across the country in order that automobile drivers may receive protection at cost?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think the hon. member well knows that the provision of automobile insurance, the kind of insurance he is talking about, is a provincial matter.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
It is known that the Canadian government has made some moneys available to Canaire-lief for assistance to Biafran refugees. In view of the recent decision to wind up shortly the agency's operations, does the government intend to give that relief organization the assurance that all their justified debts will be settled?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is not under consideration for the time being.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker, and I hope he will co-operate with the farmers of Canada. In view of the apparent difference between the prices charged to English farmers and those charged to Canadian farmers by machinery companies, as indicated by the Barber commission report on the prices of farm tractors in Canada, has the minister been in touch with the restrictive practices tribunal in England to ascertain why the Ontario Federation of Agriculture cannot pur-
Inquiries of the Ministry chase English tractors directly from English dealers or directly from the manufacturers of tractors in England at the lower prices prevailing there? I ask this question in view of the evidence in the Barber commission report to the effect that machinery dealers in England have been threatened with loss of their franchises if they sell tractors to Canadian farmers.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As the Minister of Agriculture made clear on Friday, discussions have already been held in Washington and London by officials of the government. Those officials included officials of my department together with anti-trust people in both London and Washington.


REQUESTED REFERENCE OF TRACTOR AND COMBINE PRICE INCREASES TO COMMISSION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the obvious evidence of price exploitation in respect of farm machinery would the minister refer the question of the price increases announced last fall to the Commission on Prices and Incomes for its careful review?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a more desirable course to follow the course the government is following. We are examining the Barber report recommendations. We have an interdepartmental committee of government examining all the recommendations and what possible course of action the government could follow.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In Windsor, a certain William Roy Rosik has been sentenced to death for murdering a policeman. I would like to know whether the minister intends to submit his case to the cabinet so as to have the death penalty commuted into life imprisonment, as the cabinet has always done in such cases for several years, or whether the minister will allow justice to take its course.

January 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt concerning the hon. member's question. He is alluding to the royal prerogative and I have some doubt, because of precedents, whether the question can be asked in that form. The hon. member might like to give the Chair a moment to reflect on the matter.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, as my previous question was unacceptable, I shall reword it.
Given the considerable increase in the crime rate, both in Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada, does the minister intend to introduce soon in the House a bill to put back in force the death penalty for anyone found guilty of qualified murder, a measure which I think is imperative at the present time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are of course reviewing the statistics constantly. I do not feel that at the moment those statistics lead to either one conclusion or the other.




Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind the announced intention of the United States to conduct an underground nuclear test in the north Pacific approximately six times more powerful than the one they conducted last year, can the minister say what Canada's position is in respect of this potentially dangerous situation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I answered a similar question some weeks ago. Briefly, the position is that the United States is now looking at the results of the test that was conducted. If there is to be another test it will not be before another couple of years. If at that time we feel it would be desirable to ask them to reconsider, we would do so.


COMPENSATION FOR FORMER CANADIAN MILITARY BASES IN FRANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether he has received an answer from the French government about the Canadian government's claim 
for $10 million subsequent to the withdrawal of the NATO forces stationed in France?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker; Canada has put in a claim to France, as have other countries, which is separate of course from the claims of the NATO organization as a whole, since we had some investments in France which we lost as a result of moving to Germany.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the government intend to forget about this debt or rather to remind the French government of it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it is necessary to remind the French government. It has notice of our claim and I am sure will deal with it fairly.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of air service to the area would the minister advise whether he has received a communication from the government of Nova Scotia asking that the appeal against Eastern Provincial Airways application to discontinue its service at Trenton, Nova Scotia, be heard by the Governor in Council.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, I have had such a notification from the government of Nova Scotia. I find that a discontinuance of this kind is not the kind of case which is subject to appeal either to the minister or to the Governor in Council. However, in an attempt to resolve the problem I have held meetings in adjacent Anti-gonish and the area to discuss the possibility of possible alternative sites. This is the course we are following now.


Howard Russell MacEwan: In looking into these possibilities would the minister consider continuing government assistance to the Trenton airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
January 21, 1970


HARBOURS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received representations from the Newfoundland government in respect of the provision of docking facilities at Come-By-Chance in order to facilitate the operations of an oil refinery in the community, and when may we expect a decision in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question which might well be placed on the order paper.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would inquire of the management of Canadian National Railways whether full consideration has been given to the job security of sectionmen and section foremen, the safety of operating crews and the safety of the travelling public when reductions in the number of such section hands are ordered such as the latest which was to have taken effect on January 15?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be glad to make such an inquiry, Mr. Speaker.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder if this subject could be dealt with when the CNR management is appearing before the House committee on transport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that various members will find ways and means to get such questions in.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in view of the death yesterday of one of the passengers because of the derailment of a CNR train, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport could now answer the question which he took as notice on January 12 in respect of adequate track inspection?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the unfortunate accident, the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission is now carrying out a thorough investigation. I have asked for a complete report as quickly as possible. This will only have a bearing on
Inquiries of the Ministry the broader question asked by the hon. member.


John Leroy Skoberg: In order to ensure that trains may operate over the Weston subdivision safely, would the minister give immediate consideration to the installation of automatic signals in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation which he can assume has been noted. The hon. member for Sarnia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.




Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, et mes amis. I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Transport. I do not care which minister answers because they are both capable men. In view of the fact that an American icebreaker operating in the St. Clair River after the shipping season closed has caused widespread property damage to Canadian property owners, will the minister demand or negotiate reparation payments from the United States government and/or the owner of the icebreaker?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is the first time the matter has been brought to my attention. I thank the hon. member and will make inquiries immediately.


TAXATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question on which there would appear to be some misunderstanding. On Monday the Prime Minister indicated there had been no changes in government policy regarding tax reform. What is the correct situation? Does the white paper represent government policy on tax reform or has this policy been changed in some manner undisclosed but which may be revealed in a subsequent document?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would contact his members who were at the committee he would find out exactly what I said with regard to what he has referred to on Monday.

January 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry I said before the committee that certain problem areas had arisen regarding the proposals which were put forward by the government. My friend is confusing proposals with government policy. These are proposals put to the Canadian people for discussion. I said that my department would present a paper to the committee indicating what difficulties had been pointed out by people in respect of a particular area of tax reform.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the Prime Minister is not the only one who is confused; I am in the same position he is. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of his statement that the proposals put forward by the government are to be changed, he considers it proper that interested and affected Canadians should be asked to prepare and submit briefs in respect of government proposals which have been changed in an undisclosed manner?


Edgar John Benson: Oh, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: That is a good question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion has been made that this is a good question. I have to consider the question from a procedural standpoint. The Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the minister considers it proper that some action ought not to be taken. Certainly a question in those terms is not in order. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I could put it in a different way that might be more acceptable to you and the Minister of Finance, whom I am always desirous of pleasing, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister do all he can to assure that those Canadians who are interested in submitting their views on these proposals will have a full opportunity to consider then- positions after the supplementary changes are made? Will the minister do all he can to assure that adequate procedures are followed by the committee and himself so there will be plenty of time for this?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the proposals for tax reform, one can assume, would not represent the exact form of the legislation or one would not put them forward as proposals. We are looking for people's opinions in this regard. The white paper is now in the hands of the committee and it is my intention and that of the officials of my department to supply the committee with information that

comes to us from various sources in order that the committee may have that along with the information submitted to it so that it may come up with recommendations in respect of the proposals that have been placed before it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be persistent about this matter but it is giving a great many Canadians much concern. Will the minister use his good offices to ensure not only that he and his officials supply all the information necessary to the committee but also that Canadian citizens who are interested in this matter will be given a full opportunity to make their submissions after having full knowledge of what the government's proposals are?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I trust that interested Canadians will follow the proceedings of the committee and make their submissions in light of what takes place there. I am sure they will do this after carefully reading the white paper, something which I sometimes wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition has done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You don't understand things too well.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's desire for restraints in order to deal with inflation I should like to ask whether the Minister of Finance will consider discussing with officials of the Torooto-Dominion Bank their recent decision to increase fees paid to directors of the bank from $6,000 per annum to $8,100, since this 33 per cent increase in one jump can hardly be considered moderate or in keeping with the government's austerity program?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that my hon. friend is also supporting moderation in wage demands.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members I want to welcome back the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with a question.
January 21, 1970

In view of the fact his department has asked the Department of Justice for an opinion on alleged fraudulent advertising of Casino cigarettes by the Imperial Tobacco Company, can the minister say whether this opinion has yet been received by his department and, if so, has a decision been made to lay charges?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member has a letter from the department regarding the matter referred to in the question. I do not think I can go beyond what is said in the letter she has received.


Winona Grace MacInnis: No, Mr. Speaker, the letter did not cover the point at all. If I may say so, the letter merely covered the fact that an opinion had been sought from the Department of Justice. I am asking whether the opinion has been received from the department and, if so, has a decision been made to lay charges?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not able to add to the letter the hon. member has, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Will the Minister of Justice inform the House whether his department is or has looked into the alleged fraudulent advertising in connection with Casino cigarettes, whether his law officers have arrived at any conclusion about the matter and, if so, whether any action is contemplated?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware of the practice of the office of the Attorney General not to reveal whether it is conducting an investigation of any person or company. If charges are laid, charges are laid; if charges are not laid, the matter rests there. But in order to protect the reputation of private individuals and corporations it has been the tradition, which I think is quite proper, for the Attorney General not to describe in particular terms the existence of an investigation.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry but it has already been made public by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or one of his officials that the Department of Justice has been asked to look into the matter. In view of that, I rephrase my question and ask the minister wheth-
Inquiries of the Ministry er officers of his department are in fact investigating and looking into the allegations made, whether any conclusions have been reached and whether any report has been made to him and/or to the Department of Consumer Affairs?


John Napier Turner: I am not
going to expand on my answer, Mr. Speaker. The letter to which the hon. gentleman refers will have to speak for itself.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will he be in the House tomorrow night at ten o'clock so that we may debate this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the matter is on the agenda, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that question might be considered at ten o'clock.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he tell us whether it is true that the CBC sent 195 employees to the Quebec Liberal party convention last weekend?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say whether it is true that the CBC sent 195 employees to the convention. I can however, forward the question to the Corporation itself which will send the hon. member its answer.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of his answer yesterday in my absence. It has reference to the fact that the citizens of Banff and Jasper, through a plebiscite have asked that they be placed under provincial jurisdiction. Is the minister now in a position to advise that he will negotiate with the premier of Alberta in this regard?

January 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): No, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it the minister's intention to contact the premier with the idea of negotiating in regard to the request of these citizens that they be placed under provincial jurisdiction?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is an hypothetical question which is irrelevant at the present time.


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice to indicate whether any action has been taken by his department following examination of the evidence by the law officers of the Crown, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I received the recommendation of the committee, as I said in an earlier answer, I asked the officers of the department and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate the facts or allegations contained in the report. I understand they have not completed their investigation, but when they have I will be glad to report to the hon. member.




Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about instructions under which officers of the Canadian consular service were alleged to have refused to assist Canadian citizens who happened to be in the United States and in trouble with United States draft laws.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Canadian consular officials in the United States regularly provide Canadian citizens who approach them on such matters with advice as to the course 
they may follow in dealing with problems which may arise in connection with liability for military service. The report to which he refers, and which I have already had drawn to my attention, is quite false.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. G. W. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, similar to one asked in his absence by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe. Is the government preparing regulations to require jet aircraft using Canadian airports to convert to clean burning engines, in accordance with instructions being issued in other countries?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was in Washington yesterday for conversations with Secretary Volpe on this matter. We have determined what it is that the American authorities are doing because there is a necessity for consistency on both sides of the border. We will be moving to impose the same kind of regulations, although I may say in the first instance I do not know if imposition and voluntary restraint are exactly compatible, but we will be talking to the airlines about what they are doing in the United States. This does not relate to fuel but to adapters which are placed on jet engines and which accomplish the same end results.




Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the hon. gentleman say whether the government has had an opportunity to consider the suggestion I made last week as to whether the Nigerian government needs and would welcome volunteer Canadian doctors and nurses?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is one of the needs in Nigeria. The Canadian Red Cross will be reporting to us on this question, when General Wrinch returns, but it is also my understanding that there is an opportunity for volunteers to get permission to go into Nigeria. Many of them are there now and I imagine they would be used in the present emergency.
January 21, 1970


PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-INQUIRY AS TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WINNIPEG
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On December 16, 1969, when I asked him about a certain letter regarding Winnipeg's request for assistance in connection with the deficit in respect of the Pan-American Games he told me he would try to get the letter to me that afternoon or the next day. When it did not arrive I thought he must have put it in the mail-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but he told me two or three days later that he was redrafting the letter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate wishes to raise a point of order.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the question period can we have the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre phrase his questions like other members of the House, succinctly and clearly?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the hon. member would like me to start over again, I shall be glad to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Learn the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the Minister of Finance told me he was redrafting this letter, I wonder if he is now in a position to send it to me or tell me in the House what is going to be in it?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am still not happy with the answer I have drafted at the moment and the matter is still under consideration. As I have explained to the hon. member, it is a long outstanding matter. I hope he will have patience and give me a little time to have it settled before I send him a letter I would not like to send him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we expect an answer this year?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 have hopes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
His department announced yesterday that it had authorized the mass production of MBT-70 super tanks, each of which will cost about $600,000. Would the minister tell the House how Canada will use those tanks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question could be put on the order paper.
IEnglish]


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the recent announcement by the Winnipeg Chief of Police regarding the removal of headrests from all city police vehicles because of visibility obstruction and inconvenience, can the minister indicate to the House whether his department is reassessing the effectiveness of this safety device for the average Canadian motorist?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts whether the question can be asked at this time, but perhaps the minister might be allowed to answer.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly reassessing the various safety devices but we are rather limited in what we can do until the legislation now before the House is in fact law, which I hope will be in a matter of a few weeks.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I should like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the serious economic difficulties being experienced in the province of Newfoundland would the minister confirm that the agreement on the first phase of a five-year regional development plan for
264S

January 21. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry that province will be signed in April, and would he table its contents so that Newfoundlanders can be made aware of the benefits to be derived under such plan?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will draw that question to the minister's attention.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister examined the question of plastic toys coming into Canada from abroad contaminated by dangerous proportions of DDT, and does he not consider this to be a hazard to the health of Canadian children?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my officials have been in touch with Dr. Master-mattio, Director of the Environmental Health Services Branch of the government of Ontario, and we have arranged for joint testing of a large number and variety of plastic toys to determine if there is any great degree of hazard.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries in the House before Christ-, mas to the effect that Canada should assume management and jurisdiction of its fishing resources as far out as the continental shelf. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the government supports Bill C-91, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, or whether it has some other methods in mind to achieve the ends announced by the Minister of Fisheries?


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


NATURAL RESOURCES
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has agreement been reached

between the federal government and the provinces on the resource development of our continental shelf? I have another short question, Mr. Speaker. Which level of government is currently responsible for the drafting and the enforcement of pollution regulations in these areas?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that the second question might be placed on the Order Paper. If the Prime Minister wishes to respond to the first question I see no difficulty.


COMBINES
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Does he intend to hold an inquiry in Quebec and New Brunswick in order to ascertain whether the ownership concentration of news media might deprive Canadians of the objective news reports they are entitled to?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, there is an inquiry going on at the present time in the province of New Brunswick which became public because those being inquired into made it public. The hon. member will also know that it is not usual policy to reveal those instances in which there is an investigation under way.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State who reports to the House on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Would he make inquiry of the President of the CBC in order to find out whether or not CBC newscasts are designed for Canadians or for citizens of the United States? I ask the question, Mr. Speaker, in view of last evening's news broadcast when almost one-third of the time was spent on communist propaganda from North Viet Nam, obviously directed toward the citizens of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is argumentative.
January 21, 1970


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Norlh):: I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the deep concern felt in many quarters that the Department of National Health and Welfare is operating without the services of a deputy minister since the resignation of Dr. Crawford last August, and in view of the many urgent problems in this field, would the Prime Minister say whether there has been any recommendation made to him by the minister to fill this post?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member recognizes that since the days of Sir Charles Tupper the nomination of deputy ministers has been the prerogative of the Prime Minister. Everyone does not seem to know this. I have been discussing with the minister this particular appointment and possible appointees, and I think we will shortly be in a position to state the name of the person who will occupy the post.


HARBOURS
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the question period I asked a question of the Minister of Public Works concerning the provision of docking facilities at Come-By-Chance. In Your Honour's wisdom the question was not allowed but I wonder, in view of the fact that statements have been made by the Premier of Newfoundland to the effect that these facilities are essential and that the establishment of the plant hinges on them, whether Your Honour would allow the minister to answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether we can accept the hon. member's suggestion that the Premier of Newfoundland has procedural authority in this House, but perhaps the minister might want to reply to the question the hon. member asked earlier.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have had less representations seeking federal government investment in that area from the government
Inquiries of the Ministry of Newfoundland than from the private investors who plan to make the investment there. The representations have been supported by the government of Newfoundland.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of this matter, can the minister say if early consideration will be given to the application by the private company concerned or the Newfoundland government for the provision of these facilities?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given to the representations for some time and we have requested a continuing amount of information which will be of a nature that could justify and indeed command the federal government to participate. So far that has not been forthcoming.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but in his absence I shall direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government reconsidering its decision not to provide the funds necessary for the continuation of the Newstart program at Lac-la-Biche, Alberta?


Abram Ernest Epp: Perhaps I should answer that question, Mr. Speaker. This situation is being given very close examination by the department in order to seek a solution. I wish to give the hon. member the firm statement that the budget for this program has not been cut.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. Will the Newstart program and the regional development program be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development to examine their effectiveness in dealing with problems of regional disparities and poverty?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the time to discuss this would be when the estimates of this department are before the committee, which should be in several weeks' time.
Water Resources

January 21. 1970
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation development and utilization of water resources, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate today, I should like to commence my remarks by stating how extremely gratifying it is to many of us as elected representatives to observe the very great interest Canadians are taking in the subject of pollution. More and more people are becoming deeply interested in the implementation of methods to control or eliminate, to the greatest possible extent, the pollution of our environment. Until about ten years ago, water pollution did not seem to attract much attention. When I first came to this House some years ago many statements were made by my colleagues and myself to the effect that water would probably become one of Canada's greatest natural resources, but at that time there was not the interest in the subject that there is today.
Mind you, some Canadians do not seem to realize that this House is debating the matter. I have contacted many of my constituents and some have stated how pleased they are to see the government taking some action, whilst others do not seem to know that the debate is taking place. However, even those who mentioned their interest in the government's action did not seem to have had an opportunity of perusing Bill C-144. If they had read it I am sure they would have realized, as we do, that this bill is an inadequate measure to control pollution. As I mentioned before, the Canadian people have been demanding an end to the continual corruption of the environment. We in the Progressive Conservative Party have continually recommended action against pollution and the government has responded with the Canada water act. This, I feel, is a pitifully weak bill, one which 
betrays the hopes and expectations of concerned Canadians. It simply does not provide any basis for effective action.
Members of our party are concerned and disturbed at the absence of comment in depth outside Parliament. Despite the profuse writings on the dangers of pollution, the dire warnings on the future of mankind and the constant call for action, there seems to have been very little study of the real content of the bill. The advance publicity last summer, and the flowery words of the minister as to his hopes and aspirations when introducing the bill, seem to have had the desired effect of lulling the country into a feeling of satisfaction. It is easy enough to understand the silence of industrial concerns and interests against whom the real control program would be directed, because they can see immediately the inadequacies of it and find no danger to themselves in it. The bill made its appearance well before Christmas and debate began on it almost immediately but many concerned Canadian writers have not had the opportunity to fully examine it.
We of the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition, are appealing for public support in our fight against a largely useless piece of legislation. We ask all those people concerned about pollution control to study this bill and to give opinions on it, because only an outraged public can force the government to strengthen its proposals and put teeth into this bill; and teeth are very, very necessary. I think that this points out very clearly one of the great values of Parliament. The government seems to play down the role of government and feels that it does not have a great role to play in our democratic society. However, I think this is one matter which is of great concern to all Canadians, and once again it demonstrates the value of Parliament and the value of debate.
As I said before, and I wish to underline this, I think it is very, very important for all Canadians interested in controlling and eliminating pollution as far as possible to read Bill C-144 and find out for themselves just what we of the opposition are trying to bring to the government's attention. We want to emphasize the idea that it is necessary to have amendments to this bill.
The success of the Canada water act is based on the fond hope that the federal government can persuade the provinces and municipalities to set up dozens of new water management boards without federal money, without national standards and without
January 21, 1970



proper research. Then, they will have to persuade the boards to collect their own money, organize their own projects and do battle with water pollution, with nothing from the federal government but advice and the inevitable necessity of having everything approved at provincial and federal levels. The result will be a new form of pollution, namely, large bundles of red tape.
Our party has clearly set out its alternative proposals on many occasions, dating back in their present form for two years. We would have the federal parliament pass a law applying to federal jurisdiction and proceed alone, where possible, or by agreement when working in a divided jurisdiction. Yet, we would go along with the government's plan if it had any real strength or hope of success. In its present form we see neither. It must be substantially re-written.
Recently we experienced a situation with respect to the Saskatchewan River in which serious contamination occurred as a result of mercury pollution. This has resulted in almost all of the species of fish in the lakes which are formed by this river downstream from the source of pollution being declared unfit for human consumption. I might add that this has taken place in a lucrative fishing area. I hope it will once again become lucrative for fishermen.
A considerable number of people residing downstream from the source of this contamination derive a good portion of their livelihood from commercial fishing, including a number of our Indian citizens, and their catches during the last month of yellows or pickerel, jacks and sauger have been ordered destroyed. The white fish on the other hand have been given a clean bill of health, apparently because they are not predator fish. I hasten to add at this time that the recently established freshwater fish marketing board has continued to purchase the contaminated fish from the commercial fishermen; but there will be an additional cost for destroying them.
In answer to questions in the House last week, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) said that the fisheries task force on the prairies had visited the plant of interprovincial co-operative downstream from Saskatoon and were of the opinion that this Chlor-Alkali plant is the principal if not the only source of mercury pollution on the prairies.
Answering a question of mine in the House yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries and
Water Resources
Forestry said, as reported on page 2583 of Hansard:
The necessary steps have been taken to make sure the effluent stream containing mercury is kept within the plant itselt. Mercury is meanwhile being removed by treating the effluent.
Naturally, we were very, very pleased to hear this statement and I am sure it will be well received by the fishermen concerned on the lakes downstream from the polluted area. But we are left with this further thought. For instance, it would be very interesting to know whether this was a voluntary move on the part of the industry concerned or whether the government had authority to order that this be done. I hope the minister will make a statement in the House and tell us just how this solution was arrived at in this particular instance.
Answering a supplementary question, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry said that it will take a spring freshet to flush out the river completely. That also brings up interesting problems because the river, as the minister no doubt knows, empties into Lake Winnipeg. I am wondering, as are many other people, just what will happen to this mercury pollution when it is flushed out of the river and into Lake Winnipeg. Of course, it will go into the Nelson River and, eventually, into Hudson Bay. I can recall years ago, when asking questions in the House about the quality of water in northern Manitoba rivers such as the Nelson, being assured by the minister of the day that inspections were taking place from time to time and that there was no occasion for any of us to be concerned about the purity of the water in the Nelson river. Well, this is not the first time that we have seen pollution coming from the Saskatchewan River which empties into Lake Winnipeg. The water then flows from Lake Winnipeg out through the Nelson River.
Undoubtedly pollution is a very, very important subject for our consideration and I, personally, think it is one of the most important matters confronting Canada today. I could mention many other important subjects, such as inflation, national unity, unrest among our youth, the population explosion, poverty and aggression by force. All these are very, very pressing problems. However, I think that the question of pollution and pollution control ought to have a priority at least equal to that of many of the most important problems confronting us and should have greater priority than some.

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
I am quite sure that a reasonable person will realize that this bill dealing with pollution ought to be in the same category as any bill dealing with inflation, national unity, unrest among our youth and so on. But he could well expect to be charged with being an alarmist. Without doubt, at least one minister on the government's treasury benches feels that the people who talk this way are alarmists. I am sorry that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is not here today, because I should like to read to him some statements he has made on this very matter. Of course, in doing so I shall be trying to demonstrate that the government is not too concerned about the matter, as evidenced by the contents of Bill C-144.
Speaking to the Vancouver Chamber of Commerce last Thursday, the minister said that he does not subscribe to alarmist thought about pollution. I quote from what the minister said:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
"I don't believe all that I read about dying lakes and sickening seas. Most of it is poppycock-written by novices who are reaching for headlines-"
I have already mentioned that I feel pollution deserves top priority, along with the other subjects I mentioned of inflation, national unity, unrest among our youth, population explosion and aggression by forces. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry said people who talk like this are alarmists, that most of it is poppycock and they are novices reaching for headlines.
I have a document which was introduced in this House earlier this session. I quote from it as follows:
The evidence of past failure to rehabilitate our water resources is there for all to see-befouled water, despoiled beaches, rotting marine vegetation, and diminished fishing.
The document I am quoting from is the Speech from the Throne introduced in this House by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Simpson: Here we have the Minister of Fisheries saying that people who talk in an alarmist fashion are nothing but novices reaching for headlines. I think this is a clear example of one of the ministers of the treasury benches strongly disagreeing with those who support the tidying up mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
The minister went further when he said, "the ecological situation is still basically under control". I do not know where the min-
ister finds any basis for saying this when all the reports, and the Speech from the Throne, admit that we have diminished fishing. That in itself upsets the ecological balance.
I have some interesting information before me, Mr. Speaker. It is contained in a letter written to Mr. R. C. Passmore, the Executive Director of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. This letter is signed by the President of the Flin Flon Wildlife Association. It is further evidence of the interest that wildlife and conservation groups are showing in this very important subject. The letter advises that a conservation seminar was sponsored by the Flin Flon Wildlife Association on January 10. The seminar was entitled "The Value of Water as a Natural Resource".
There were two papers presented, and I quote from a report:
The morning paper, "Water and Man" was given by Nes Mudry, Chief of the Planning Division, Water Control and Conservation Branch, Dept, of Mines and Natural Resources, Manitoba. The other paper was given by Jack Howard who is a biologist with the Manitoba Renewable Resources Branch.
The House may be interested in some of the findings:
At the morning session an attempt was made to define clean water and to identify some of the problems and pressures affecting our water resource. They decided that water was clean when it could be taken directly from a lake or stream and used for human consumption.
Over the years, this idea has been in the minds of the people living in our northern areas. Up until now they have had the advantage of an abundance of fresh water in lakes, water which could be taken directly out of the lakes and used for human consumption. These people are very concerned about the fact that pollution can and is taking place slowly but surely and will continue to increase unless strong measures are taken to control it.
I continue quoting:
Pollution was high on the fist of problems-not only industrial pollution but people pollution too. Further, all the groups agreed that Canada should not export water, that if industry needs water, then it should be required to move to the water and not vice versa.
-the participants were asked to make recommendations that would correct some of the problems. And here, I think, a rather amazing thing happened. When the groups reported back to the plenary session their recommendations were almost identical.
All were agreed that Canada must have uniform pollution levels and that these must be rigidly maintained. There was also unanimous agreement that the federal government should establish these standards, with the provinces being given the responsibility of administering them, providing Ottawa retains the authority to police the provinces.
January 21, 1970

Water Resources
This is one thing which is certainly not included in Bill C-144.
It was also agreed that educators have a bigger role to play in teaching Canadians the importance of a clean environment.
I am sure these conservationists feel that there is a place in the curriculum of our educational institutions for the teaching of the benefits of a clean environment and of the dangers of pollution. I continue:
Two of the groups looked into the future and decided that Canada will, some day, be short of water if she continues to ditch, drain and generally waste water at the present rate. They looked at the drainage authority in Manitoba where the municipality makes the decision to drain and it was agreed that authority should come from a less biased body. There was even discussion on the feasibility of underground storage for water.
It was decided that, if we can in fact foresee a time when Canada will be short of water, we should be making plans today and determine what can be done about it rather than waiting until there is an actual shortage. It was suggested, for instance, that if all marginal land were taken out of agricultural production today, much of it would return to marshland and this alone would provide extensive water storage.
It was suggested to me that the House should be made aware of the findings of this seminar. It is gratifying to know that groups such as wildlife associations are taking a keen interest in this very important problem. This group feels that in order for water in our lakes to be classed as clean, it must be fit for human consumption.
Recently a task force has been travelling throughout northern Manitoba visiting most, if not all, of the isolated areas. It has reported that there is more and more evidence of pollution in the lakes in these extremely isolated areas. This has been of great concern to this task force. Much of this pollution comes from the settlements on the shores of many of these lakes, but there is evidence of pollutants such as DDT. It is not too long ago that evidence of DDT contamination was found in polar bear carcasses in the high Arctic.
There is no use in believing that pollution is only a matter of concern to the urban centres. It is spreading very rapidly. When I was going to school we were taught that water would generally purify itself in a distance five to seven miles by running over rapids, etc., but this is not the case with the pollutants we have today. I have already mentioned the situation in the Saskatchewan River where the actual source of pollution is several hundred miles upstream. It would appear that the old saying about water purifying itself does not hold up under present day conditions.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The problem raised by the pollution of our environment is generally considered to be one of major concern to Canada, and indeed, to North America as a whole. Control of the pollution of our waters, air and soil was determined at the Niagara Conference to be one of the highest priorities of the Progressive Conservative party, as something urgently needed for the preservation of our quality of life. Federal involvement in the work of pollution control has been spotty and uncertain. The first positive steps were taken in the early sixties by a Progressive Conservative government when grants and loans were made to municipalities for the installation of sewage disposal facilities. This was authorized by legislation.
During the past few years there has been an increasing demand that the federal government should involve itself in pollution control as a national priority-that the federal government should take firm action to coordinate its efforts and end the jurisdictional maze in which half a dozen federal departments pass responsibility back and forth. We are urging that the government set up one agency with which provincial and international bodies can deal. As against these desirable objectives, the proposed legislation has a number of shortcomings in its general approach. One of these shortcomings is that it deals with water alone. It does not touch on soil or air pollution. Even to the extent that it concerns water, it does nothing to improve interdepartmental communications or to sort out the jurisdictional fields among the departments.
At present the departments of Energy, Mines and Resources, Fisheries, Agriculture, External Affairs and Transport all have some kind of jurisdiction, as does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Nor does the bill make provision to establish national standards for water quality, purification equipment or monitoring. It is, in fact, still left open for one province, or one area of the country, to encourage industry to develop there by setting lower standards of pollution control.
I was gratified to see that the Canadian Wildlife Federation took a strong stand on this very matter. In addition, the federation deplored the absence of provision for any federal financial assistance to make it possible to achieve the objects of Bill C-144. The measure makes no provision for federal contributions to assist the provinces or to assist

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
those who will administer the water quality areas which are to be set up, and enable them to carry out their responsibilities.
Many hon. members on this side of the House have drawn attention to the alternatives which are available to the government. We hope that when the minister speaks later today he will give us an assurance that some of the suggestions, at least, will be considered seriously and incorporated in the bill. I intend to repeat some of these suggestions because we believe strongly that the government should take cognizance of the alternatives which have been put forward.
One of the our proposals is that the government should set up a national department or agency to co-ordinate pollution control efforts in all departments and that it should deal with water quality as part of this over-all approach. The bill before us is not part of any integrated plan; it is just another of these bits and pieces.
The second proposition we put forward is that the government should deal with water quality as part of a national priority to control pollution, and commit the necessary funds from taxation. We feel, also, that the government should ensure provincial co-operation before bringing in legislaiton.
In connection with this latter point, I should like to refer again to what was contained in the Speech from the Throne. On this subject of water resources, it stated that the government had made known its views on this serious matter and had begun discussions with the provinces upon the completion of which it would introduce legislation to enable it, in co-operation with the provinces, to improve and preserve our water resources. I ask hon. members to note the words which refer to the completion of these discussions. My understanding is that a further conference has yet to take place with the provinces on this very matter, and that it will be held in February. This being the case, I find myself wondering why the government should have brought forth the wishy-washy legislation before us at this particular time, though it was clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne that legislation would be presented only after conferences with the provinces had been completed.
We in the Official Opposition further believe that the government should establish national minimum standards for water quality management and provide for the prevention of pollution on a national basis, not just for special areas. As for the water quality

management area system proposd in this bill, it is only one of several possible approaches. Since the government has selected this particular one we shall try to clear up its many shortcomings and attempt to make it work.
In conclusion, I want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House are particularly interested in this subject and that we sincerely hope the people of Canada will have an opportunity to look over the contents of Bill C-144 and send in their own ideas as to the improvements which we know they will find necessary. We trust, too, that they will support us in our efforts to persuade the government to make amendments to the bill which would allow it to do the imporant job which faces Canadians in controlling, or eliminating as far as possible, the menace of pollution.


William Arnold Peters: A few
months ago, Mr. Speaker, a meeting was called by the Minister of Mines in Ontario to discuss the development of secondary industry in northern Ontario. At this meeting there was a large representation from the community, from labour, management, the professions and the provincial civil service. A few federal civil servants were there too, to take part in a discussion on the potential of the area and how it could be developed.
It was an interesting conference, but what surprised me were the views of one of those present who told us, during the discussion of development of secondary industry, that as far as he was concerned he did not want any such development in northern Ontario. It would mean, he said, that the air would be polluted, that the water would be polluted and that the earth would be polluted. He lived in northern Ontario because he liked clean air and clean water. If the price he had to pay for this was the sacrifice of the development of industry, or of the opening of new mines, he was ready to pay that price. Any factories that wished to do so could establish themselves in Toronto where their employees could live in the smog, but he himself had no desire to do so.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This surprised me because I had never really thought of all the things which are lost as a nation develops. There is a price exacted for everything and the price may sometimes be higher than the value received. In Toronto people who look out at the lake see the recreational facilities and perhaps decide that the environmental loss they have suffered
January 21, 1970

may not be worth some of the development that has been achieved in the area. However, probably the purpose of this bill is not to cover matters of environmental control. It is concerned mainly with the matter of water pollution. From my reading of it, it would appear to be a good bill. The criticism that has been made is that it does not go far enough, does not establish federal standards and does not make provision for the federal government to do the things it perhaps should do. All these are good criticisms. However, the minister probably does not have an answer to these criticisms because a great deal of money is involved. To date, the public has not really decided whether the price is worth paying. Until the public makes up its mind, we will have the type of pollution control the government decides to establish.
I do not intend to be nasty to the government. The government now has legislation by which it can control many of the problems that exist. Our harbours could be controlled by the National Harbours Board legislation which is very extensive and autocratic. The same is true in respect of the Navigable Waters Pro'ection Act. This again is old legislation which was brought into effect without fanfare. It is my hope that discussions between the federal and provincial governments will progress to the point where the jurisdictional problems will be ironed out. If we are not willing to invest the money in something, then we really are not in a position to do anything about it.
It is interesting to note some objections which have been raised by people at the head of the lakes. There are reports that the United States Corps of Engineers is directly asking Canadian citizens to provide them with water information. These questions have been asked over a period of time. The provincial government has become concerned about this and has raised the matter with the RCMP. The provincial authorities demand that this type of inquiry by a United States agency be made through the Department of External Affairs of the federal government or at least through the provincial government.
The federal government has indicated that it has no information about the problem. I have a question in this regard which appears on the Order Paper. The RCMP has asked me for information to enable them to make inquiries about this matter. In northern Ontario, and I believe throughout the mid-Canada corridor a situation exists in which Canadians are becoming perturbed not only 21611-29J
Water Resources
about our water resource but also about the fact that the United States authorities are looking at our resource and are applying pressure in respect of it in the hope that we will sell it. At the head of the lakes, individuals are asked to measure the water, prepare weather reports and so on and then are paid $3.50 per week. This information is being provided to the United States army authorities by 40 or 50 Canadians. It seems strange that the RCMP is not in a position to obtain the information they desire. However, I would be prepared to reveal the source of my information and I am sure other members from northern Ontario could do likewise.
I do not think most Canadians believe this is the proper way for our resources to be administered. It is being done this way because the Canadian government is not really interested in obtaining information. The United States authorities want to know what they will have to pay and the Canadian authorities do not have the necessary information available. It seems to me that in the mid-Canada corridor we will be faced with the choice of selling our water as a resource or keeping it, managing it, conserving it and enticing industries to come to the water rather than allowing the water to be diverted to the industries. Most people believe water is for drinking, for washing and then for dumping into the lakes. They believe that eventually it will come back again and there will always be nice clean water. I understand that where industries are situated on, and are using, a body of water, that water is used to the extent that even if pollutants are not employed it no longer has any friction reducing properties. Therefore, the normal properties in water can be used up by industry and the only way they can be replenished is by bringing in new water.
The United States authorities look at our water and think of taking it to the United States where it can be utilized in their environment. So, I believe we must pay some attention to this, set up a standard in respect of our resource and maintain it. The federal government will have to do this job. The federal government has the jurisdictional authority. The jurisdictional division will come into play when the provinces decide ta have their own standards. However, we have a responsibility to catalogue and conserve this resource wherever possible. The area which I represent may be called the upper Ottawa River basin. Those of us in Ottawa are in a position to observe the lower Ottawa River

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
basin. These two basins together make a very formidable source of water in Canada and that water finally ends up in the Atlantic ocean. Many studies have been undertaken in an effort to increase the supply of water from the Arctic watershed. The dividing point between the Arctic watershed and the Atlantic watershed is in my area. The difficulties in diverting considerable amounts of water from one area to another are not insurmountable. Distribution, however, is a horse of another colour.
I do not think there is any great disagreement between the people of Ontario, the people of Quebec and the people in other parts of Canada who are concerned about this watershed about having the water diverted to the Great Lakes where it would become a useful commodity in the United States.
Before we leave the difficulties in respect of the great Lakes, I would point out that there is now an agency in the United States which is deeply involved in the establishment of a connection between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi watershed. If this were established, it would eliminate some of the problems south of Chicago where the water is contaminated and is of no industrial or other use. It has become dead water. The only solution here is to bring in larger quantities of water from the Great Lakes system, which water of course would have to come from the Arctic watershed. The Canadian people would be involved just as the United States is now.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am more interested in this piece of legislation as it will affect the Ottawa River, Lake Timiskaming and the Upper Ottawa Valley. This area should be studied by all members of Parliament. All one has to do is look out over Parliament Hill and one can see and smell the pollution of the Ottawa River. Presumably, in Ottawa we are drinking this water. We are in a very good position to decide whether this large water source is being contaminated.
This river will fall under federal jurisdiction. I note that in this bill there are sections which will allow for control and the establishment of a water authority on Lake Timiskaming and the Ottawa River chain. They would allow for the control of that body of water, for the control of pollution and the establishment of an agency for the orderly operation of the resources in the Ottawa River basin. Therefore, I am very interested in this measure.
When my father went to Northern Ontario he went by boat. He went there in 1898 on a steamer that left Mattawa and travelled to Lake Timiskaming, visiting the various ports on the Quebec and Ontario side. All the cattle, mail and everything that went to Northern Ontario went in that manner. From reports I have read, this was a beautiful waterway and a trip well worth taking. Many people went as sightseers to observe the benefits of this newly developing country and stayed to become residents of that area, remaining the rest of their lives.
Lake Timiskaming forms a boundary between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. It is obviously under federal control. In the early days, transportation on it was controlled by the federal government. The driving of logs was controlled by the federal government. In fact all the resources that passed through that area, and there were a great many in terms of lumbering and the fur trade, were under the direction of the federal government.
In recent years, because of the establishment of a dam and the new use of that water, this authority of the federal government has been dissipated in a number of directions. I have a letter which was written in reply to a question by a provincial member of parliament for the area. He asked what effect the establishment of a dam at Lower Notch would have on the waterway. The reply came from Ontario Hydro in the form of a letter to the Hon. George Kerr, Minister of Energy and Resources Management, Parliament Buildings, Toronto. It reads in part:
The water level of Lake Timiskaming is controlled by the federally-owned dam at the south end of the lake, which is operated according to the decisions of a regulating committee made up of representatives from Quebec Hydro, federal Department of Public Works and Ontario Hydro. The discharges required through this dam and the subsequent elevations of Lake Timiskaming are a direct result of the rate of inflow to the lake. The Montreal River on which Lower Notch is situated contributes only a small part of the total flow, and daily flows on the Montreal will not generally be altered by Lower Notch. No change in the operating arrangements for Timiskaming is contemplated.
I live on the shores of Lake Timiskaming and it is very interesting to note how well this committee can control the level of that lake. The level varies about eight or nine feet. You must realize that the lake level was raised by some 12 feet when this dam was installed. This is a low lying farm area and the water level in the newly flooded part has risen about twelve feet. The people who own land in that area previously farmed this land.

January 21, 1970

When the water level rises and falls eight or nine feet, there is considerable difficulty controlling the flow. If the water level in Lake Timiskaming rises abnormally in the spring, then the people who have cottages all the way along the Ottawa River are in difficulty. If the dam on Lake Timiskaming went out there would probably be four feet of water over most of the city of Montreal. The lake forms a fairly substantial source of water, and one which has to be controlled over a large distance.
One of the problems that is developing results from the use or misuse of the water by both Quebec Hydro and Ontario Hydro who have not thought of anybody except themselves. This means they maintain as high a water level as possible, and to hell with the tourist operators, the recreation facilities, the shoreline, the pulp and paper industry, the logging industry and other industries using this water. The hydro companies believe they have a divine right as a result of their public utility position.
The federal government has neglected to use any influence it might have. The federal government built the dam and has repaired it on a number of occasions, but it has not really made any effort to see that the fishing industry has not been hurt. It has not been particularly interested in facilitating logging operations on the lake or in seeing that one of the greatest forms of pollution in any area- soil pollution-is controlled. It has not really done anything about the sewage which flows directly into this water.
If we are really interested in controlling pollution it seems to me there are enough teeth in this measure, if they are used, to enable the federal government to immediately supply the controls necessary for the orderly management of any large water resource. Such control measures would probably start in rural areas where dams would have to be installed to stop the runoff which carries a great amount of silt into the Ottawa basin. This will cost many municipalities a great deal of money. They do not have the money and apparently the provincial government does not give a hoot. If the federal government says it is interested in orderly management, it must be prepared to make money available to the municipalities for the basic control of water levels and soil pollution, such as the kind taking place in almost all agricultural areas along this whole water chain from the head of the lake at Notre Dame du Nord to Montreal. Unless the federal government is
Water Resources prepared to make this kind of an expenditure on behalf of the municipality, it really does not matter what is done along the line. It does not matter whether the river is polluted with chemicals or anything else if the runoff of silt is permitted.
As you fly over the watercourse, you note that a great deal of it is a dull muddy colour. There are hundreds and hundreds of tourist operations, both private and commercial, along this watercourse. These people have not had the resources to provide proper sanitary control. The federal government will have to make enough money available to them through CMHC so that they may upgrade their facilities.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Many of the municipalities down-river are still dumping raw sewage into this lake. The minister knows this. When he lived on the Ottawa River I imagine that area got so polluted that he decided to move to another water resource area in his new riding, but I think he will find the same applies there also.
If we are not willing to make money available to the municipalities to treat the waste going into our water resources, then we can laugh at this bill. What would be the point of laying charges against some small municipality for dumping raw sewage into a river when everyone knows that the municipality does not have the financial resources to build the necessary facilities?
In Northern Ontario we embarked on a unique method of handling municipal waste. We put it in lagoons, and every year the lagoons freeze over very hard. When spring comes in the ice is quite high and these ponds are full. The one in my home town is situated quite close to the river. Water runs down off the hill into the lagoon and flushes it into the river, so that instead of getting a little pollution every day we get a lot of pollution during the spring run-off, but apparently the Ontario Water Resources Branch decided that this was fine.
Since the beginning of commercial development in Northern Ontario logs have been driven on the Timiskaming lake. In some places the bark and other things which come off the logs have polluted the lake to a depth of five feet, but no regulation is being drafted to ensure that the logs are peeled before they are put in the water.
I am sure that the departmental officials who drafted this bill have no intention of enforcing it. What they and the government

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
want is to have this bill to deal with cases of obvious pollution, cases where they will be obliged to do something. To this government, obvious pollution means sufficient pollution to kill all the fish in a river or lake. When they are found floating belly up, then the government will get after somebody and make him pay a few bucks. But, Mr. Speaker, that will merely be a licence to pollute.
The people of Canada are now concerned about the uses of water. They see the abuses perpetrated by hydro, and in some cases by provincial departments of lands and forests. In some areas these provincial departments placed poison in lakes to kill all the fish, but when they tried to restock those lakes at a later date they found it impossible to do so.
People are also giving considerable attention to the recreational and transportation uses of water. In the interval between two elections a few years ago, the Liberal party in Northern Ontario came out with a grand scheme to cope with the problem of Lake Timiskaming and the Ottawa River. Not only did they propose to bring barges up to Ottawa on the river, but also to bring them up through Lake Timiskaming. They were even going to take them into the French River and over into Sault Ste. Marie. But the Liberal party was not interested in controlling the environment of that water facility.
This is a nice bill. I hope all hon. members will support it, but it will not do any good. It is a sop to those people who believe that pollution has become a problem. In my opinion the government has no intention of providing enough money to municipalities or to provinces to establish the necessary controls. The federal government will not even make a survey of our water resources so that their orderly development may be planned. The only time the federal government will make use of this bill is when nothing else works, or in the case of a calamity.
For years the International Joint Commission has been looking at the problem in Lake Erie, smelling it, measuring it and tasting it. Every year the problem gets worse. We will never solve it until we decide to devote enough money to its solution. The amount of money that will be provided through this bill will be very small.
For these reasons, I say the bill is a nice one, but it does not meet the aspirations of almost all Canadians who want to avoid the water pollution problems that are besetting the United States. Canadians wish to develop the controls that will make it possible for

them to pass their natural water resources on to their children and their children's children in as pure a state as possible.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburlon):: er Robarts, the Ontario government tried repeatedly to get federal assistance and cooperation in cleaning up the Ottawa River. When the Ontario authorities tackled this problem they quickly found that it was hopeless without the full co-operation of both the Province of Quebec and the federal government-the government whose job it is to take care of inter jurisdictional waters such as the Ottawa River interprovincial boundary.
It was no dice. There was no action. There was no interest. It was the same story when Ontario tried to co-operate with some seven states of the United States across the Great Lakes. Intentionally or not, the minister inferred in his pre-introduction publicity campaign that federal action was now being taken because the provinces had shirked the job. It is time to set the record straight. The failures of omission were federal, not provincial.
Finally, the federal giant has awakened. Unfortunately, this bill represents only the giant's yawn before rolling over and going back to sleep. The general concept of strict control of our natural environment-water, air and soil-we, as a party, support wholeheartedly. What we are attacking in this bill is the half-hearted approach to the problem. The utter inadequacy of the means so far advanced is illustrated by this shoddy piece of legislation. What we want to see is strong federal leadership, federal initiative to establish national standards, national goals, a national crusade.
In Canada today we have a very sorry and confused picture of antipollution effort. Some provinces and municipalities have done much. Many private industries have also done a great deal. Many private citizens have made an outstanding contribution. But the sad fact is that the federal government has done little or nothing and many industries and individuals will never do anything until the machinery to compel them to conform to standards of environmental control are established on a nation-wide basis. One cannot blame them too much. Until pollution of our air, water and soil is made an offence in every part of the country and until Canada as a whole proceeds positively against the threat, the industries and the citizens of the country are unlikely to observe antipollution measures.
To confine concern to a restricted list of specified bodies of water, as this bill does, is a useless gesture. It begs the question. It makes no sense to say, as this bill in effect, does say, "pollution is only officially pollution in this
Water Resources
lake or that river because we have been able to set up a joint board to control its waters".
What about the lake next door or the water in the river farther downstream? Despite the fatuous statements made the other evening by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) about water being different in different areas, it is obvious that water is water wherever it is when you are dealing with pollution of it.
We must have national standards of water quality. We must have national definitions of pollution and the offence of pollution. We must have uniform methods of controlling water and protecting it. We must ensure that pollution can be controlled wherever there is water, not simply in a scattering of designated areas under some cumbersome type of joint control board. Reading this bill, the impression is given that pollution only exists where there is a joint interest. What about all the vast areas of this country where the federal jurisdiction is paramount and absolute? I am thinking of the Arctic, for instance or the territories or the off-shore waters? Perhaps the federal government is hoping to set up a joint control board with the United States in these areas. Having heard the views of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the benefits of pooling continental resources, I can imagine that this may well be in his mind.
The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has consistently refused to recognize the menace of pollution and has evaded its responsibility for leading a national effort on what is, clearly, a national problem. Now, it has suddenly awakened to the realization that Canadians want action and has rushed into the field too late and with too little.
Pollution does not stop at provincial boundaries. It is not susceptible to being neatly allotted to various political jurisdictions. It is all-pervasive and truly a universal threat. Pollution is a national threat and an international threat. The federal responsibility to act in this area is just as clear and urgent as it would be in the field of national defence were Canada to be threatened by hostile forces from outside our borders.
I find it amazing that the federal government is being so coy about invading provincial jurisdiction in this field and so scrupulous about staying within its own narrow constitutional areas. It never was so nice about things in the past. We can all recall the thinly disguised invasion of provincial rights and juris-

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
diction that accompanied the imposition of a nation-wide pension and medicare plan. Those plans were successfully forced upon many of the provinces by coercion. If such coercion were necessary and acceptable in the case of pensions and medicare, why not try a little in the far more pressing and serious problem of preserving our national physical environment?
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) rightly pointed up the failure of the bill to provide municipalities with the sinews of war, the municipalities that are the front line in the battle with water pollution. This, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, is the very area in which, for the past 15 years, the Ontario government has been waging its principal fight by enabling municipalities to get capital at nominal cost to enable them to build and operate the sewage disposal plants and filtration plants that are the essential units of antipollution effort. I suggest to the minister that, if and when he ever gets around to trying to set up his joint control boards, he will find provincial and municipal authorities are already enjoying a wealth of experience and success in this field. He may even be forced to admit eventually that he and his army of experts have no exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to knowledge, ability and know-how.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This, of course, is one of the great weaknesses of a generally weak bill. Nowhere in it is the fundamental question of the financing of water control measures dealt with. Yet this is vital to effective action. The absence of this basic provision from the bill is sufficient reason in itself to withdraw it and have it completely redrafted.
The hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), who enjoys the odd distinction of being unknown to his own leader, talked glibly of the necessity of getting the co-operation of municipalities and provinces in putting the provisions of this bill into action. He should know, and his government should know, that this co-operation can only be forthcoming if the federal authority is willing to get down to brass tacks and talk about the financing of antipollution measures. This question will not just go away if it is not talked about. There is hardly a municipality or a province in Canada that is not away ahead of the federal government in appreciation of the menace of pollution and the need to fight it everywhere and all the time. But

they know that effective action requires more than fine words and ringing slogans at a ministerial press conference, and more than a bill with more holes in it than a round of Swiss cheese.
They know that effective antipollution work takes money, tax money in massive amounts. They know, too, that they do not have that kind of money and little prospect of raising it from the share of the tax base at their disposal. I am afraid the minister and his colleagues are going to have to put their money where their mouth is if they expect to get the required co-operation from those who are already veterans of the fight against pollution.
The member for Bumaby-Seymour said at least one thing that made sense. He described this bill as "modest" and without any claim to being the instrument to "solve these problems". Perhaps we can persuade him to add his voice to the voices of those in this House who believe this bill to be completely inadequate and who believe it should now be withdrawn and redrafted.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very difficult to evaluate the hazards due to water, air and soil pollution. As regards health, the present situation may be compared to a time bomb. In fact, the effects of pollution have just begun to appear but they will be felt more strongly within the next few years.
The wind may bring us foul smells, but it happens also that our rivers leave traces of dirt.
We, in the Quebec region, more particularly those of us who live in the St. Lawrence valley, have already felt the effects of water pollution, especially at the socio-economic level.
In fact, during the summer of 1967, commercial fishermen who had been fishing in the St. Lawrence river for several years and successfully earning their living and that of their family, had to give up their trade. In spite of the fact that two and a half years have passed since, many are still unemployed and have to be satisfied with social welfare allowances.
Fishermen enjoy a reputation of long standing and they are recognized as good workers. Those from the area of Quebec city and Trois-Rivieres did not rely wholly on luck, because they were well equipped. They owned very modern material such as draw-
January 21, 1970

Water Resources
nets several hundred feet long and enormous traps which change name according to areas and which are often made of various materials.
A fisherman does not really fish. It might be said rather that he draws up thousands of pounds of fish and, if all goes well, he may even assess his catch in tons.
Up to the fall of 1966 this was the situation in the centre of Quebec, on the St. Lawrence, between Orleans island and Montreal. Only in the fall of 1966 and in the spring of 1966 did it become tragic.
People who could manage with a salary of $5,000 or $7,000 a year saw this income reduced to nothing. In fact, all fish species- pike, dore, bass, carp and eel have vanished. And this is not merely a form of speech since the fish had been poisoned and was washed up by the sea.
We know that matters relating to water pollution are studied by the federal government in conjunction with the provinces.
However, since fish is disappearing from the St. Lawrence river, we must realize that the federal government and the Quebec government have never moved beyond the study stage. Highly-paid technicians are still pursuing studies; they do not exert themselves too much and they manage to justify their work in the eyes of the population by publishing a press release once in a while.
In my opinion, the most ridiculous step was taken in 1967 by the federal Minister of Agriculture. In the summer of 1967, if my memory serves me well, the Canadian government sent a pamphlet to the farmers in which it urged them never to dispose of old DDT containers in streams. They were asked to use any other means, for instance, to burn them or to bury them in the ground. All means except that one were good. The recommendation served to distract the attention of the people from the real problem, since, while the farmers worried about drops of DDT, the Expo Corporation was dumping into the St. Lawrence river thousands of pounds of rothane, a violent poison, commonly called DDD.
With the blessing of the federal and provincial governments this poison was used widely during the whole time of the building of the Expo site.
In the spring of 1967, 2,700 gallons of this poison, or 27,000 pounds, were dumped near the Expo site. And this criminal act was repeated regularly twice in 1966 and only once in 1965.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Today, Bill C-144 is before the House. To my mind, this bill could bring the government to take a stand. But why should the bill come to us so late, after the damage is done? Provincial governments are not assuming their responsibilities, and we know why: because of electoral funds.
For instance, when a lumber company wishes to obtain a timber concession from the government, all it has to do is give money to the electoral funds of political parties. To be allowed to dump plant wastes freely into our rivers, big industries maintain a conspiracy within provincial governments through contributions to the electoral funds.
In Quebec, companies must supply the provincial government with a water sample. It is strange, however, that the sampling should be entrusted to the companies' own technicians.
Now, the technician is smart enough to know where to get his samples so as not to cause his employer any trouble. No technician would take his sample at the mouth of the sewage system of the company that employs him.
It is clear that "troubled" water would cause "troubles". I dare say his position would be jeopardized. Provincial governments were in no rush to note the danger of pollution because, as I said, electoral funds blocked their eyes and their nose.
Some companies that are developing our natural resources were not more honest since while they were poisoning our lakes and rivers, by dumping their waste in them, they sent to the responsible department of the province of Quebec a sample of pure water that was taken at the source of the streams.
One paragraph of the bill says, and I quote:
(g) "inter-jurisdictional waters" means any waters, whether international, boundary or otherwise, that, whether wholly situated in a province or not, significantly affect waters outside such province;
Since the water dividing line has not been established yet, I am somewhat disturbed. Unfortunately that has encouraged laziness until now, for many aspects of this problem have not been clarified yet, as concerns the St. Lawrence, for instance.
In a certain area, a number of people were using that river as a dump, throwing old automobile bodies into it. Below Trois-Rivieres, that practice went on until one municipality had the opportunity to lay a charge. So I sent a report to the provincial authorities who answered me that the matter
2662

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
did not come under their jurisdiction, since navigable waters fall within the competence of the federal government. I was therefore advised to apply to the federal Department of Transport.
So I wrote to Ottawa and got the reply that the matter did not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, since it had to do with trash dumped along the shores or into shallow water. The only thing that matters to the federal government is that the channel be open to shipping. It is not concerned about waste.
Confronted with a man sentenced to death, Pontius Pilate washed his hands. Today, when it comes to dealing with the Canadian waters which are a source of life, some people find it possible once more to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The federal government knowing that Expo 67 was under preparation, during the years 1965-1966, confined itself, at the time, to conducting studies on the waters of the Great Lakes. Let me quote a question I directed then to the government, as it appears on page 7462 of Hansard for April 14, 1969. Here it is:
1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare take water samples from the St. Lawrence River in the summers of 1967 and 1968?
2.	If so, did the analysis of this water reveal that there was a danger for bathers in (a) Tadous-sac (b) Quebec City (c) Trois-Rivieres (d) Montreal?
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) gave this answer, and I quote:
1.	The Department of National Health and Welfare has carried out water quality studies on the international section of the St. Lawrence River (from Kingston, Ontario, to Cornwall, Ontario), each summer since 1965. These studies were conducted under the aegis of a current reference to the International Joint Commission on Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River.
2.	As the studies have been limited to the international section of the St. Lawrence River, water quality data collected cannot be interpreted with regard to conditions in the vicinity of (a) Tadous-sac (b) Quebec City (c) Trois Rivieres (d) Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, barely a few days before I asked that question, I wrote to Mr. Lessard, the Quebec Health Minister, as follows:
Dear Sir,
A Quebecer would be interested in the rental of a public beach is now considering the possibility of carrying out his wish at one of the two following locations on the shores of the St. Lawrence: Cap-Rouge or Anse-au-Foulon, Sillery.
[Mr. Godin.)
And I went on asking-
-for a copy of the water analysis at those locations during the summers of 1966, 1967, 1968.
On March 4, 1969, I received the following reply:
Dear Sir,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 25 last and I wish to advise you that last year, swimming was prohibited at the Anse-au-Foulon beach by the Department of Health due to water pollution.
As for Cap-Rouge, we should have to know exactly the spot where the quality of the water is of interest to you.
Mr. Speaker, I remember quite well that during the summer of 1969, the beach at Sillery was closed to the citizens of Quebec City. On the other hand, I also remember that at Cap-Rouge, a few miles from there, Mr. Roger Lemelin, a well-known author, could still swim, as could the hon. members for Louis-Hebert and Langelier (Messrs. Cantin and Marchand).
Mr. Speaker, we must see the situation in its true light. The water from the St. Lawrence, dangerous to swim in, is the drinking water of the people of Levis. In fact, Levis, Lauzon, Bienville, Saint-Romuald, Saint-David get their drinking water from the St. Lawrence River. While swimming is forbidden on the north shore of the river, it provides drinking water on the south shore.
I hope that Bill C-144 will clear up the problem. Of course, those are extreme cases and I believe that the residents of that region are entitled to know exactly what the situation is.
In my opinion, given the facts, Bill C-144 could be a good measure. Will it be properly enforced, or used solely for political purposes and to foster small quarrels with the provinces?
We are aware that in our industrialized world, waste of all kind is increasing, both at the manufacturing and at the processing levels, and that to achieve high quality products, we have to get rid of a considerable amount of indispensable material. And up until now, waterways were considered as ideal dumps. The dangers of such a practice are obvious, and some companies have recognized them.
I want to mention the efforts of some industries to curb pollution, and I am hoping for an increase in the number of those that will co-operate to keep up the fight essential to our survival. But as always one has to think of the cost. Co-operation from industries
January 21, 1970

is necessary, but are all industries in good enough financial position to consider a water treatment program? Are all the municipalities which are considering an exchange program in a suitable financial position to fight pollution with means essential to the improvement of the present situation? This is open to question if we refer to a statement by Mr. Paul O. Trepanier, former mayor of Granby, who said that 75 per cent of Quebec municipalities were faced with bankruptcy.
Here is what I read on page 13 of this bill:
Water quality management agencies.
The objects of each water quality management agency shall be to plan, initiate and carry out programs to restore, preserve and enhance the water quality level in the water quality management area for which the agency is incorporated or named.
Mr. Speaker, that will be the great objective of the agencies which we intend to set up. Of course there are limitations. Here I take the liberty to read on page 16 of the bill a paragraph from clause 13:
Except with respect to loans related to the cost of incorporation of an agency and its operating expenses that are authorized to be made to it by the Minister or a provincial government, an agency does not have power to borrow moneys, to issue securities or to guarantee the payment of any debt or obligation of any person.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the obvious dangers of pollution, the minister will be in a position to say no to corporations which, according to him, would not have the financial capacity to meet loans with a 10, 11 or 12 per cent interest rate. In short, we are looking at the "troubled" water but we cannot do anything to change the situation unless financial means are available.
That is the situation right now. Bill C-144 is another piece of legislation whose implementation will be restricted by the "buck". Let us imagine the case where we would let a forest fire spread just because of insufficient funds to fight it. That would be a ridiculous situation, but I think that it is precisely what would result from this bill unless we bring in some amendments.
Can we imagine a mayor who would let his town burn down just because he cannot afford any longer to pay the firemen? Can we think of a situation where a provincial premier would call back the workers sent to fight forest fires simply because financiers have turned him down for a loan?
Considering that the problem of pollution is a matter of life and death, the Canadian government should consider measures aimed at checking it and the first necessary step, I
21611-30!
Water Resources
think, should be to secure the financing of the plans the realization of which are advocated by the bill under study. Just as the previous speakers, I suggest to the department to study the loans granted to foreign countries for such plans. Then, perhaps, the firms that are incapable of borrowing at 10, 11 and 12 per cent will be in a position to borrow at better conditions, that is J or 1 per cent.
I am convinced that the federal government must assume its responsibilities towards the problem of water. The government should act with the financial help of the Bank of Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 n.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it often happens that an hon. member will rise in his place and say he did not intend to take part in the debate which is in progress but that he had been moved to do so. My own position is the very reverse of that. I intended right from the start to take part in this debate but my original intention was to make a full 40-minute speech. I have decided, because this debate has gone on for several days, and because most of the things which need to be said have been put on the record, that I will shorten my remarks to just-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is the Lundrigan influence.


An hon. Member:: Three cheers for
Lundrigan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Stanley feels a little grey after that.
There are two ideas I should like to express before we give second reading to this bill- there might be a sub-heading or two, but in the main there are two things I should like to say. In the first place, I think we delude ourselves when we talk about pollution being something which is likely to creep up on us if we fail to act now. A good deal of the discussion has been along the lines that we must take action now so that our waters, our air and our environment as a whole do not become polluted some time in this decade or in the near future. We should face the fact that we are already living in the age of pollution. The statistics and information which have been given to the House during the course of this debate certainly support the contention that our waters are far from pure

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
at the present time and the same is true with respect to our air. What we have to begin now is not just a preventive job with an eye to the future but a cleaning up job as far as the present is concerned.
It is against the background of this situation, against the background of the fact that things are already serious that hon. members are perfectly justified, it seems to me, in urging that Bill C-144 is not strong enough. A friend of mine sent me a telegram a few days ago in which he suggested four things that a bill of this kind ought to do. I do not intend to read the telegram, but it does state the case succinctly. I shall accept my friend's four ideas as my own and I shall be happy to send him a copy of Hansard.


An hon. Member:: One more vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
lives in Montreal.
In doing this, I shall keep the promise I made to myself to observe strict brevity. In the first place, the situation calls for tough, no-compromise federal legislation to ensure uniform, country-wide standards. There is a lot of water in this country which is clearly under federal jurisdiction. I maintain that the people of Canada would have no patience with any provincial premier or government that would fail to co-operate as far as provincial waters are concerned.
In the second place, there ought to be financial assistance by way of tax relief and writeoffs of various kinds, as well as contributions, to encourage the development and use of pollution control equipment. Any incentives which can be put forward so that people will do even more than the law calls for are certainly needed because of the seriousness of the situation.
In the third place, there ought to be deadlines-and they should be included in the bill before us-respecting the implementation and completion of pollution control projects. Agreements with respect to such projects should be concluded with some of our large urban centres such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax. Here, I believe, despite our two-level type of government, we are bound to bring the cities into the picture.
Finally, there ought to be tough, no-nonsense laws providing for heavy fines or imprisonment to give resource management agencies the power necessary to deal with offenders.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
It strikes me that these four suggestions bring into bold relief the fact that the present bill does not go far enough to cope with the danger which is with us right at this very time, for as I say, it is not one which will arise in the 'eighties, or a generation from now; it is with us today.
The other main thought I want to pass on to the House before we conclude the debate is this: I believe this question of the pollution of our waters and of our environment generally is part of a larger one having to do with the role of science and technology in our society. The day has come, indeed, it is long past, when we ought to have a minister and a department of science and technology in the government of Canada. After all, it is science and technology which are virtually making possible the kind of life we live today. We are aware of the things which have improved our lives. On the other hand, because of the impact of science and technology in the profit-making system under which we live, an awful lot has been done to despoil our lives. The whole question of what science and technology should do, or what they should bring into being, should no longer be one for private industry to answer but something which is a matter of public policy and public concern.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It is not good enough to have a Science Council of Canada on the side, with a certain conflict of interest to which attention was turned yesterday. Policy in the field of science and technology ought to be part of the concern of the Parliament and the Government of Canada. It is not enough to have a weak bill on water pollution control before us; we ought to be moving forward boldly in this whole area. Whether in the future we will have for our people a Canada to live in and enjoy depends not only on industrial progress, not only on what we do about building our great cities, highways and so on, but on how we channel our capacities, resources, intellect and scientific know-how in making life liveable for a decade, for several decades or for centuries in this country of ours.
I wish to conclude by reminding hon. members of two or three paragraphs on the last two pages in a book by Blair Fraser entitled "The Search for Identity" which I am sure most members will have read. We all remember this distinguished journalist who was with us for so many years and who a few years ago lost his life so tragically. As a
January 21, 1970

matter of fact, the conditions under which he lost his life are rather significant in the light of these passages which conclude his interesting book. Let me pick out two or three paragraphs. These are the late Blair Fraser's words:
It is commonplace to refer to Canada as one of the young countries of the world. In fact it is one of the oldest. Few others still look, as Canada does in about three quarters of its area, just as they did two hundred and perhaps ten thousand years ago.
More than half of it is primordial granite, the great Pre-Cambrian shield rubbed clean of soil by the glacier of the latest Ice Age. Since the glacier receded the land has recovered, at least in the milder climatic belt that in the west runs as far north as the Yukon and the Mackenzie Delta and in the east dips to south of James Bay, enough shallow humus to support a coniferous bush. Shallow lakes are everywhere upon its surface-Canada is thought to contain about one third the fresh water of the entire world.
Then, Blair Fraser talks about this great area of our country that is largely untouched, an area which most people have not seen. But it is there, and to him it is a symbol of the future and the hope of this country. These are his last two paragraphs:
Meanwhile "development" continues. Canada's standard of living, second highest in the world (by North American measurement), is in no danger of losing that proud position. Washing machines and television sets abound, as in no other nation save one. Superhighways devour uncounted acres of fertile land, and the second highest incidence of automobiles achieves, in the metropolitan areas, a second highest air pollution. Ugly little towns prosper, all calling themselves cities and all looking like faithful copies of Omaha, Nebraska.
This is not a Canada to call forth any man's love. But just north of it still lies a different kind of land-too barren even to be thickly settled, too bleak to be popular like Blackpool or Miami. There is no reason to doubt that it will always be there, and so long as it is there Canada will not die.
Regardless of what has been said in this debate about the pollution that has already taken place and the cleaning up problems to which we must apply ourselves, the fact is we have a rich heritage in this country of land, forest, water and air. It is worth saving. It is worth protecting. Let us do it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. The subject has been reasonably well covered. What strikes me, however, is that if ever there was a "milquetoast" bill presented to the House, this is it. The legislation contains no teeth. It does not contain things that are necessary if we are to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the problem,. I will admit that the minister has taken a very timid step in the right direction. One recalls that the Prime Minister (Mr. Water Resources
Trudeau), when speaking on the just society, stated that some effective solution must be found for the control of air and water pollution and that we must move faster and more imaginatively in this area. I do not see much indication of that in this bill. No one will disagree with this statement, but the government brings in a bill which covers water pollution only and does nothing about air, soil or noise pollution. I do not know whether reference has been made to this in this debate, but I believe all of us owe a deep debt of gratitude to Rachel Carson, who has since passed away, for awakening us to the damage being done and our future position if things continue in the present manner.
It is interesting to note that people in several cities of the United States are drinking water from taps after that water has gone through city sewers. Now we come to the question: do we really need this bill. As I have said, it is a step in the right direction, but I wonder whether this bill, if it is not any better enforced than the fisheries bill in respect of our Great Lakes system, will accomplish anything. It has been shown that our fish in the Great Lakes contain levels of DDT above permissible levels. The government should have put teeth in that bill in order that something might have been done about the problem. I believe the minister said that the 70's will be a period when a move will be made in respect of pollution. Surely, we should have been looking after some of these things in the 60's. I am not blaming the minister. I am merely stating that in the 70's the government must move quickly. I am also thinking about the bureaucracy we may be building up by applying Parkinson's law. We may become involved in building up department on department and bureaucracy on bureaucracy.
How are the necessary arrangements to be made with the provinces in respect of setting up joint boards to deal with this problem? Surely, the ground rules will vary from province to province. What are these ground rules? Are all provinces to be brought up to a certain level? Who will decide what this level should be? The waters of the Great Lakes system touch the province of Ontario as well as the province of Quebec. The Ottawa River is the dividing line between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. Will the same rules apply to the villages and towns along the Quebec side as apply in the province of Ontario? What will be the working rule in this regard? Surely, there will be

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
variations. The national board to be established under the Canada water bill should seek agreement from all provincial bodies in respect of what constitutes pollution and how much pollution is to be allowed. I believe we must realize, in our war on pollution of the air, water or land, that we can never hope to return to the time when waters were pure and the air was clear.
It has been pointed out by other speakers that DDT, which has proven to be a boon to the farmers, contains a particular hydrocarbon which retains its identity and decomposes very slowly. Some authorities put the rate of deterioration at about 20 per cent over a period of 20 years. This means it remains in the soil, in the water and in the fish and becomes cumulative. What provisions or thoughts are there in respect of providing something that will do a similar job for the farmers in their effort to produce the food we need? Has the government any idea what should be used in place of DDT? Has the government instituted any research on this? If such action has not been taken then it would seem to me that agriculture, which has been built up on the use of DDT, should be in some way compensated for its losses. There is also another problem. What will be done about the phosphates which are used in detergents and which cause damage?
Dr. Jones of the University of Toronto, I think last December, pointed out that there were chemicals now that would perform the same function as the phosphates and which do not have any deleterious effects. What has been done about this, and what is the time limit we are going to place on the manufacture of detergents? I suggest that we have a blank cheque. I hope when this bill goes to the committee something will be done about these problems because they exist all across Canada. The point of no return in respect of pollution is a lot closer than most of us care to believe.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I have not raised the genetic factors which might be involved as a result of pollution. I do not know whether other members have mentioned this, but it has come to my notice. There is a frightening illustration in the bird life of Canada. I think we have some 150 species of birds that are threatened with extinction. I propose to speak on this again when the bill comes back to the House from the committee. Before then I hope the committee will do something to set ground rules, IMr. Rynard.l
and will decide how this measure can be made effective. In so doing, I hope they will deal fairly with industry and the municipalities.
In concluding I should like to quote from the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
We are prepared to say it will be a crime to pollute the rivers or to pollute the air and to use the federal criminal power to force the industries or even the municipalities to do certain things. We wouldn't want to do it without provincial consent but we want to make people realize that when they make this choice it's going to be pretty costly because if you are going to send people to jail or make them pay fines, whether they be the chairman of the board of directors or whether they be a mayor of a city because they are sullying our water-*
I see nothing in this measure that will make this a just society. What bothers me is that this measure does not go far enough. I hope when it comes back from the committee it will have some teeth in it and we will know the ground rules for controlling pollution.
The national commission which should be appointed will have to co-operate with their United States counterparts in the area of the Great Lakes, the waters of which are of importance to both sides. I hope this bill will be greatly improved when it returns to the House, otherwise this is an exercise in futility.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, like the two previous speakers I will attempt to be brief because I know the minister wants to make some remarks at the conclusion of this debate and before this bill finally goes to the committee. In the few minutes I have at my disposal I should like to comment on this rather flimsy document we have before us, and make a few basic points.
Since I am very pessimistic about pollution in general, I will probably be labelled as a crepe hanger by any of those jolly chamber of commerce types who happen to be in this House of Commons. I do not believe that legislators anywhere in North America are going to do anything effective to halt or reverse pollution until it is too late.
My second point arises from the first. The problem of even water pollution alone, leaving soil and air pollution out of it for the moment, is such a complex and gigantic problem that to do very much about combatting it in a positive way, virtually our whole value system and way of life will have to be reassembled and changed. Our way of life
January 21, 1970

might have to be so dramatically altered that politicians would find little public support for the rigid measures necessary to overcome the pollution problem. I think I know a little bit about what the minister and the government face in dealing with a bill that would be strong enough to overcome water pollution.
Finally, having read the bill thoroughly, I am convinced it confirms what I said regarding my first two points in so many ways I am alarmed. It alarms me when I think of the future of those children being born today, because of the kinds of things they will have to face by the time they are as old as I am.
Everybody is in on the pollution kick today. Pollution is another motherhood subject. It has become such a popular word that everybody wants to get in on the act. But I am afraid Bill C-144 has about as much resemblance to any solution to the problem of water pollution as a stage backdrop has to real trees in the forest. I think the bill before us today is but a political response to justify the government in face of the public outcry for clean water. Regretfully, what we have before us is largely a snow job or, with deference to the minister, probably a "Joe" job.
The minister must be a little bit embarrassed in coming here to the House to smuggle the Canada water act past us masquerading as anything more than a government statement of pious hopes brought in belatedly to quell the clamour. There is probably a great gnawing fear on the part of the people of ultimate human extinction that certainly has not been focused on in this bill. Like the member who spoke before me, I hope the committee will severely tighten up a number of the measures in this proposal. I think perhaps if we closed our eyes, this problem of public concern, the public rumbling might go away, but I do not think the problem would disappear.
Population and pollution experts tell us that we may have at the most one generation, or by the end of this century, to find alternatives to the disasters we will face if we do not control our population.
World population is growing geometrically rather than arithmetically. We now have more than 3 billion people on this planet and by the year 2000 we expect to have over 6 billion. After another generation we expect to have, by anyone's guess, perhaps 25 billion. Some people say this will mean a population density in the livable parts of the earth of
120,000	people per square mile, which is
Water Resources
about the population density of the slums of Hong Kong.
How do we handle this kind of density in the year 2025 when today, in a sparsely populated country such as Canada we have dead lakes, poisoned bays, fetid, stinking rivers so laden with solid effluent you almost have to equip the fish with football helmets in order that they may swim unbruised to their spawning grounds?
Pollution increases are usually a mathematical function of population increase and population density. The magnitude of this problem is so little understood by the world at large and the Canadian general public, yet so crucial to our survival, that if I were a newly married man today, because I love children, I doubt very much whether I would bring any into the world, knowing as I do what survival conflicts they are going to face by the time they are 30 years of age.
I said earlier that the population problems are so complex that to alter them fundamentally would mean a whole change in our value system. I should like the House to consider for a moment the interrelation of the following points, and I will not elaborate on them: population growth and pollution, which I dealt with earlier; increased chemical disposal and pollution; rise in expectations or standard of living and pollution; increased industrialization and pollution; increased world and domestic trade and pollution, and increased resource exploitation, mining, logging, hydro, thermonuclear plants and pollution.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I do not think anyone in this House, least of all the minister, can minimize the complexities of the problems facing us. Our task is to develop the kind of legal machinery and the kind of public attitudes that can cope with the problems, and I personally do not believe this bill is designed to do so. I believe it is theoretically possible to reconcile all of these conflicts of which I spoke, earlier but I do not think we are going to do it in time. I despair that we won't do it in time. But I think I have said enough to indicate and briefly document the serious threat to our survival that our present human behavior contemplates.
The concern for pollution should have a much higher priority in the government's scheme of priorities. It should be assigned a priority ahead of such things as the constitution and inflation, because what is the point in solving the problems presented by inflation

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
and the constitution if by the year 2000 we are all going to choke on the air that we breathe, and drown in polluted waters? Life demands clean air and clean water for survival.
This brings me to something specific about Bill C-144. I am sure it has been touched on previously and therefore I will not elaborate upon it. It concerns the means of implementation of the provisions in the water quality and water resource clauses of the bill.
From time to time I speak to and communicate with municipal leaders in my riding. I represent parts of nine different municipalities. All or most of these municipalities dispose of their sewage directly into the Fraser River. I suppose they have the choice of contaminating the land or the river, and like most suburban areas they choose the easiest way, the out of sight way. These men have expressed the fear to me that even with the best will in the world, people living in urban areas cannot afford to finance the kind of treatment systems that will be necessary and effective to combat pollution.
My riding is on the edge of urban growth. We know the extent of urbanization in our country. If municipalities on the edge of urban growth, together with the major urban centres, cannot finance municipal treatment plants, and have no means to do so, all the legislation in the world is not going to assist them. Therefore, I think we should be looking for something more specific in terms of financial assistance in the Canada water bill.
What we have here in this bill is but a federal superstructure, an administrative superstructure, that is to be imposed upon what we have already, and God knows how many different agencies we now have to deal with pollution, even just water pollution.
The responsibilities for pollution control do not stop at the municipal level. The responsibilities for pollution control cannot be passed from the federal government to the provinces and then on to the municipalities. Nothing effective will be done unless we at the federal level are prepared to assist the municipalities to do the kind of things that they know now they must do.
I am confident hon. members on all sides of the House have taken advantage of this opportunity to take a swing at industrial polluters. I point out that municipalities, public bodies, are also polluting, but do not have the financial ability to avoid it. Now, we have before us a type of legislation which vaguely suggests that some kind of grants will be

made some time in the future. However, at present when municipalities which want to do something about the matter apply for money through CMHC for sewage treatment financing they are told there are no funds available. That gives an indication of the kind of priority assigned by the federal government to pollution control.
It is a serious thing. As the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) so emphatically points out, urban growth and limited financial resources mean that the cities cannot cope with the problem without outside help, a great deal of help, and we have not examined nearly enough ways in which to help them.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the provisions of clause 5(2) disturb me, because these clauses seem to say that if agreements for water quality fail to be reached between federal and provincial bodies then the federal government has a right to intervene. To me this indicates that there is no real confidence on the part of the federal government that the provinces can handle the problem by themselves. So, what the federal government gives itself here is an insurance clause.
Of course, the provinces cannot handle the problem by themselves. They have not been able to do so up until now, and there is no reason to expect that they will do so in the future. When this bill goes to committee I think we should look for some kind of financing formula similar to the Fraser Valley flood control formula, by which there would be a basic municipal, provincial and federal contribution for any treatment project approved. In short, Sir, I would like to see more of the preventive medicine type of thinking within the Canada water act. Let us not wait until we have to use the provisions of clause 5(2), by which time waters will have become so blatantly polluted that they are of national concern.
Why aren't we looking at these things in advance? Why are we not prepared to set up agencies to maintain water purity, rather than belatedly trying to reverse a process that may well nigh be irreversible? I am disturbed by the fact that in this bill water is emphasized solely as a resource. To me, thinking of water as a resource indicates that it is but something to be exploited. True, water is a resource but it is also an environment for life and this aspect should be reflected in this bill. Water is something crucial to our survival. It is necessary to life on this planet.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am pessimistic is that legislators do not tend to think
January 21. 1970

far ahead. Most of us think about as far ahead as the next election.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame.


Mark Willson Rose: Even some members from the province of Newfoundland might be thinking about the next election. I suggest that we may solve some political problem with the Canada water act before the next election, but we are certainly not going to solve our pollution problems by the time of the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I wish to remind the House that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the sixth day that the House has spent on second reading of this bill. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the length of time we have taken on second reading. I am not going to impute motives to anyone in respect of the length of time. I would point out that I did undertake in my opening speech that I would answer any queries either in my closing speech or in committee; I did undertake in my opening speech that we were anxious to hear of proposed solutions, to hear of methods of improving the bill and that in committee we would be willing to listen.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that at Westminster, and I believe even there the rules of the House are not working as effectively as they would wish, they have attempted to make the House work more effectively by refurbishing the rules and bringing them up to date. I believe that their normal and virtually inevitable practice at Westminster is to spend one day on second reading of a bill.
We have tried to reform our rules to make this House a more effective instrument. I believe that all of us who believe in this House and that it is in fact the strongest and the ultimate bastion of freedom and individual liberty, know that there must be a great reservoir of power here for use, when it is required, to preserve the liberty and the very bases of freedom.
But should we use the House at all times without consideration of its most valuable asset, namely time? I think it may be that we will so debilitate the power of the House to act in emergency that we will have done it a very great disservice.
Water Resources
Now, Mr. Speaker, many of the points raised here could have been very properly discussed, and I am sure will be discussed again, in committee through our strengthened committee structure.
I will say this-because I do not intend to impute motives in any way but merely to reflect upon the very length of the debate on second reading as compared to what would have taken place at Westminster. I do intend to attempt to the best of my ability to answer each individual member who has commented upon the bill. However, in closing this debate I should like to put on record that I feel it is not likely that this House will work as effectively as we would have it work if we speak as long as possible and as long as six days on the second reading of each bill.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is rising on a question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the minister not agree that it has been stated publicly many times that this is one of the major efforts of the government in this session, the water bill, and that the minister himself has made that allegation? A good many private members would have liked to speak and it could have taken a lot longer.


John James Greene: I appreciate that fact, Mr. Speaker, and I have been reviewing the speeches very carefully. I hope I can demonstrate that belief either here or in committee by considering various arguments of the members who spoke. But many of the arguments were made time and time again, as I am sure my hon. friend will agree. I doubt whether in that regard this was, in fact, a debate. A debate is surely to bring points forward and attempt to answer them, not bring the same points forward ad infinitum. Certainly prior to Christmas many, many days were taken up on minor bills, which precluded this very important bill from coming before the House sooner-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Comox-Alberni on a point of order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I suggest to Your Honour, if I understand correctly that we are not on a point of order concerning the rules and pro-

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
ceedings of this House. The matter was particularly brought to my mind at the beginning of a debate, as it were, by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) when the minister was speaking about the procedure in the House. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, while one can expect a few kindly words of admonition from time to time from a minister, the minister is discounting his own argument by the length of the procedural debate into which he is launching.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the time to ask questions. We are not at the committee stage.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thought I made it clear that I rose on a point of order, and asked Your Honour to consider whether we should not be discussing the second reading of the bill rather than the procedures of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I agree with the hon. member that we are actually on second reading of the bill.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I will heed the admonition of my hon. friend. Maybe we have all, including myself, spent too much time on this parenthetical reference of mine to the proceedings in the House. The words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who dealt with the length of the debate, rather tempted me to move into this area but I shall move on with the concluding speech on second reading. May I say to the hon. members whose particular arguments I cannot meet in the short time allotted to me, that I undertake to discuss the points with them in committee if they are not reached this afternoon.
At the outset there are one or two things I should like to say in answer to several of the last speakers whilst the points are fresh in my mind. First of all, in reply to the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), who criticized the federal government for lack of action with regard to the Ottawa River and who indicated that he felt the governments of Ontario and Quebec were prepared to move when the federal government was not, I point out that the federal government offered, well over a year ago, to do a study of the Ottawa River at its own expense. This offer was not accepted by either province. I do not wish to rehash old problems because we want to move ahead in the future in a spirit of co-operation, but I do not

believe it would have been fair to leave the record with the incorrect reflection that this allegation would have left.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made some criticism of science in general and, again, while this may be slightly off the subject of the particular bill, I think his criticism is one to be considered. He advocated a science department or a specific minister in charge of science. I would merely point out to him that while his reflections on the importance of science in the world into which we are moving are valid, I think his specific panacea for the cure of apparent difficulties of governmental structure in controlling the scientific and research endeavours of the future was considered by the OECD in a report specifically about Canadian Science.
This report advocated that there should not be a specific science department and probably this is because science itself is becoming so pervasive that it probably would be impossible to have science assumed by any one department or minister without having an allpowerful czar who would direct every governmental activity. Science comes into almost every facet of government and every department of government. It must be the challenge of those of us in this House who have some responsibility in this direction to see if we can find methods whereby we can co-ordinate the scientific activities of various departments.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Some of the structures that have been created recently such as the Science Council, the Science Secretariat and the Science Committee of Cabinet, are attempts to achieve the goal the hon. member referred to without creating new and monolithic structures and without placing ultimate and overly great power in one department or minister.
As I say, I have heard some very valid criticisms. When opening my speech, I said that we do not profess to have all the answers. But the officials of my department have studied this question at considerable length; they wanted to know how we ought to begin tackling the problem of water pollution. They have studied the application of the law in many parts of the world; have sought for precedents, and have, after a very considerable period of gestation I will admit-but it was a very necessary period of gestation- advised as to this bill which the government thinks is best for Canada at this time.
January 21, 1970

May I say that there is no perfect precedent. There is no country, I think, that has solved the question of pollution or water management. We have sought to learn from those who appeared to have had some success or acquired special knowledge, because we wished to learn from their example. I believe that this bill, with such help as we may obtain from members of the House when it goes to committee, will be the best possible bill and will be for the benefit of Canada.
In the first place may I point out that there has been possibly a fundamental misconception on the part of many hon. members with respect to the bill itself and what it purports to do. I point out that the bill is not an antipollution measure. That is not the purpose of the bill. This is not a single purpose bill designed to clear up pollution. We think that this bill goes farther than any other in the proper direction. This bill is for the purposes of totally managing and planning the use of our water resources in future. So far as the cleaning up of pollution where it exists-yes; that is one of the things this bill would purport to do. At least, it purports to create the instrument which will do that.
But this, surely, is not good enough. It is not sufficient for us to look forward at this time to a bill which merely says, "All we want to do is clean up the dirt where it exists." We are concerned with planning for the future use of waters in such a way that pollution will be minimized, yes; but we hope to manage these resources a good deal better than in the past so that undue pollution will not occur in future and, further, we are chiefly concerned that we achieve the optimum use of our water in the future. I think if we start with that understanding, with the understanding that this is not just a bill to clean up the harm that has been done in the past, we shall see that the purpose of the bill is to enable us to manage better this precious resource of water in the future.
I think the last speaker in the debate took umbrage because the bill refers to water as a resource. I make no apology for this. Surely, in the technological age we live in, if we are to achieve at least a minimal standard of living, let alone the best possible standard that I am sure we all want for those vast populations to which the hon. member referred, we must indeed use all the resources we have, or we will not be able to achieve that standard of well being. Water is one of the resources that we must use. Thence it follows that we must use this resource differently than we have been up to now, if it is to
Water Resources
be of continuing benefit for those who come after us and for the increasing populations that have been referred to.
I should now like, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the main objections that have been taken to the bill and, in the short time available to me, I will try to cover most of those objections to the best of my ability and in some detail, and then leave specific comments to the committee, if I may, along with any other general approaches to the bill that the committee may wish to take. First, I think many hon. members objected to the bill because of its failure to prescribe national water standards. At first sight this may appear to be a shortcoming of the bill. When I started studying the subject I looked rather hopefully for some rather simplistic type of device such as national water standards which people would have to live up to and observe, and then, hopefully, our troubles would be over.
Further study on my part with the help of officials convinced me that clearly this was not a good approach. Let me illustrate this as simply as I can this way. If you had national water standards in this highly industrialized age and in this highly industrialized country then, surely, you could not expect to achieve for all our waters that standard of pristine purity existing in some of our pure lakes that have as yet not been touched by industrial development. I say that because if we were to adopt that as our national standard we could not, and neither could any other country that adopted these standards, have bodies of water as pure as Lake Louise or as the lakes in the north.
Not only could we not have that general standard, but we would not wish to have it. Water must be used for many purposes in industry; and if you are to have one national standard you would have to take into cognizance the fact that in certain industrial areas waters must be used for industrial purposes and that, therefore, it cannot be as pure as it was in the days before we became industrialized. If we are prepared to say that under our national quality standards all our waters must be only as pure as those say of Hamilton Harbour, where quite properly certain economic activities relating to steel production and other industries take place, we must also say, surely, that waters as pure as those of Lake Louise may be polluted up to the level of Hamilton Harbour because that is what we are saying if we accept that national standard, and I do not think that is what any of us wants. We do not want to pollute down, so to

January 21, 1970
Water Resources
speak, to those levels where water is used for industrial purposes. On the other hand, if we say that under our national water standards all waters must attain the level of purity of Lake Louise then, clearly, we are proscribing the industrial use of many of our water basins. That would not be economically feasible, or possible, or wise. Waters used for industrial purposes could never be as pure as Lake Louise. At least, that is the conclusion that we came to, and we therefore said that this was not a good approach for Canada. We do not want to pollute down any of those areas that are still clean. We wished to avoid, wherever possible, having standards so high that they would make industrial activities which are very proper in certain areas impossible in the future. The bill does not attempt to do that, Mr. Speaker, and 1 think quite properly so. Instead it attempts to achieve the optimum standard. I stress that word, because that word is the key. The bill attempts to achieve the optimum standard in any large water basin.
What does this mean? In a water basin that is used for industrial purposes and the disposal of human waste, as many water basins are used, and where we may wish to preserve some aesthetic quality and where, also, part of the basin may be reserved for recreational uses, the optimum standard will be at that particular level of water purity which makes sense for that particular basin. In a basin where there is no industry and where good planning may indicate we should have a resort or recreational area in the foreseeable future, there will be a far different standard than the one applying to an industrial use of the water. In such a basin the optimum standard of water will be at a much higher level. In some water basins where the proper and best use of the water in the interest of the region, and of Canada in general, might be purely for industrial purposes or municipal waste, the optimum standard might be much lower. I do not see any specific areas where this would be the best thing. I think in all areas we can preserve some of the esthetic qualities and some of the recreational assets of our water.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I wish to emphasize the point that in our view a national standard would very definitely not have been in the best interests of having the optimum standards of water in various parts of Canada. In this variegated country, it is very seldom there is a simplistic answer for everything, that the same answer

will do in all parts of Canada. In my view with water quality, as with many other things, we will have different standards in different water basins, but in each case there will be the optimum standard for the multiuse of water in that particular water basin.
The second general argument that was made, and hit hard was the question of financing. There seemed to be considerable ambivalence in my respectful view in this regard. Some hon. members indicated we should have a fund, a great big federal pot from which money could be used, to solve the problem of pollution in the various regions of Canada. At the same time and in the same speech some hon. members said, oh yes, but the polluters should pay.
I took the liberty of imposing on the very gracious lady, the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and asked her a question. The hon. member seemed to feel there should be a much greater federal financial input. I asked her whether in her view the polluter should pay and should that be the premise of the bill. If I understood her answer correctly it was, yes, the polluter should pay. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can have it both ways.
I think the premise of the bill is quite properly that the polluter should pay to rehabilitate the water, at least to put it back in the condition in which it was found and, in many cases, to improve it. I think that is the proper approach because it induces improvement. It is an incentive to use the water in such a way that it will not be polluted. If the user knows he must pay in order to rehabilitate, he will set up his systems of production in such a way that he will not pollute.
There is a real incentive to non-pollution. If there is to be a large fund and the public is to pay for the cleaning of polluted water, I suggest there is absolutely no incentive to the improvement of industrial practices in the future. I do not think we can have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, by having this paid from the public purse and at the same time having the polluter pay.
The philosophy of this act is that the polluter should pay. This is quite properly a cost of production in the same way as municipal and school taxes. Just as in the many areas of public contribution that the private user of resources must make in the form of a stipend paid to the public purse, so in future will the cost of rehabilitating water be a very proper cost of production.
January 21, 1970

The other two main complaints that were made by most speakers were in the area of phosphates and the proliferation of committees. Because my time is about to expire, I undertake to the House that I will deal with these matters to the best of my knowledge and in whatever length and depth the committee feels necessary, as well as with the respective criticisms of individual members, in Committee.
I again refer to the question of finances. May I say I appreciate the municipal problem. There was and will be again the Central Mortgage and Housing fund to help municipalities, but I do not think we should skate around this too glibly. In the past municipalities have accepted the fact that disposal of their waste as well as providing water, education and roads, was a proper municipal charge. I think all hon. members will agree with this. Municipalities have said it is a proper charge that the homeowner pay for the disposal of his waste. There may have to be a reconsideration of the ethic at the municipal level to see whether disposal of the waste alone is to be a proper charge on the municipal taxpayer. Is not the disposal of his waste in such a fashion that it does not contaminate the water for future or downstream
Water Resources
users, in the ethic of tomorrow, the proper responsibility at the municipal level? I know the municipal taxpayer may need help to finance the capital charges required. I suggest that the user at the municipal level, as well as the industrial level, is the proper place to put the responsibility for the maintenance of the quality of our waters and the improvement of that quality.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I undertake to answer the two further major points, as well as the individual representations of hon. members, at the committee hearings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 22, 1970