1970-01-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43, and I base my reason for obtaining unanimous consent on the following facts:
During December the number of unemployed persons in Canada rose from 354,000 to 383,000, an increase of 9 per cent over the previous month, and showing a further steady increase in unemployment from month to month.
What is particularly alarming is the government's refusal to take positive action to increase employment, specifically:
1.	A greatly expanded drive to increase exports, rather than the steady contraction of our efforts in this field during the past year which has caused our exports to increase at only one-third to one-half of the rate of increase of all of our principal competitors.
2.	The introduction of tax incentives to increase productivity, thereby making possible lower costs and lower selling prices and enabling our products to sell more easily against foreign competition, with the result that more jobs would be available.
3.	The introduction of tax incentives to induce more industrial research to improve the quality and style of our products, thereby making them more saleable and capable of providing more jobs.
In short, the attitude of the government toward expanding production and jobs has been a completely negative one, and must be changed immediately to a positive, constructive approach if further serious unemployment is not to develop.
I therefore move the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That this House, comprising the elected representatives of all of the people of Canada, consider and recommend a more effective method of increasing exports, productivity and sales, and thereby increase employment in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed to the House under Standing Order 43. I shall not comment at this time on the form of the motion as proposed by the hon. member. The matter he has raised is an important one, but before the motion can be put to the House we must obtain unanimous consent and I must inquire whether there is such unanimous consent on the part of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Trudeau:: We have already heard the speech, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard at least one objection.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The facts are wrong in the speech, too.


George Harris Hees: You will not be happy until it hits 6 per cent.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Antonio Thomas (Maisonneuve) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-177 intitled "An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J. Antonio Thomas: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give back to the riding of Maisonneuve its former name, to wit, "Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont" to avoid its being mistaken for the provincial constituency of Maisonneuve, a great area of which is located within the limits of the federal constituency of Maisonneuve.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
January 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman assure the House that any agreement which the government works out with the United States government regarding greater sales of Canadian oil to the United States market will not include the handing over of any degree of control of any of Canada's water resources to the United States or the lessening in any way of this country's sovereignty over our Arctic waters?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
I think I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.



CRUDE PETROLEUM-POSITION RESPECTING EXPORTS TO U.S.

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: am sorry the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not here today, Mr. Speaker, though his name is on the roster. I trust the Prime Minister will give the House an answer to my question. In the many discussions that both the Prime Minister and the minister himself have pointed out are continuously being held between our officials and those of the United States in regard to the export of crude petroleum, has there been any recent suggestion by the United States officials that there be a cut-back in our exports of crude petroleum to the United States or tariffs placed thereon; and are we working toward an open and free trade policy on crude petroleum?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that the hon. member is asking a question of such wide import that perhaps it should be answered by way of a general statement on motions. However, if there is a short answer perhaps it might be made available to the House now.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the only short answer is that the question itself was very long. Many aspects of the answer have been previously put before the House. The discussions are in fact covering very many aspects of our relationships, and they are still going forward.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. In view of Your Honour's suggestion, which I thought was a good one, would the minister have the minister in charge make a full statement on this subject in view of the fact that the president of the Independent Petroleum Association has raised the question of tariffs on crude petroleum exports from Canada to the United States?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that suggestion to the attention of the minister.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to address to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a United States cabinet committee, headed by Mr. George Shultz, Secretary of Labour, has recommended to the president the removal of all restrictions on imports from Canada into the United States in return for Canada being willing to negotiate a total energy package deal, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government at any level has had such a proposal put to it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular proposal having been made to the minister, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has, of course, been in discussion with authorities in Washington regarding this question for some time now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has just entered the House, may care to answer. In view of these developments in Washington would the government be prepared to refer this whole matter to the House of Commons Committee on National Resources and Public Works with a view to enabling its members to ascertain what are the known potential resources in Canada, and what our requirements are likely to be for the foreseeable future?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer that question, the National Energy Board has, of course, very comprehensive information regarding resources, the totality of those resources and their availability for export. In any application for export the very issue that the National Energy Board has to decide is whether or not the resources in question are surplus to Canada's needs and available for export. From the standpoint of
January 15, 1970

any negotiations with the United States, Canada's position would, of course, be that only resources that are clearly surplus to Canada's needs now and in the future would be available. We have made no commitments or decisions; all we have done is to express our willingness to discuss any matters that might affect Canada's interests in regard to energy resources.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that any integrated energy policy between Canada and the United States would have to be approved by this House, and that not only the National Energy Board but members of the House ought to have the relevant information, I again ask the minister whether he would be prepared to refer this whole question to the appropriate committee of the House in order that members may be fully aware of what is our known potential and what our long-term needs are likely to be?


John James Greene: I would be very pleased to consider that suggestion. I am sure that at least some, if not all, of the information can be obtained when the estimates of the National Energy Board are before the committee. However, I will consider the specific suggestion of the hon. member as well.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to put a question to the government House Leader, or perhaps I might raise the matter as a point of order. When is the government going to arrange to move for concurrence in the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development instead of continuing to bury this report as it has been doing for some time?


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege on this particular point and I raise it now because I think this is the only appropriate time to call Your Honour's attention and the attention of the House to a breach of privilege which has affected all members of the House. It arises because of a failure to allow hon. members their right, under tradition, practice, precedent and rules, to debate the report in question.
Inquiries of the Ministry I do not intend to take up much time now because I will conclude by indicating the course I propose to take. The fact remains that while all reports of standing committees are not the subject of debate, a report of this character, in which the committee says that the waters lying between the islands of the Arctic archipelago have been and are subject to the sovereignty of Canada, and that without exercising such sovereignty the possibility of pollution and danger to the Arctic environment may be very great, should be presented to the House in such a way that it can be debated. I am in a position to establish this later, but rather than take up the time of the House during the question period I propose to give oral notice now, to be supplemented by written notice later, that a member of this party will give 48 hours no ice under the appropriate Standing Order that the report of this committee be debated on a motion that it be concurred in. I would urge that such a motion be presented for discussion during Routine Proceedings.



UNITED STATES INVESTMENT IN CANADA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the minister who has just come into the chamber, and I make nothing of that fact. It relates to questions posed by the leader of the NDP and members of this party about the situation regarding our petroleum trade and the serious implications in the question by the leader of the NDP. Has there been any suggestion or pressure brought to bear by the Canadian government regarding cutbacks by the United States of investment in Canada in the petroleum industry, with particular reference to developments which would directly or indirectly affect the employment of thousands of men and women in Canada as a result of a decrease in exports of crude petroleum from this country to the United States?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the Canadian posture during our discussions with the United States in connection with its review of United States oil policy has been that it would be in Canada s interest as well as in the interest of the United States to have an open market for Canadian oil in the United States. If such is achieved as a result of our negotiations it will

January 15, 1970'
Inquiries of the Ministry enhance employment in Canada as well as oil sales, which would be very much in Canada's interest.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary might deal with this question. In light of the announced intention of Eaton's and Simpson's to raise their interest rates on revolving and instalment charge accounts, can the minister inform the House whether he or his officials are investigating this apparent collusion with a view to prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act?


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate whether he is preparing legislation to restrict the interest charges that retail stores and others may impose on their customers?


Paul Langlois: I will also take the second part of the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since we have established diplomatic relations with the Vatican, could the minister not ask the Pope to act as mediator in the Nigeria-Biafra conflict, in order to alleviate the suffering in that part of the world?


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio who answers for the Can-fMr. Greene.)
adian Wheat Board. Since, according to the weekly grain letter issued by James Richardson and Sons, exporters of rapeseed have not been able to take advantage of markets because of the unavailability of rapeseed at terminal positions, could the minister indicate whether this is the fault of the railways under the block system or is it the fault of the Wheat Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should bring to the attention of the hon. member that the question as asked is hardly in order. He is asking the minister to express an opinion whether a particular situation is the fault of one party or another. I do not think the question as asked is in order.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. Can the minister indicate to the House whether in fact there is a shortage of rapeseed at terminal positions so that exporters cannot fill their orders?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are good quantities of rapeseed available at the terminals and any shipments required for sales are certainly provided in quick order.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. In view of the fact that space for rapeseed in the west coast terminals was apparently allocated before wheat acreage reduction caused a heavy increase in rapeseed production and subsequent sales, does the minister now consider the space allocated for this grain adequate under present conditions?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether that supplementary question is in order, but in view of the importance of the matter the minister may wish to reply.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is adequate but the matter is under review with the prospect of major markets in mind.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Since the two agents of the Wheat Board, Mr. Joe Caplan and Humboldt Milling Company, have been suspended as agents for the Wheat Board, I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the Wheat Board to reinstate them as buying agents for the Board?
January 15, 1970


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt. Could he indicate to the House whether the loss of a Canadian wheat sale last week to the United States and Australia, based on the tender prepared by the Japanese food agency, resulted from Canada's asking price being raised by J of a cent per bushel?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is in the form [DOT]of debate. I do not think it is in order.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister in charge of the Wheat Board tell us what provisions are being made to rectify the inequitable position that grain producers are placed in whereby they cannot take advantage of supplementary quotas that are offered if they do not have any acreage seeded in a given year to the type of grain to which the supplementary quota applies? Does the minister not believe that a specified number of bushels on a supplementary quota would be a fairer way of administering a supplementary quota and-


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



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he was in a position to inform the House who is paying the cost of the military observers operating in Nigeria. He said at that time he would take the question as notice. Is he now in a position to answer the question?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a general answer but there is one detail I want to check to satisfy myself. The next time I am in the House I will give the answer.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Inquiries of the Ministry Speaker. Yesterday I asked the minister about the accessibility of the war zone to the observers and the minister indicated he was not certain about the situation. Is there an answer now and can we be assured there are no restrictions on the military observers throughout the entire zone?


Mitchell William Sharp: The observer team composing some eight members representing Canada, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United Nations has made a report. It is to be released tonight. I think the time is 9 a.m. Greenwich mean time or something like that. I have glanced at it and could table it were it not for the embargo. It indicates that they have been close to the troops constantly during the recent fighting and were never denied access.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that the play "Hair", now showing in Toronto, is the target of much criticism as to whether or not it respects our standards of morality, would the Secretary of State tell us whether or not he or the government intends to set up an inquiry into this matter, in order to determine if that play meets Canadian standards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure this matter is the responsibility of the minister to whom the question was put.



Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
A study on the Department of External Affairs, made by professor Lalande from the University of Montreal, gives facts and figures which indicate that French-Canadian employees are being discriminated against in that department. In view of this, does the minister intend to ask an independent commission to investigate the matter thoroughly so that French Canadians may know that a stop will be put to all such discrimination?

January 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this report related to conditions some years ago. It has been reviewed recently by the department. While I have no objections to an inquiry, I would be very happy to answer questions arising out of that report to satisfy the hon. member that there is in fact no discrimination and that in particular the Department of External Affairs prac ises the principle of bilingualism at least as effectively as any other department.




Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. However, in his absence may I be permitted to direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. I might add that I have given the minister notice of this question.
Will the minister undertake to investigate the misleading and probably fraudulent advertising by the Imperial Tobacco Company with respect to its Casino brand cigarettes marketed in Canada, indicating that prizes in amounts from $5 to as much as $100 are contained in every package? Would he also check with the residents of the Smoky Lake district in Alberta, where some citizens are claiming winnings of $20,000 to $30,000 as a result of participating in this Casino game, and the fact that Imperial Tobacco now refuses to honour such claims?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is a question which should normally be put on the Order Paper. If there is urgency, the hon. member may suggest that it be considered at the time of adjournment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. May I say with all due respect that I think this is a matter of urgency. Imperial Tobacco has claimed in its advertising promotion that every package of Casino cigarettes contains a voucher worth as much as $100, and in light of the refusal by the Imperial Tobacco Company to honour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is hardly a question of privilege. If the hon. member is convinced that this is a matter of urgency, the question can be considered at the time of adjournment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. When will he be prepared to make the statement which he promised some time ago would be made today dealing with the situation at the National Film Board?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is mistaken. I have never undertaken to make a statement today. I said that the unbiased person appointed to review some decisions made by the authorities of the National Film Board would submit his report on the 15th. I know that it has been handed to the Board Commissioner and it is up to him to forward it to me. I have never undertaken to make a statement today, and it would have been very unwise for me to do so, because I knew beforehand that I would not have any information on the matter before tomorrow.


David Orlikow: I am sorry I made a mistake, but in view of the great interest throughout the whole country, would the minister give consideration to making a statement on the situation at an early date?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, once I have read the report, I will be able to see whether it is advisable to make a statement.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In view of the CRTC's decision on cablevision, cutting off many communities in Canada from access to American T.V. culture, and the NFB's decision cutting off many isolated communities, in the main, from Canadian film culture, when the minister makes a statement would he indicate what action he is planning to take to fill this void?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the second premise of the question. How can the hon. member express the opinion that the situation at the National Film Board is
January 15, 1970

isolating the various Canadian regions from one another from a cultural point of view?
As for a statement on the matter, I shall willingly consider whether it would be useful.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he would be ready to defer this report to the House committee instructed to study these questions as soon as he receives it?


Gérard Pelletier: As soon as I receive the report, Mr. Speaker, I shall be able to determine whether the suggestion of the hon. member is advisable under the circumstances. I must advise him right now, however, that it may well not be the case, since the report will not be submitted to the minister, but to the Commissioner with whom I shall have to discuss the matter. It is not impossible, however, that this report could be tabled in the house and referred to the appropriate committee.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question arising from the fact that he could not accept the premise in the question of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris in reference to the National Film Board. Does he not consider that when the Film Board places a cost on its services which is beyond the ability of communities to pay it is cutting off access to Canadian culture as mentioned by the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is argumentative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If he does not have an answer, perhaps he would like to take it as notice. Will the minister say if instructions have been given to Canadian consular personnel in the United States to deny assistance or advice to Canadian citizens in the United States who may be in difficulty because of the U.S. draft law?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice. It is the first time it has been brought to my attention.
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On November 20 last, as noted in Hansard at page 1034, the minister indicated that an agreement between this country and the Federal Republic of Germany regarding reciprocal pension arrangements might be concluded shortly. Can he say whether that agreement has been concluded and, if so, will a copy of it be tabled?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that the agreement has not been concluded. However, negotiations are currently going on and we are hopeful that they will be concluded as soon as possible. When that is done I would be happy to announce it to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that the answer last time was similar, can the minister say when "as soon as possible" might be?


An hon. Member:: Soon.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Can the minister inform the House if he has indicated to the provinces when moneys will be available and the amount which will be allocated for the year 1970 in regard to public housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think we will be giving that information to the provincial ministers concerned within a matter of days.



FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR OLYMPIC GAMES BIDS

Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of the urgency with respect to confirmation deadlines and in order to clarify con-

January 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry fused reports, will the minister advise the House whether firm commitments of federal financial support have been given to the sponsors of the Montreal bid for the summer Olympic games and to the sponsors of the Garibaldi winter games bid and, if so, the amount of federal aid pledged to both?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to the urgency of the question asked by the hon. member. If there is urgency that is not apparent to me, perhaps the hon. member would like to give notice of the question so that it might be considered and debated at the time of adjournment. Insofar as the supplementary question is concerned, that is the type of statistical or detailed information which normally is given by way of a written answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Arising out of the increase in unemployment during the month of December, which historically is likely to have increased by another one per cent to 2 per cent by now, I wish to ask the minister whether, in view of the fact that the largest group of unemployed is in the 16 to 19 year bracket, he has considered or is considering changing the rules with regard to manpower training so that these young, unskilled people may be given training during their enforced unemployment?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the rule to which the hon. member refers. It has been under consideration in the past and at present that aspect of the program, as well as others, is before the Advisory Council on Manpower and Immigration. It is also being considered by the deputy minister in conjunction with the provincial deputy ministers. I cannot say whether any change will be made or when, but I want to assure the hon. member that the matter is under active consideration.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that these discussions are likely to take some time, have the minister and his department evolved some way by which these young unemployed Canadians may be given some opportunity for retraining, advanced education, or some other opportunity to enter into remunerative work immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to me that the information sought by the hon. member should be given to the House in the form of a general statement on motions.


David Lewis: Then may I ask the minister whether he would make a statement on motions with regard to this particularly difficult and painful part of the unemployment problem affecting young people from 16 to 19 this winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give an undertaking at the moment to make a statement on motions on this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he bring the House up to date with regard to any response which may have been received by the government from the government of Nigeria regarding either offers of direct aid by the Canadian government or offers of aid by Canadian and other organizations such as Joint Church Aid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday about the position of Joint Church Aid and Canairelief. I think the statements by the leaders of the Nigerian government speak for themselves. However, I would like to say to the House that the money that was approved by the government and turned over to the Nigerian authorities is now being spent for the relief of hunger in Nigeria, including the amounts of money turned over to the Nigerian Rehabilitation Commission, the Nigerian Red Cross, and UNICEF.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure the House we are correct in assuming that the government made clear to the government of Nigeria that the offer of Canairelief and Joint Church Aid was made on the basis that this food and these facilities would be made available under the management of any organization acceptable to the government of Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that the House of Commons passed a resolution to that effect which was transmitted immediately to the Nigerian authorities.
January 15, 1970



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. Is the minister aware that some of the most nauseating hate literature, which can only be described as filthy, is being mailed to Canadian citizens, including Members of Parliament, from Niagara Falls, New York, on behalf of what is called the Natural Order of Gooderham, Ontario, whose mailing privileges have been cancelled? Would he be prepared to check with the American postal authorities to ascertain if they will co-operate to have this practice stopped?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: This is normally our practice, Mr. Speaker, and we go farther ourselves. After we get a ruling from my colleague in the Department of Justice we deny mailing privileges to those who send out such pornographic material. I am not aware to which particular instance the hon. member is referring, but I shall certainly take notice of it.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the literature apparently prepared by these congeni al fools also reflects upon the presiding officer of this assembly and our Jewish citizens, would the minister consider referring the matter to the justice committee?


Eric William Kierans: Absolutely, and with all the more reason, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What recent progress has been made in the negotiations for the recognition of the Peking government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the state of play is that some weeks ago we presented to the Peking authorities proposals to which we have not yet had a reply.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Is it play or ploy?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INDUSTRY


Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the government intends to keep on granting subsidies to gold mines after December 1970?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly pass on this question to the minister concerned.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has a decision been made yet on the request by the nine Polish seamen seeking political asylum in Canada. If not, when may a decision be expected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a decision has not yet been made. The matter is currently being actively considered and a decision will be made very shortly.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister taken any steps to stop the discrimination carried on at Devco and which he himself has admitted?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I did not get an answer so I will clarify my question by repeating it. Has the minister taken any action to stop the discrimination carried on at Devco, which he himself has admitted?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when I made such a statement. It is true

January IS. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry that Devco has hired a number of foreigners, and I believe I have told those responsible that it would be more advisable to give preference to Canadian citizens.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister check Hansard when this question was asked previously and see how far his present answer is removed from the truth?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like-



INFORMATION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the direction of Information Canada. Is it the government's intention to disband the information sections of each department and amalgamate them under Information Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Some hon. Members:: No information.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, maybe a minister has not been officially designated to that position. Therefore I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to disband the various information sections in each of the government departments and amalgamate them under Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it was only yesterday that I answered the hon. member for York South-


George Harris Hees: No, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that we would be making an announcement on the operations of Information Canada which as yet has not been officially set up. Therefore, I am not now in a position to make this announcement; it is not ready.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupt the hon. member only to say that I think we should go on to another subject as we are running short of time.



REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF FARM STORAGE COSTS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the plan announced by the minister to move grain slowly to the Lakehead, which in effect means more grain being left on the farms for a longer period of time, would the minister say whether he will give favourable consideration to some payment to the producers for farm stored grain storage costs?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the plan to promote steady movement to the Lakehead is one of deliberateness in moving the grain as effectively as possible. General plans with respect to the grain industry are under consideration.



TRANSPORT


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or to his Parliamentary Secretary, but since both are absent, I shall put it to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House-I wonder if he can hear me-whether the purpose of the meeting between the federal Minister of Transport and the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs is to discuss matters concerning the airport at Sainte-Scholastique?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister actually told me about that meeting, but he has not indicated whether the Quebec minister and himself had agreed to divulge the purpose of the meeting. Therefore, I believe we shall have to wait until the minister is present to know if, by providing such information, I would infringe some agreement between the two ministers.
.January 15, 1970


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Will the location of the Sainte-Scholastique airport be actually discussed at that meeting?
'[English']



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the very brief answer yesterday regarding the third report of the B and B Commission, I should like to know when the government will make up its mind about that report?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Joliette-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, he has not had a chance to answer. I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might make his point of order in a moment. I was going to suggest to him that to ask when the government is going to make up its mind Is hardly a proper question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will rephrase my question, Your Honour. Since the third report of the B and B Commission was tabled, questions asked, starting before the House rose for Christmas, have been handled in a cavalier, callous and very facetious way by the Prime Minister. That is why questions have to be phrased somewhat differently-


Mr. Perrauli:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am speaking to His Honour and not to you, Burnaby-Seymour.


An hon. Member:: Who the hell is he?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the three-part question asked yesterday and the first answer that no decision had yet been made on the third report of the B and B Commission, can the Prime Minister inform the House when the government will make a decision on the B and B Commission report? Could a statement be made in the House even though the Prime Minister said yesterday he would never make one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the report is under consideration and we will make a statement of govern-
Inquiries of the Ministry ment policy in this regard in due course. When I said "never", it was in answer to the question that the member had asked about whether we had to reconsider our past policy.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour being absent, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Labour has announced today the setting up, within the Conciliation and Arbitration Branch, of a group of experts in labour relations. May I ask the Prime Minister whether in the government's opinion this will be a permanent negotiation committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know nothing about the matter, Mr. Speaker. I will take the question as notice and I will discuss it with the minister in charge.



ASSISTANCE TO GLACE BAY HEAVY WATER PLANT

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the inability of the Glace Bay plant to produce heavy water, will the minister make a statement on motions indicating what the federal government is prepared to take on this urgent problem?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I think my hon. friend knows, the Glace Bay Deuterium plant is, I believe, owned by a corporation which is a part of the Nova Scotia government and is not in any way a part of the federal entity in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three or four members rising on supplementaries. We have already gone beyond the question period by approximately three minutes. I thought I would give the last row members a chance to ask questions even though the time had expired. Perhaps we would be in order to now call Orders of the Day.

January 15, 1970
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the President of the Privy Council what the business is for the balance of this week and next week.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to continue today with the Canada water bill which was commenced yesterday. That business will be followed by the four bills with respect to financial institutions.
In more detail they are government order 44, Bill S-8, with regard to trust companies; government order 45, Bill S-9, with regard to loan companies; government order 42, Bill S-6, with regard to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and government order 43, Bill S-7, with regard to the Foreign Insurance Companies Act. I might say in that regard that there has been some discussion about the possibility of making a special order so 1hat these four bills, which all concern a similar subject matter, might be treated as a package.
The next three bills will be with regard to fisheries. They are government order 17, Bill C-133, with regard to the Deep Sea Fisheries Act; government order 18, Bill C-134, with regard to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, and government order 56, Bill C-175, with regard to the Canadian Saltfish Corporation.
Whatever the outcome of this particular business, Tuesday of next week will be an allotted day under the auspices of the Official Opposition.


Mr. Aiken:: Could I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to carry the second reading of the water bill through to conclusion before proceeding with other matters?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is difficult to predict, Mr. Speaker, since it has not been possible to make any arrangements to allocate time for the second reading debate of that bill. That will depend very much on the circumstances that develop.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question time of members of this House. I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that earlier in the question period there were quite a number of questions which had to be repeated for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because he was late arriving. I do
[Mr. Speaker.)
not think hon. members should have to sacrifice their time for a minister who is on today's roster and cannot get to work on time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without going into the matter, the hon. member will recognize that I mentioned that a few additional minutes were added.


Malcolm MacInnis: We wasted five.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we wasted five and added three so we may be short two minutes. I might take that into account tomorrow.


John James Greene: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes better to be late and be of some use than to be here on time and be of no use.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 14, 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, and of the amendment moved by Mr. Comeau (page 2411.).
Mr. Speaker:: On adjournment last evening, I think that the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) had moved an amendment to the motion for second reading of the bill before us, and some hon. members had indicated their intention to object to that amendment, which seemed contrary to Standing Orders. If the hon. members wish at this time, to put forward arguments either for or against the amendment on procedural grounds, I would be glad to hear them before making a ruling.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with respect to the admissibility of an amendment in this form.
January 15, 1970

The amendment which the hon. member has put forward is perhaps not as clear in its terminology as it might be, but it seems to me that it might be objected to under the existing precedents with regard to amendments on second reading on several grounds.
In the first place, the hon. member seeks to oppose second reading of this bill and to refer it back for redrafting so as to add certain additional provisions to the bill which he feels have been omitted and which should be included.
Perhaps it might be useful for me to make a number of references to the relevant rules in May's 17th edition, page 527, dealing with the question of amendments at this stage of public business. The first of the rules is that the principle of relevancy applies to an amendment here as it does elsewhere and the amendment must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration in the House. No objection could be made to the amendment on that basis.
Perhaps of greater importance is the second of the two rules to which reference is made. I quote:
The amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee; nor is it permissible to propose merely the addition of words to the question, that the bill be now read a second time, as such words must, by implication, attach conditions to the second reading.
I suggest that the hon. member in his proposed amendment is at least in part suggesting certain propositions which it might be competent for him to move when the bill is before the committee or indeed at the report stage. To that extent, his amendment falls under the second of the two rules cited and for that reason the amendment should not be received.
The third of the rules would also appear to be relevant since, in effect, what the hon. member is doing is asserting a direct negative to the proposition that the bill before the House be read a second time. I quote this rule from page 528 of May's 17th edition:
An amendment, which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of the bill, is open to objection.
I suggest that the best interpretation of what is a rather complicated amendment is that the hon. member is intending to negative altogether the proposition involved in the second reading and for that reason his
Water Resources
amendment falls under the third rule. What seems more likely is that he is negativing the proposition in part and making certain suggestions as to possible inclusions in the bill, suggestions which could be carried out by the hon. member or other hon. members at a later date by way of an amendment at either the committee stage or by taking advantage of the report stage. For those reasons, I suggest the amendment not be received.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is presented in a form somewhat different from others which have been submitted in the past. It is designed, however, to be in harmony with the new rules under which we are operating.
I submit the amendment meets all the established criteria provided for an amendment on second reading. First, it declares principles adverse to and differing from the principles of the bill. I think this is obvious from the wording. In the second place, it opposes the progress of the bill. These are two of the essential criteria set out in citation 382 of Beauchesne at page 277. The amendment does not seek to change any words in the bill itself. It seeks, rather, to give reasons for opposing second reading until the bill is redrafted.
The amendment does not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee. Such amendments would largely be amendments concerning detail. The amendment we are moving affects questions of principle involved in the bill as a whole. For these reasons, I contend that the amendment meets the criteria established by citation 389 of Beauchesne. It is a reasoned amendment in that it sets forth the basis upon which the bill is held to be unsatisfactory.
If it is thought-and this view has not been expressed by the President of the Privy Council-that the conclusion of the motion which asks that the bill be redrafted differs from the normal wording, I would say that the House is surely master of its own proceedings and may direct such redrafting if it is so inclined. The amendment would not be out of order for that reason.
The motion to which the reasoned amendment has been moved is that Bill C-144 be read the second time and referred to commit-

January 15, 1970!
Water Resources
tee. This motion is made pursuant to Standing Order 74(1) which provides that:
Every public bill shall be read twice and referred to a committee before any amendment may be made thereto.
This new Standing Order combines the two motions which existed under the former rules, namely, the motion for second reading and the motion to refer to committee.
Under the new rules, a reasoned amendment can therefore be directed to the motion in its present broader form, combining the motion for second reading with the motion for referral to committee.
A further change was made under the new Standing Order 62(2), which provides:
The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
I call Your Honour's attention in particular to the words: "and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill".
Under the new standing orders, therefore, a motion for second reading now imports the motion for second reading, the motion for referral to committee, and, additionally, in the case of a money bill or purported money bill, the financial recommendation by the Governor General that the House appropriate public moneys to the purposes of the bill.
In other words, a reasoned amendment can now be directed against the bill in any or all of its three aspects: second reading, referral to committee and the financial or appropriation resolution which is now incorporated in the bill.
In the time at my disposal I do not intend to discuss the principles applicable to a reasoned amendment; they are dealt with in May's 17th edition at page 526 and following. However, I will refer to the following paragraph which appears in May at page 527:
A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fail into one of several categories. (1) It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill. (2) It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
I submit that the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) meets these criteria.
[Mr. Aiken.)
The bill, in its long title and in the financial resolution printed with it, claims that it provides for the management of the water resources of Canada, including research and the planning and implementation of programs related to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources. This it does not do. The government admits that the bill, as drafted, does not live up to the long title and the financial recommendations in the third paragraph of the preamble where it is set out that comprehensive programs-and therefore programs which are vital to the bill-would be undertaken by the government of Canada in co-operation with provincial governments. Unless the co-operation of all ten provinces is obtained, the bill does not provide for the management of the water resources of Canada or for the implementation of programs for conservation, development and utilization of our water resources. These objects of the bill, which are essential to it, would be provided for and implemented, if at all, under federal and provincial agreements.
In the second place, the recommendation as printed with the bill and in Votes and Proceedings does not appropriate any public moneys and therefore does not comply with the requirements of Standing Order 62(2). The relevant portion of the recommendation says:
All expenditures for the purposes of the Act, including any expenses or allowances of any advisory committee, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor.
It should be noted that Clause 31 provides:
All expenditures by the minister for the purposes of this Act shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament.
The clause does not follow the resolution inasmuch as it restricts the appropriations by Parliament to expenditures made by the minister only,, that is, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as defined in Clause 2(l)(i) of the bill. All expenditures made under the Act are not made by the minister- if he makes any at all. Clause 15(l)(b) provides for contributions or loans by the Government of Canada.
In conclusion, the most serious defect in this connection is that precedents of this House hold that a bill which provides that expenditures thereunder be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament is not a bill which requires an appropriation recommendation under Section 54 of the British North America Act. The money would be provided later under an appropriation, and it
January 15, 1970

is this latter appropriation which would be accompanied by a resolution. This is a general subject on which a previous ruling has been made. The fact I am trying to prove is that this amendment is, indeed, adverse to and opposed to the principle of the bill as it is recommended and as it is printed. For all these reasons, I believe it is a perfectly valid reasoned amendment.
I rather like the form of the amendment because it provides for something we have not been able to do prior to this time. Previously, we were able to move simply that second reading should not now be given, and this, if it were accepted, was the end of the bill. The purpose of the type of motion now proposed is to assert that the House is dissatisfied with the form in which the bill has been brought down-the form in which it appeared after the first reading had been agreed to. By approving the motion of my hon. friend, the House can advise the minister that it is not satisfied with the bill in its present form. The measure can then be redrafted and then proceed without any necessity for the earlier formalities being repeated. The object of an amendment, of course, if accepted, is to start again and go through the recommendation procedures, and so on.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
For this reason, I would urge Your Honour to give serious consideration to the form of this amendment. We feel it is one that would be eminently acceptable and satisfactory under the new rules that have been adopted, and it otherwise complies with the fundamentals that have been laid down in relation to an amendment on second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: May I express my appreciation to those hon. members who have taken part in this brief debate on the procedural point that has been raised by hon. members following the amendment that was proposed last evening by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). The fact that this amendment was proposed shortly before the adjournment, and that some reservation was expressed to the House at the time, has given me the opportunity of looking into the matter from a procedural point of view and of considering the arguments that might be advanced either for or against the form and substance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member.
I have spent some time studying the different procedural aspects of the matter, and
Water Resources
keeping in mind the point of view that has been expressed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken),, I should like to give my view of the matter.
At the outset I should like to restate for the record both the motion and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Western Nova. To the motion for the second reading of Bill C-144, the hon. member proposed an amendment which reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"since it does not spell out, declare or assume a federal jurisdiction in pollution control matters; since no specific commitment of federal funds has been made; and since provision for establishment of water use standards, pollution offences, and penalties are not nationwide but are limited to water quality management areas, this bill is therefore ineffective as a basis for a national water pollution control program and the minister is directed by the House to redraft Bill C-144 to include these and other fundamental omissions before it is read a second time."
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has very rightly brought to the attention of the House the fact that this is a new form of amendment. We will all recognize that this does not automatically make it out of order, but it does perhaps bring it more particularly to the attention of the Chair from a procedural standpoint. My original reaction, which I gather is the same as the one which the learned Deputy Speaker had last night, was that the proposed motion did not appear to be an amendment but, rather, a statement or declaration of principle in itself, it is more a substantive motion than an amendment.
As hon. members have pointed out, citation 382 of Beauchesne's fourth edition states that, at the second reading stage:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an admendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by Committees, Commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of Judges.
This citation in Beauchesne originally came from one of May's editions, to which I believe the President of the Privy Council has alluded. The operative words in the citation are that an amendment must propose "a resolu-

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
tion declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill".
Recognizing this, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has sought to indicate to the Chair that this type of principle is exposed in the amendment proposed by the hon. member.
There are two other citations which I would commend to hon. members. Section (1) of citation 393 of Beauchesne's fourth edition states, in part:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a Bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the Bill.
The most pertinent of the two citations, I suggest, is section (3) of citation 393 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
An amendment which is not adverse to the principle of a Bill but proposes that certain provisions be added to the Bill cannot be moved on the motion for second reading.
It seems to me that this citation is very relevant to the procedural question that is now before the House. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka suggested in his argument that this amendment is drafted so as to be in harmony with our new rules. I find it difficult to agree with this suggestion. It is still possible to amend new sections of a bill in committee. It is still possible to amend a bill on second reading according to the forms and principles that are long established and recognized by the practice of the House. In addition, detailed amendments can still be proposed at the report stage; and amendments on third reading can be proposed in the same way as they could prior to the adoption of the new rules.
In my humble view there is nothing in the new rules, I suggest, that can be taken to broaden the scope of the amendments which can be proposed to the House and received by the House as in order. To my way of thinking, the amendment proposed to the House is not a reasoned amendment because it does not, in my view, oppose the principle of the bill.
I am not suggesting that it would not be possible to move an amendment at this stage which might include some parts of the amendment that has been presented, and which could be moved in the acceptable form of a reasoned amendment. I would think that could be done quite easily. But at that point

hon. members would be called upon to vote for a principle which opposes the essence of the bill before the House; and at that point hon. members are in fact invited to vote against second reading of the bill, which is not what this amendment seeks to do.
For these reasons, it seems to me that the Chair has no alternative but to rule that the proposed amendment of the hon. member for South Western Nova cannot be received at this time. Again, I do not want to insist that the same purpose might not perhaps be achieved in other ways. However, I have very serious reservations that the purpose can be achieved in the ingenious way proposed by the hon. member for South Western Nova, and I must refuse to put the amendment to the House at this time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, we do, of course, accept your ruling. We will examine your words of wisdom very carefully and try again.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the hon. member will not look at them too closely.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the procedural arguments, but not being an authority in this area I naturally will not refer to procedure.
I first came to Ottawa as a member of Parliament about a year and a half ago. I was not nearly as aware then of what pollution meant as I am at the present time. I recall the first time I smelled the miasma from the pulp mill across the river. I thought the House was on fire or that something was smoldering. I went to the Sergeant-at-Arms and suggested that he make a check. I am sure he did not know what I was talking about, but that is the way it struck me. I thought we had a fire.


An hon. Member:: There has been some pollution here.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Someone suggested the
House has suffered some pollution, but that is of another kind. I hope I can clear the air so far as this party is concerned.
Certainly, everybody today is talking about this very urgent problem. Let me read from an editorial that appeared in the Canada Month. This is the apostle of free enterprise in which appeared an epistle. I should like to read one or two excerpts from it as follows:
We ought not, at this point, to need the creative capacities of little men stacked in offices at Ottawa
January 15, 1970

Water Resources
to advise us as to how we shall avoid the pollution of our neighbours' environments. The highly creative private economy should be more than sufficient to the task of providing the answers, as the belatedly active automobile industry is now ably demonstrating.
The people who subscribe to the private enterprise theory should take a good look at what some areas of North America have become. If they are going to respond it is high time they did so. Let me read another paragraph from this editorial:
Let us simply hope that we who pollute will recognize our obligations under the social contract, so that the potential harshness of the police power will be unnecessary. Let us take advantage of the huge technological creativity that the private economy is, more than any other power, capable of supplying to solve a problem we have left unsolved-excuses aside-for just a little too long.
I agree with the writer in this respect. It is high time we did something. If private industry will contribute from its own resources and initiative, more power to it; but I suggest that it get on with this. If it does not, then the police powers which the writer spoke of should be used to enforce regulations whether they pertain to private industry, government or municipalities.
This editorial also referred to the expense of cleaning up the pollution from which we suffer in Canada. I grant you there is a considerable expense involved. We never paid too much to get rid of our sewage. We do pay at the city level, but anything we do costs money and it is high time we started to spend money in this respect. We have used what nature has given us and we must now look after our own problems.
I read another item which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and which contained a picture of mountains and water with the caption "U.S. Flourished on a water-rich continent". The United States has now used up many of its resources and is looking to Canada for some of our water. The United States has squandered its inheritance and now wants some of ours. We have argued this party's point of view that the minister should not barter away Canada's good water for a pittance. If the United States wants to squander its water, that is fine; but let us not squander ours. Let us insist that we get at least adequate compensation and make sure that Canada's future needs will be met before we commit ourselves.
Let us consider for a moment the cost of getting rid of our wastes. As a farmer, I raise beef cattle. The cattle are put in a corral for the winter and I have to clean out that corral
at my own expense in the spring. I suggest this is one cost of raising beef cattle. It represents part of the price per pound or unit for the production of beef. Why should industry not pay the same charge on the same basis? Industry should include this cost of disposal of waste as part of the cost of production. I must do this so why should someone else be allowed to pollute the water, air or surrounding land?
In all fairness, I should admit that some industries take care of their own pollution problems by spending large sums of money, and it is not fair to them when others do not do the same. I suggest we should enforce the regulations in this regard.
In this day and age, when provinces and municipalities are competing with each other for various industries, it seems to me that the province which is willing to offer cheap labour and allow industry to ignore pollution clean-up is the one which will get the industry. This is not right and these provinces should not be shopping around for industries which in turn are looking for areas in which they can dispose of waste products. We should insist that industry take care of pollution wherever it is situated.
Some industries are contributing much toward pollution control. I have before me a feature article which appeared in the Dofasco Illustrated News. This is a very well-written and illustrated article. I do not know whether it has accomplished its entire goal but the article reads well and I want to commend the people who published it. The article refers to the production of steel, galvanizing and tin plating. I understand there is a considerable amount of waste as a result of this production. The article states in part:
Unfortunately, during these processes many undesirable by-products are produced. As steel productivity is increased by improved technology to meet the market demands, the quantities of these potential pollutants increase accordingly. Dofasco is keenly aware of this potential threat to the public welfare and realizes this problem must be met and dealt with.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This is why, over the last decade, Dofasco has spent $14,000,000 on air and water pollution control installations. Eight million dollars of these expenditures have been made since 1963.
I would compliment this particular steel company for the effort it has put forward. If the effort is not yet adequate, hopefully it will be continued until it is adequate. As a leader in this area, I think this company should be complimented for doing something in a field of which we should all be more
2430

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
aware and in respect of which we should all be doing something more constructive. I spoke to a chap who works in a Crown corporation. He told me that sometimes when nobody is around they will dump waste from the plant into the river on which the plant is situated. He said occasionally the inspector comes around and they do not dump it then, but sometimes at night when they have a problem they just turn a valve and dump the waste into the river. When an employee of a Crown corporation admits this has been done at a time when the government is trying to do something about pollution, I think this is an incompatible situation about which the minister should be doing something.
I mentioned how the plant across the river pollutes the air in the city of Ottawa. Then, we had the example of the co-operative in Saskatchewan which, because it did not use sufficient wisdom, polluted the water of the Saskatchewan River. This pollution resulted in the poisoning of fish. Whether it is a Crown Corporation, a private corporation or a co-operative corporation, I say we need some adequate policing to make sure that pollution control is implemented. In fact, we need a law. We need a law with penalties and one which will be policed by an administration which has enough gumption to enforce the law in a manner which will result in improvement for the entire society. We want to clean up pollution but we also want to be fair to those who are spending a great deal of money in this area so that one does not benefit at the expense of another.
Recently I attended a conference on the subject of pollution. One of the gentlemen at that conference said that a commandment to cities which were taking their drinking water from a river might read in this way: Thou shalt take thy drinking water from below thine effluent. That is different from the present practice. At present a city takes its drinking water from a river, uses it, muddies it, and then passes it on downriver for somebody else to drink. This is not a very pleasant situation when we think of the inadequate sewage disposal systems of some cities. It is time we looked for some other and more adequate method to clean up this pollution rather than just passing along the problem to someone else. Sometimes I wonder whether, instead of taking water for a plant from a river and then passing it on downstream filled with waste, it might be better if the plant were to take water from a river, lake or well and then dump it into a series of ponds where, at the expense of that plant, the

water would be cleaned to the point where it could be used again. This in effect, would be a cycling system.
Although for the purposes of some plants I do not think the water would have to be too pure and could contain a certain amount of taint, if this practice of dumping tainted water into a river were followed at a number of points a serious problem could result with consequent danger to fish and other life in the waters of the river, sea or ocean. I think perhaps we should look at some other methods which are at our disposal, particularly in respect of some industrial plants. As I said previously, we had the example of a plant in Saskatchewan which caused the poisoning of fish. This will result in an expense to the taxpayers of Canada or to somebody in Canada. I am not picking on this plant particularly, but it is one which came to light just recently. There are a number of different types of pollution in Saskatchewan. I do not believe there is normally as much industrial pollution there as there might be in British Columbia, Ontario or some other areas of the world.
However, there are some things we should be more careful about. Nearly every farmer there uses 2-4-D which may or may not have some long range harmful effect. Hopefully, it will not. As a farmer, I would not like to be denied the use of it. Farmers in Saskatchewan have used DDT for control of a number of items. I recall occasions when the Denart-ment of Agriculture in Saskatchewan called back some types of grasshopper spray which they found left a residue in the tissue of animals. We should be constantly aware of situations like this. In Saskatchewan there has been a fair amount of pollution in the sense of erosion of land. This has occurred in other areas of the world as well. The Chinese have had long experience with this type of pollution. The Yellow River is noted for its great floods. The sands silt the river further downstream. The Chinese used unwise forestry policy. They cut down the trees for fuel and other purposes and this is the net result.
While we seem to have unlimited forests and land in Canada, I suggest we too could suffer if we do not use a little more wisdom in this regard. This is particularly true when we consider the heavy rain areas of Canada, such as British Columbia and some sections of Ontario. We have not used wise methods in respect of the control of erosion. Last spring in some sections of rural Ontario there were
January 15, 1970

floods and a considerable amount of pollution of lakes and rivers because the soil washed away in some sections.
I believe there should be a co-ordinated policy in respect of pollution, whether it be related to farming operations, lumbering operations or industrial operations. I think one reason we have done some of the things we have in respect of pollution in Canada is that we have sort of a "big thing" complex. This is particularly true in the United States. We have large acreage farms, big fields, and have a large erosion problem. We carry on lumbering operations by the use of large efficient units. We cut down our trees and when there is heavy rain or heavy snowfall in the winter, we have a large erosion problem. We have a large pollution problem which requires a large anti-pollution program. Perhaps a little more judgment should be used along the way. Much of Canada is not yet spoiled. Much of the country is still covered by forests and virgin sod. Surely we have benefited from our experience to the extent that we can save ourselves some expense in the future in respect of what we still have. I should like to see the clean air and water that we have preserved. I should like to see the oxygen and carbon dioxide in the lakes, rivers and oceans in and around Canada kept in proper balance. By using a little wisdom, we might at least contribute to our share of the total environment control on this planet.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I would like to make another comment in a slightly different area. I do not think it would be fair to industry, to municipalities or to anyone else who has to set up pollution control to say that overnight they must install in their plant for pollution control. I think they must be given an opportunity to adjust the prices of products to cover pollution control or waste disposal. A municipality must be given the opportunity to raise taxes or in other ways raise funds or to build facilities, and, within limits, we should accept this as being just and right. I think that the federal and provincial governments should be prepared to assist financially, whether by grants or by loans as the case may be. We might give aid through Central Mortgage and Housing or through some other means. I suggest that the present act is not adequate in this respect.
I think that fines-if that is the right term-should be imposed on those who pollute. How about putting the fine from a corn-21611-151
Water Resources
pany or a municipality into a fund, and if that company or municipality installs pollution control or whatever is required in that area within a specified time they will get their money back. I do not think that a fine should be imposed as a punishment. This should be done to induce these people to build adequate pollution controls. I am sure that this is the purpose of the bill, so why not do something that will make it attractive for those involved to obey the law? This should be the intent of the bill. Let us do something about improving our environment and let us do something practical to encourage these companies or municipalities to make this move now.
I was in the Arctic this summer and I noticed around the Resolute air base the remnants of several planes lying about. It looked as if the accident had occurred yesterday. The remnants were bright and untarnished. It might be a little scary for a fellow landing at the airport in a fog to see parts of an almost new plane lying around. This is what happens in the Arctic. Some of these planes have been there for years, and apparently no one has made an effort to gather up the parts lying around the airport. I have suggested that there are special problems in the Arctic with regard to pollution. Material lying on the ground does not rust, deteriorate or sink into the ground to become part of the soil as it does elsewhere, so some special action must be taken regarding this problem. Much of the Arctic is virgin territory so far as industrial pollution is concerned-let us keep it that way. I do not think anyone really knows what an adequate pollution program in the far north would be, in view of the freezing temperatures and the perma frost. Perhaps we should carry out some further studies there. I know there have been some minor ones done but perhaps further studies should be carried out on how to dispose of waste from plants, municipalities or residents in that area.
I should like to speak for a moment about the oil industry in the Arctic. Some efforts have been made internationally to control pollution on the high seas. We in Canada are very concerned about what might happen in our Arctic in this respect. We do not know how long an oil slick might last in the Arctic because of the particularly cold temperatures that exist there, what damage it might do or how large an area it might cover before it is finally cleaned up. We do not know whether any satisfactory means are available for removing this oil from the Arctic waters. I believe that some research should be conduct-

January 15. 1970
Water Resources
ed in this respect. I would like to see the Canadian government put some pressure on other countries and on international companies to do some research in this area to see if we cannot protect our future. Two or three large tankers within the last few years have broken up on the high seas. The Torrey Canyon off the coast of England caused a great deal of harm to that area and to the marine life and birds in the region.
There is some talk of making the companies which ship oil responsible for this damage. I think that the insurance companies are edgy about the whole problem and do not really want to cover the type of damage that might occur. Perhaps there should be further international co-operation in this regard, and perhaps the governments concerned might offer to carry a portion of the insurance if no other means are practical.
I believe pollution control is an important project. As a Canadian, I would like to see us do something specific about it. This act is not strong enough to do the job which we would like to see done. I am sure that Canadians will resent it if we do not take adequate steps now. I think that such steps would be politically palatable for most people at present. They have come to realize now that it is a sufficiently important problem to warrant the raising of money, whether by taxation or by any other means, and that it requires a government with sufficient gumption to say: "let us do something about it starting today".


Robert Jardine McCleave: I had not intended to take part in the debate until I found myself seconding the abortive motion of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) last evening. I had an opportunity then to study the bill, the second reading of which is proposed. I do not think this is a half-hearted measure because I suppose there is an intention to do something. However, I think this is a very strange way to deal with pollution which is a very serious problem in Canada. As I shall prove, we are increasing the number of people who are already dealing with the problem without, I think, doing anything to set up an authority which will make the management of pollution problems more coherent and comprehensive.
A few years ago I brought into the chamber for the purpose of asking a question a bottle full of water from Halifax harbour, and about half the bottle contained oil. People simply could not believe that in this day and age harbour water could be so polluted, but

unfortunately from time to time that is what happens in Halifax harbour when some pollutant is at work.
The reason I did not bring that bottle down this afternoon to display it on my desk during my speech is twofold. First, Your Honour tends to frown on these little exhibitions, and second, it might upset the stomachs of many hon. members. If they were to rush out of the chamber our quorum might be in serious jeopardy. But anyone who wants to see a practical example of what pollution can do might want to go to room 553D in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the window open?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The window isn't always open but the jar is very securely secured on top, so that one just looks. One does not smell this particular specimen.


Mr. McGrath:: Good Nova Scotia rum would offset the effects.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I shall ply that to the hon. member when he visits me.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the proliferation of bodies dealing with the problems of pollution. This came to my attention very dramatically a few days ago when a large slick of oil was sighted near Eastern Passage, actually on the shoreline at Eastern Passage, causing considerable hardship with the lobsters stored there, messing up the beach, and making it very difficult for the fishermen to carry on their profession. The fishermen who called me and drew it to my attention asked me to take steps to see that the matter would be pursued.
I called the Steamship Inspection Service of the Department of Transport ten minutes before closing time that day, and the gentleman there asked me whether this oil slick had come from a vessel in the harbour or from some other source. The reason this question was important was that if it did come from a vessel leaving Halifax harbour, the Steamship Inspection Service of the Department of Transport would investigate. If they could pin the blame on a certain ship, they would then take appropriate action in the courts. However, if the slick came from a land source, say, an oil refinery or from somebody jettisoning oil on shore, it would be some other board, the National Harbours
January 15, 1970

Board, or some other section of the department that would have to carry out the investigation.
My friend in the Steamship Inspection Service, whose office overlooks the harbour, could not see at that moment any ship in the vicinity of Eastern Passage that could have created that particular oil slick. Upon investigation, however, it turned out that a ship, which might or might not have been the guilty party, had just cleared the harbour so the Steamship Inspection Service of the department did get into the act.
The point I am making, perhaps rather laboriously, is that I might have been left phoning both parties, the National Harbours Board and the Steamship Inspection Service, with each of them saying, "No, it is the other fellow's responsibility." Then, the poor fishermen would have had no recourse whatsoever. It is a matter of disappointment that in this bill there is not spelled out specifically some over-all authority that would cut down the interventions of various federal departments and establish one over-all authority to deal with pollution whether it came by land or by water, as happened in this case in Halifax harbour.
My puzzlement has become even greater in that a few days ago the Department of Fisheries got into the act. It carried out an intensive investigation of the conditions in Bedford Basin, that great body of water back of the peninsula of Halifax, which is familiarly known to most Canadians as the great gathering place for the wartime convoys. At one time the Bedford Basin used to have fish life in it. The fish are getting fewer and worse looking as time goes by.


John James Greene: That applies to a lot of us.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, the minister may well say that this is happening to a lot of us. But it is happening to the fish because of pollution in that body of water. Part of that pollution comes from the Halifax city dump, and part from the effluents from the Bedford Basin shoreline on which are located several large government enterprises such as the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, conducted by the minister himself, a naval magazine, a great number of homes and several villages. I do not know if the Bedford Institute of Oceanography pours its sewage into the basin, but certainly a lot of sewage gets in there and the Department of Fisheries has found that this is really wreaking havoc with the fish in the
Water Resources
basin, so that eventually we are going to have a very large open sewer in the back part of the city of Halifax.
As I say, the Department of Fisheries getting into the act greatly increased my puzzlement. Then, just before Christmas the CMHC simply ran out of the money which had been allocated to sewage loans, and here I mention such places as Hamilton and the city of Halifax which were in line for loans. Therefore, while the minister, with that burst of eloquence that so characterizes him and which we hope will never diminish, presents this bill to us and talks about the brave new world in which we will fight pollution, another member of the cabinet in this chamber, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), finds that the sewage disposal plants that the city of Halifax, the city of Hamilton and other places want, have to be postponed because money is not available.
Yet, Sir, around the peninsula of Halifax, the old part of Halifax, there are probably 50 to 60 sewer outlets into Halifax harbour, into the Northwest Arm and into Bedford Basin. So, one minister preaches and the other minister says, "Boys, you will have to wait because we don't have money to carry out some pollution remedies at the present time." If one tried to spell out an intelligible war on pollution from these things one would be left very badly adrift.
On looking into the bill itself there are points about it that strike me as even more curious than the arguments I have related up to now. For example, there is the setting up of the management authorities. This brings another new body on to the scene, which in some cases can be set up unilaterally. In other cases it is set up in consultation with provinces or with a province.
What will happen if either Ontario or the Quebec government becomes obstreperous over the setting up of such a water quality management authority for the Ottawa River which, as the hon. member who just preceded me noted, is the source of noxious smells of its own? What happens if the minister is able to wheedle one of the two provinces into agreeing to set up the authority but his powers of persuasion fail with the other provincial government? Above all, what happens during all the delay while this diplomatic stuff goes on? I think the approach is certainly open to question.
While our amendment was thrown out, the points that were advanced so ably by my colleague have all the validity in the world. I

January 15. 1970
Water Resources
hope we will yet come up with something that will pass muster with the Chair or with the chairman of the committee, whereby some teeth can be added to this particular venture.
Then, Sir, another body makes its appearance on the pollution scene through this bill. He is an inspector. He has power to traipse about on land, and in the water too if he gets aboard a ship, and he may make certain inspections. Perhaps this gentleman can replace those various other people I noted earlier. But looking at the powers set forth in the bill for him, I am not sure that in all cases he can replace all of those others I have mentioned. It would be a good thing if these powers were very carefully examined, so that what now exists within the empire of the Department of Transport and what now exists within the empire of the Department of Fisheries, could be brought under one roof when we are dealing with problems of water pollution. If that does not happen, then I suggest we are going to face the same proliferation when we get into the problems of dealing with land or soil pollution and when we deal with the problems of air pollution.
I believe we should be building up one authority that can tackle these problems instead of adding a new body that would be engaging in a tug-of-war, or rather the reverse of a tug-of-war, resulting in some gentlemen in the government of Canada saying to each other, "It isn't my problem; it's your problem," and thus keep on passing the buck. If the minister thinks this is not a serious problem or that I am being facetious, I can tell of an actual case that occurred some years ago in Halifax. Whilst a ship was being fuelled, some oil escaped and the question was whether the breakage in the line feeding the fuel into the ship occurred on the land jurisdiction or on the water jurisdiction. Was it that part of the line which was out from the oil refinery itself which broke or was it that part of the line attached thereto which was on the ship? If it were the former, one fellow from the Department of Transport had responsibility for investigating and, if there was a criminal offence, taking court action. If it was another part of the line that broke or the coupling, then it was up to our old friends from the steamship inspection service to take action.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
While great debate raged as to who was responsible for investigating where this break had actually occurred, and whether any fault

was involved, the time for action passed and another great example of pollution went unpunished. I think the case actually went to court, and the poor magistrate had to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt because responsibility for the break that poured hundreds of gallons of oil into Halifax Harbour could not be clearly established. The harbour suffered, but no penalty could be applied at that particular time.
So I am pointing out, Sir, that we should recognize we have a serious duty in dealing with water pollution or any kind of pollution, and it is up to us to draft the best legislation possible. I am suggesting that a bill which causes proliferation of the established bodies rather than drawing them together into a cohesive authority with fairly wide powers should be replaced after a new look at the problem. Unless we can weld these organizations together in a form which can be more easily dealt with, we will simply add to the confusion which exists in the field at the present time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the people of Vancouver and the lower Mainland could see what a very thin House we have this afternoon when the matter of pollution is being discussed, they would be astonished. It is thin all around. When I was at home at Christmas time there was no topic as much discussed as that of water, air and soil pollution. However, I am very glad that the minister is present because it may well be that during this debate he will be brought to consider changes which would make this legislation really effective.
My colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, (Mr. Harding) who led off this debate on the Canada Water Act, for the NDP, went over its shortcomings. I shall merely enumerate what these were, under headings, but I intend to deal with only one of them. In the first place, the act falls short in not setting Canada-wide standards for water quality, leaving various areas to set their own standards. This is not good enough in a country with such mobility of population. If we want to make the country unified we should do so in the matter of water standards. Water, too, is mobile; it does not stop at provincial or other boundaries and quality in one area affects the quality in another. Secondly, the legislation fails in that it does not spell out the cost-sharing federal-provincial arrangements for the $3 billion or $4 billion which the Minister of Energy, Mines
January IS, 1970

Water Resources
and Resources (Mr. Greene) says will be needed for the next decade to handle the problem. Neither does it suggest any possibility of federal grants or federal matching monies for provincial or regional water control systems.
In the third place, the legislation fails to provide financial help for municipalities all across the country whose resources are very, very limited. Some municipalities have asked for Central Mortgage and Housing Loans to instal sewage treatment plants, but the minister states that such loans are not available. I do not know whether he intends such loans to be made available when the present period of belt-tightening and austerity is over; we have not heard about that.
In the fourth place, this legislation falls short because it is not anti-pollution legislation. It is not legislation to stop pollution; it is legislation to permit pollution. It promulgates a "pay-as-you-pollute" policy which will permit industry to pollute and then pay public authorities to take out pollution. In my view that is not what the people of this country want nor is it good national housekeeping in any sense of the word.
The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is not hard to find. This law was not framed to provide clean water for Canadians. This law was framed to suit the convenience of big industries whose operations pollute the waterways of Canada. The minister admitted as much when he said he had sought to devise "a method compatible with our free enterprise system." Had he reflected a little he would have realized that it is quite impossible to devise any method of keeping Canada's water clean that would be compatible with the will of individual industrialists to pollute the water and then leave it to municipal sewage plants to take out the pollution.
Whether fees are paid is not the main issue because no amount of fees will get the pollution out of the water and, as my colleague said earlier in this debate, there is no sense in loading onto the public something which ought to be the responsibility of the polluting industrialists. The result of this legislation will only be to allow the waste-dumpers to continue to foul the water. In my view, that is not a good piece of legislation. Sure, they will have to pay for the privilege of doing this, but what the people of Canada need now is a law to ban pollution; not to take dirt out of the water but to prevent dirt being put in.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Now I should like to talk about the one issue of phosphate detergents and what they are doing to the lakes, rivers and waterways of Canada. People are becoming aroused about this matter. If there are excuses to be made for the shortcomings of government in this field or for those of anybody else, such excuses can rest on only one thing and that is the speed with which this matter is developing.
In the fall of 1969, the International Joint Commission issued a report on this subject which was quite specific. It stated that 67 per cent of all the phosphorous in the form of phosphates being put into Lake Erie and Lake Ontario comes from municipal sewage. Of this amount, 50 per cent to 70 per cent is the direct result of phosphates in detergents. I see no reason why the minister could not have acted upon that finding of the International Joint Commission when framing this legislation.
Women all across Canada are suddenly realizing that all these detergents which they have been using with claims to make clothing whiter than white and brighter than bright have assisted in the process of killing the Great Lakes and are well on the way to murdering the other lakes and waterways into which they find their way. The women of this country are becoming alarmed and disgusted at having been made unknown accomplices in this process of ruining and wrecking the waterways of this country under the guise of getting clothes whiter than white and brighter than bright. It is too great a price to pay.
A group of consumers near Montreal last fall said quite definitely that a not-quite-so-white wash is a small price to pay if it helps make our choked and stinking rivers clean again. They were even prepared to again start using non-polluting laundry soaps in order to save the rivers of this country. Not only would it save our rivers from pollution but it would keep the health of children of this and other generations from being wrecked and ruined in the same way that the rivers are being wrecked and ruined because of pollution.
An article in the October 18 edition of the Montreal Star, commenting on the International Joint Commission's report stated:
The daily use of detergents by housewives is doing more to ruin our waters as a major balancing factor in the ecological cycle than almost anything else.

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
The reference was to the fact that the International Joint Commission had urged that there must be a ban on phosphate detergents by 1972 to save Lake Erie and 1975 at the latest to save Lake Ontario from eutrophication, which is a polite word for death.
The Montreal Gazette, on November 5, quoted the past president of the Quebec Wildlife Association as saying that it was crazy that the city of Montreal got its drinking water from the polluted St. Lawrence. He is quoted as saying:
In New York they get their water from lakes 100 miles away, but here we drink sewage.
It is not only the Great Lakes which are in jeopardy. Many members have been reading about what is happening to the lakes and waterways from one end of the country to the other. With regard to Placentia Bay, where the Electric Reduction Company of Canada is located, last winter because of a proliferation of algae this plant killed the fish, thereby taking away the livelihood of the fishermen.
I read the other day that Lake Osoyoos in the beautiful Okanagan is today well on the way to eutrophication and the other nearby lakes are close behind. Housewives all across Canada are appalled at having been made accomplices to the twin crimes of murdering the lakes and rivers and poisoning the water that people have to use. There have been many letters on the subject. One appeared not long ago in the Globe and Mail and I quote most of it:
I would like to ask if we women are ignorant, stupid or criminally selfish.
If we are none of these, why is it that despite the terrible effect of detergents on our streams, rivers and lakes, and the life they support, we continue to use these products? Would we deliberately pour poison, if it were clearly marked "Poison", by the millions of gallons into these dying waters, to the increasing detriment of ourselves, our children and their children, if any, not to mention wildlife?
I think not-then what are we waiting for?
I have already mentioned what consumers near Montreal have had to say. In my opinion, legislation is required along the lines suggested by the International Joint Commission, including a ban on phosphate detergents. This Commission states that these must be banned by 1972 in order to save Lake Erie and by no later than 1975 to save Lake Ontario. I see no reason why the other rivers and waterways should not receive equal consideration and I urge that there should be a Canada-wide ban.
Naturally, the producers of detergents and other large firms do not want a ban, but if it is a matter of deciding between helping two

or three large industrial firms or preserving the life and health of our people and the beauty of our country, I know what the decision of the government should be. What is the hold-up in banning these detergents? I think the reason is obvious. It is because of detergent companies such as Lever Brothers, Col-gate-Palmolive-Peet and the Proctor and Gamble Company of Canada Limited. I have copies of correspondence that has been sent to these firms asking why they apparently have not been working hard on getting a substitute. Two of these replies are very similar, the one from Lever Brothers and the one from Proctor and Gamble. They both point out that at the present time there is no replacement. I may say these letters were sent prior to finding a replacement which I shall mention in a few moments.
These companies point out that it is going to take a long time to develop a replacement, although they must be aware that in Sweden there has been a replacement for some time which is working very well. They advocate that the best plan is to have the municipal sewage plants remove the phosphates afier the detergent has been used. It is this statement that makes me wish I could have been a fly on the wall to watch their extra-sensory perception arrangements with the minister who drafted this legislation. He could not have drafted anything more in line with the thinking of the big detergent companies as to what is required in the Canada water act. It is interesting to note that the vice president of the Electric Reduction Company, the firm which manufactures all phosphates for detergents in Canada, the same firm which has been pumping pollution into Placentia Bay, killing the fish and taking away the livelihood of the Newfoundland fishermen, also happens to be the Chancellor of Toronto University and the president of the Science Council of Canada.
On December 20, 1969 an announcement was made by Dr. Philip Jones, a pollution specialist at the University of Toronto, to the effect that he had discovered a non-phosphate, non-toxic substitute for phosphates in detergents. A group of housewives had been trying out these detergents made with nonphosphate compounds for three months and found them to be eminently satisfactory as a substitute for phosphate detergents and in some respects they were better cleaners.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Dr. Philip Jones announced that this was safe and had been thoroughly researched; the
January 15, 1970

same materials were used in it as were successfully used in Sweden in non-phosphate detergents there. Dr. Solandt was very cool and sceptical in his response to this news. He admitted at a press conference some days later that because of his connection with ERCO his views on the subject might be, and I quote, "slightly- biased". He admitted that this Swedish detergent did exist. He sounded a little dubious about it, but he admitted that it was in existence and working.
It is interesting to note that Dr. Solandt was not the first person to be cool about this discovery. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the firms making detergents had also been cool about it. On a CBC program "Weekend" around the middle of November, Brian Kelly was forthright in saying that the reluctance of the detergent companies to come to grips with the problem of harmful detergents arose from the existence of long-range contracts with ERCO.
I believe this is precisely the case.
This then is the situation. A suitable replacement does exist; it has been researched and publicized by a pollution specialist at the University of Toronto. Now, I want to finish off the story of the Electric Reduction Company of Canada to date. Two months later, on January 13, 1970, the press reported that the Electric Reduction Company of Canada had been fined a total of $40,000 and forbidden to make long-term contracts with either customers or suppliers after pleading guilty to three violations of the Combines Investigation Act. It had been convicted on charges of maintaining a monopoly against the public interest and the special prosecutor accused ERCO of tying up the two biggest detergent manufacturers, Proctor and Gamble and Lever Brothers, with 10-year contracts to make it uneconomic for a new competitor to enter the market. The prosecutor also said that ERCO had paid between $800,000 and $900,000 as a bonus to acquire Dominion Fertilizer and thus eliminate competition. These are facts which we should bring out when we are talking about pollution and the need for action rather than indulge in the delightful poesy which the minister used to introduce this legislation.
These are hard facts. Now, we know why the big detergent companies were lax in looking for phosphate substitutes; it was because they had long-term contracts tying them securely to ERCO. Now, we know why the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada was so cool in his reception of the news that a non-phosphate detergent had been found.
Water Resources
We have heard a good deal in this House recently about the danger of conflict of interest. I suggest that this is an example of a more dangerous conflict of interest than even the ones we have heard mentioned in this House; it is as dangerous a conflict of interest as any which is likely to come to notice. Here we have a man who is the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, a man who is supposed to be in a special position to look judicially at discoveries and inventions and improvements in science in order to make pronouncements upon them. At the same time, we learn, this man is the Vice-President of the company which makes all the phosphates which are used in detergents in Canada and which are responsible for between 50 and 70 per cent of the municipal sewage pollution flowing into lakes Erie and Ontario.
I think it is time we did something about this. How can a man who is supposed to be above influence and above conflict of interest, a man who as head of the Science Council of Canada makes decisions affecting science in this country, command the confidence of the Canadian people when at the same time he is the Vice-President of the firm which makes the phosphates which have polluted almost to the point of sterility Lakes Erie and Ontario? And this substance is being used in every city and small hamlet across Canada.
I want to say quietly and with deliberation that in my view it would be a good thing if the government were to look very seriously at this particular case of conflict of interest with a view to requesting the resignation of the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada and his replacement by somebody who is free from special interests. This is a matter of grave concern to the people of this country. Here is a situation where big industry is allied with big scientific institutions and big educational institutions-the University of Toronto is the largest university in this country, I believe-and allied also, as I firmly believe up to this point-with big government which has drafted this type of water legislation and tried to put it across as an act to ban pollution. When this happens I think it is time the people of this country sat up and took notice.
This is not a matter of party politics. It is a matter of whether we are likely to survive in our own environment. I have been reading books by scientists this winter, and I have reached the conclusion that many scientists today are worried as to whether the animal,

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
man, has enough brains to enable him to control these scientific processes in time to prevent the pollution of the environment and his own destruction by his own technology. This is a case in point. I think it is completely wrong to allow these conflicts of interest to go on, as well as entirely unfair to the men who are placed in these impossible situations. They are gagged, bound and helpless from the point of view of being public servants. I believe it is wrong to put people into positions where conflicts of interest can threaten their usefulness to the people of this country. And it is lethal to the people that such situations should exist.
I want to appeal to the minister to take a hard look at this legislation when it goes to the committee. I appeal to him to acknowledge that this bill is not an anti-pollution measure and that sooner or later the Canadian people, when they are up against it, will recognize that it is not.
What this bill desperately needs is some provision by which municipal bodies would receive funds for the establishment and improvement of sewage plants, either by way of a shared program between the provincial governments and Ottawa or by some other means of making grants available for such a purpose. In the second place, the minister must take action to ban the use of phosphate detergents completely. One of my hon. friends said earlier that there might need to be a time lag. I think the target date of the International Joint Commission, 1972 for Lake Erie, is a good one. A time lag of that length would give an opportunity for readjustment. But the idea of a time lag extending until the detergent companies and ERCO have unloaded their supplies of phosphate on the unsuspecting people of this country is not my idea of the way in which this should be done. It would be too long. It might well be too late.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I hope it is enough to ensure that some action, at least, is taken to ensure that we have an effective Canada water act when it comes back again to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. lady sits down may I say that I was not too sure whether she was in favour of the basic premise contained in the bill, namely that the polluter should pay for rehabilitating the water, or whether in fact water quality

should be achieved by the rehabilitation or by restricting the use of various substances, the cost being met out of general tax revenue.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the people causing the pollution ought to pay for preventing pollution; and pollution should be prevented by keeping it out of the water in the first place. In other words, industry should see to it that it adopts methods that cut out pollution entirely.
I do not know whether it is possible to do this in every case straight away or in the period I have suggested. However, from everything that I have learned about pollution, detergents are far and away the biggest single pollutant. An alternative to detergents has been discovered and is already in use in Sweden, and I suggest that there is a good place to begin. I suggest a ban be imposed on phosphate detergents, to take effect not later than 1972, which I do not think would be unrealistic. In fact, this is probably the best solution that could be devised.
I did not go into all of the other forms of pollution this afternoon so I am not prepared to say what should be done in regard to them. I have confined myself strictly to detergents because it is detergents that are threatening the very life of our biggest lakes.
I do not want to go further afield since I have not had time to study other pollutants, but I am sure of the facts that I have put on the record this afternoon. I believe there is a good place to begin, and no doubt other members will suggest other remedies. But certainly the polluter should be responsible for the cost of eliminating his pollution; and wherever possible pollution ought to be eliminated at its very source.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Wenl-worih):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today will have wide repercussions on the development of Canada as a healthy resource controlling nation, a nation which is opening up new frontiers in every direction and, at the same time, is conscious of the need to preserve our environment free from the curse of pollution.
I commend the minister for a very forward looking piece of legislation. I also commend him-and here I disagree with the comments of the last speaker-for the flexibility of drafting. The bill is designed to adapt itself to differing water conditions throughout an intensely diverse water-supplied country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Save your breath.
January 15, 1970


Colin David Gibson: Thank you, I will. The bill before the House represents a systematic attack on the problem of water pollution, jointly with the provinces wherever possible but alone, if necessary, to achieve the aim of clean water. In order for this bill to succeed, it is necessary that industry, municipal and provincial governments give their full co-operation.
The member who last spoke exhorted the minister to provide finance for city sewage systems. This question is already actively being studied by the government and efforts are being made to provide finance. Largely due to the minister's efforts, lots of industries, in co-operation with the provinces and federal government, have provided large sums of money to combat pollution. In the Hamilton area large sums of money have been earmarked to clean up the bad spots of Hamilton Bay. This has been a joint project, a co-operative effort, largely instigated by the minister, and it has resulted in this approach to pollution problems.
This bill is a big step forward in the control of our resources. It represents a constructive approach to the protection of our environment. It is a great bill, and I am sure that it will lead to a vast improvement in this difficult area.
Obviously, the bill contemplates water pollution control in the new areas of regional development. I hope that this extremely important aspect of pollution control will be kept in mind when areas of the country are newly developed under our regional expansion plans as well as when we open up the great north of this country. I hope that in the matter of pollution control we will not make the mistakes of the past but guard against them with sensible, well co-ordinated pollution regulations. I suggest this legislation provides the right sort of signpost to point the way to the achievement of this end.
We are conscious of the need to protect the regions of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and the Arctic areas as well as the heavily populated areas to the south. The per capita use of water in urban centres is rapidly increasing, and total urban consumption is likely to have more than doubled by 1980.
Programs on pollution on CBC television and also the publicity given to the problem on radio and in the press have all played a substantial part in bringing to the attention of the public the necessity for action by all levels of government and industry to deal with this vitally important subject.
21611-16J
Water Resources
The real issue can be summarized as follows: Will we permit the development of our natural environment to be ruined by pollution? The federal government has a vital responsibility in this regard and it has assumed it.
I wish for a moment to speak to the question of pollution in the Great Lakes and along the international boundary. With the Canada Water Act now before us, I suggest that the federal government commence negotiations with the federal government of the United States, the governments of border states and our own provincial border governments with a view to establishing an international pollution control agency. The purpose of the agency would be to prevent pollution of the Great Lakes and of the boundary waters between Canada and the U.S.A. We should give this agency power to enforce pollution control by means of fine or injunction against offenders along the borders of Canada and the U.S.A.
Some might say that this is far too precipitate action; that we are just starting out on pollution control and it will take a long time to work out a constructive agreement with the United States. I agree it will take a long time, but let us start now at this early stage of our initial phases of pollution control.
Perhaps this agency could operate under the aegis of the International Joint Commission. Nevertheless, it seems to me that since we are preparing now to clean up our own waterways, this is the time to urge the United States to co-operate in a joint venture within which the international body could take action to establish enforceable anti-pollution controls.
It may be said that such a venture of this kind would be difficult and cumbersome and unlikely to succeed. But it is obvious to me that the good work done on the Canadian side of the border should be augmented by a coordinated effort by our neighbour to the south.
I am compelled by a sense of urgency to suggest that preliminary steps be taken now to illustrate to the United States governments concerned that we mean business. Since it may not be possible to devote large sums of money to this type of project now, I suggest it may be possible to bring it about without a great deal of expense. Perhaps the Canada-U.S.A. parliamentary association could deal with the question, or perhaps it could be dealt with on an informal basis. But at least we should make an enthusiastic start.

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
The governments in the U.S. will be obligated to co-operate, and I suggest publicity alone would tend to trouble any state government that malingered in this vital field of legislative control. The means are at our disposal under the International Joint Commission. Prosecutions could be undertaken on each side of the border on complaint by the International Joint Commission. Persuasion, Mr. Speaker, is not enough. We need a vibrant, effective, alert board to police pollution offenders. I believe that if we commence action now it will not be too late to save the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River from the perils of pollution.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr, James A. McGralh (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the hon. member who took his seat I began to wonder whether I had perhaps suffered a lapse of memory or a momentary lapse of consciousness, or that the debate had changed because I could not recognize the bill he was describing. Certainly, he was not describing Bill C-144 regarding the Canada water act. As a matter of fact, the extensive background material provided to hon. members by the Minister in this attractive green folder had no relation to what he was saying. It probably came from the Minister's green environment. I am sorry to say that the Minister could not be called the jolly green giant in his fight against pollution if this Bill is to be considered as a criterion.
One of the background papers entitled "Proposed Canada Water Act-background notes" reads in part:
The Canada Water Act is expected to give the federal Government and the provinces an administrative framework for managing and developing Canada's water resources and coming to grips with some of the country's major water problems-[DOT] particularly the pressing problem of pollution. It calls for a close working partnership between Ottawa and the provinces.
That is all very well if you can achieve such a close-working partnership with the provinces, but there is a very important fact which seems to have escaped the attention of the government in this particular regard. Let me quote briefly from a periodical issued by the Montreal Star entitled "Pollution-everybody's business". On the last page there is a very interesting comment by Professor J. R. Dales of the University of Toronto. It reads:
To a large extent ... pollution is whatever people (most people, or the typical person) consider it to be.

Consequently, Sir, it follows that pollution control under this legislation is whatever the particular province involved considers it to be. This is not the type of pollution control needed to solve what many people believe to be one of the most serious problems facing this country today. When you talk about the control of Canada's water resources and coming to grips with pressing problems of pollution, there is a tendency to lose sight of the fact that there is existing on the statute books of Canada a measure which in my opinion has considerably more teeth than any provision in the bill now before us. I refer to the Fisheries Act.
Section 33 of Chapter 119 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, deals extensively with pollution and the pollution of water in all aspects. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to put the substance of the section on the record. It states that the Governor in Council may deem any substance to be a deleterious substance for the purposes of Section 2 of the Act, which refers to the offence of polluting waters of Canada by any deleterious substance.
Then, it goes on to outline some punitive measures by stating that every person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 or a term of imprisonment not less than one month and not more than six months. It goes on to deal with the punishment becoming more severe in respect of a second offence.
I submit that the Fisheries Act gives the federal government the constitutional authority to deal with pollution of the waters in Canada without having to enter into any type of agreement with the provinces. This aspect of the legislation now before us is, in my view what makes it a weak and ineffective bill. The Fisheries Act deals with this in quite specific terms without any reference whatsoever to the provinces.
One illustration of how this measure can be brought to bear in a particular instance was the case of the pollution of Placentia Bay by the Electric Reduction Company of Canada. The sad part of that story is that apparently the pollution was allowed to take place and reach the extent it did before the federal government realized its obligations and its responsibilities under the Fisheries Act.
Why is it necessary to enter into an agreement with the provinces whereby each province will be placed in a position to adopt its
January 15, 1970

own definition of just exactly what constitutes pollution? I suggest that instead of dealing with this as a problem of national urgency we will be dealing with it from ten points of view, if indeed we are fortunate enough to get agreement with all the provinces. That, to my mind, is the basic weakness of this legislation.
The government of Newfoundland is a good example. It knew full well what it was doing when it gave a financial inducement to ERCO to establish a phosphorus plant in Newfoundland. It knew the consequences of a phosphorus plant located at tidewater. It also knew that this province, backward economically with a large and growing problem of unemployment, would have an industry providing jobs. So, Newfoundland turned its eyes away from the immediate threat to the fisheries of the province-the pollution threat to the bay and the displacement of the fishermen involved in that fishery-and went along with the short-term advantage of creating employment for two or three hundred people.
That is an example of how one province might be expected to react. I cannot see for the life of me the province of Newfoundland co-operating in any way, shape or form with this government under this bill if it interfered in any way whatsoever with that province's plans and efforts to induce industry to establish there. The same would apply to any other province in the country. Certainly, it would apply with a great deal of force to some of the regionally disadvantaged provinces such as New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
We have what I consider to be a major weakness in the legislation in that it does not even come close to doing one of the things it is supposed to do. Let me refer to a statement issued by the Minister's office. It is suggested the new bill calls for the pooling of federal-provincial resources across the country to control and combat pollution. That is what the proposed Canada water act is supposed to do.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I am literally astounded at the manner in which this government is treating this problem. There is no reference in the bill to the contiguous waters of Canada. Notwithstanding the immense threat posed to our coastal waters by the opening of the oil reserves of the Arctic and Alaska, the opening of the Northwest passage to supertankers, the possibility of oil being discovered and exploited on the continental shelf on our east and west
Water Resources
coasts and the disastrous consequences of these efforts in respect of the contiguous waters, and indeed the whole ecological balance of life itself, there is no reference whatever to this. Indeed, the bill in my view in its present form is a useless ineffective piece of window-dressing. It is a farce, nothing more and nothing less. It tries to do what the Fisheries Act now could do quite efficiently and effectively if it were properly administered. It is trying to do something in a puny and ineffective way. I am concerned about this. I am concerned about pollution. I am sure many people in this country are concerned about it. Indeed, it is becoming a world problem.
I am concerned about this government's approach to this problem. There is a jurisdictional haze; there is no question about that. There is the Navigable Waters Protection Act which is administered by the Department of Transport. There is the Fisheries Act administered by the Minister of Fisheries. There are various measures which come under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Indeed, there is quite a bit of ambiguity about who has the ultimate responsibility. Surely, however, the Fisheries Act is quite explicit in setting out what Parliament at that time considered to be the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. That responsibility is to ensure that the waters of Canada remain clean. So, why do we have this bill? Why do we have the legislation which is before us?


Colin David Gibson: There are different types of waters in different parts of the country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we have
already heard the submission of the hon. member and most of us were unimpressed. I suggest he restrain himself until I finish my speech. There are other areas of pollution which are not even covered by this legislation. We are concerned about this. For example, we are concerned about the pollution of the air. In this age of the Apollo when we can reach the moon, we have yet to come up with an effective means to have a clean automobile engine which will not pollute the atmosphere. We are concerned about the pollution of our environment. No one seems to be doing anything about such things as the non-returnable bottles which are littering the countryside. We are concerned about the pollution of the high seas. We are concerned about the pollution of our coastal waters. In this House we have been pressing the government to state its position on the conference which recently



COMMOMS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
January 15, 1970
Water Resources
took place in Brussels on oil pollution of the high seas. Surely, it was reasonable for us to expect the government would make its position known before this debate took place because this subject is directly related to this debate.
Only yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), in the absence of the statement he promised to the House on Canada's position taken at this conference on the pollution of the high seas, whether he would make Canada's position papers available to members of Parliament so that we could relate them to the debate taking place now. This was a reasonable request. Yet, we were denied this and do not know what the Canadian position is. I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is in his seat because the United Nations is about to sponsor a conference on pollution in 1972. It might be worth while if he were to indicate what Canada's position will be at this conference.
We are faced with very serious problems of pollution but nothing will be solved by this type of legislation. In my opinion it is bad legislation and does not do what it is supposed to do. I regret that the Chair did not accept the amendment we proposed today because we feel the only way to effectively deal with this matter is for the government to withdraw the bill now before us and redraft it in a meaningful way so that it will take into account the jurisdictional problem to which the amendment referred. A redrafted bill could take into account the power the government now has under the Fisheries Act, and the power the government has under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Perhaps the government could convene a conference on pollution in this country so that everyone would know of the urgency and gravity of the problem. Then, having come to a full realization of the urgency of the problem, perhaps the provinces would be prepared to give up some of the constitutional responsibilities they enjoy in the area of pollution. But instead, we have a bill which is inadequate. All it does is set up the machinery for the government to enter into negotiations with the provinces which will have the final say in this matter.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Machinery for more machinery.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, machinery for more machinery. It is really setting up more jurisdictional bureaucracy. It is not cutting

through the haze. It is creating more haze. In fact the crisis is so severe that it calls for a precise definition.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Criminal Code-proclamation of remainder of amendments respecting breathalyzer; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Transport-Coal-application by Great Northern and Kootenay Elk Railways; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Consumer Affairs- charges respecting operations of council.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Private Bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury) moved: that Bill S-10, to incorporate Pitts Insurance Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill and the one next following, S-ll, are probably bills in respect of which members of the House will not find much to debate. However, I shall go through them briefly. Both are connected with and arise out of the same matter. Both have already been dealt with by the Senate having first been introduced there on Thursday, November 20, having been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, where both were dealt with on Wednesday, November 26, and then having been returned to the Senate where they were given second and third reading on Wednesday, November 26 and Thursday, November 27.
The subject matter of Bill S-10 is the incorporation of Pitts Insurance Company and the subject matter of the one following it, S-ll, is the incorporation of Pitts Life Insurance
January 15, 1970

Company. Pitts Life Insurance Company was incorporated on March 1, 1963 under the Ontario Corporations Act and Pitts Insurance Company was incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act on July 5, 1956. The principal place of business of both companies is London, Ontario, which is where the head office of both companies is located. They are small companies The Life Insurance Company having commenced business in 1963 had a paid up capital of $260,000. It has had a good record of development since that time. Its capital and surplus now total in excess of $1 million. Similarly, the general insurance company started in 1956 with a capital of $100,000 and has grown to have a combined capital and surplus figure in excess of $600,000.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The most important feature of these companies is that they are both wholly Canadian owned. They started their existence through their connection with the Dominion Automobile Association, whose directors and shareholders are virtually the same as those of the companies we are now considering. The members of the Dominion Automobile Association have the benefit of a certain coverage under the life insurance company and the general insurance company. All the directors and shareholders are Canadian and are in fact employees of the companies.
The reason for the federal incorporation is that the membership of the Dominion Automobile Association has expanded considerably since its inception, the companies have substantially increased their volume of business and now do business in several provinces. However, there are several provinces in which the Automobile Association is able to solicit membership but in which there are certain technical difficulties about doing business under an Ontario provincial charter. Since it is very natural at this stage for these companies to extend their businesses into these provinces, they are desirous of obtaining incorporation under an act of the federal Parliament.
This matter came before the House in December, at which time, upon the request of some members opposite, I agreed to stand the matter over until this time because in December there had not been sufficient time for some members opposite to familiarize themselves with some of the information that was pertinent to their decision as to whether incorporation by an act of the federal Parliament should be granted. I think those members have now had time to explore the back-
Private Bills
ground of these companies and to satisfy themselves that they are indeed wholly Canadian owned companies, and that their motive in applying for a federal charter at this time is to enable them to do business on a wider basis throughout the Dominion of Canada. In fact their plan, if the present trend continues, is, perhaps in three or four years, to expand their business into the United States, which, I am sure, hon. members will find is a welcome and refreshing change from the usual trend of American companies expanding their business in these fields into Canada.
I trust that hon. members have taken the trouble to examine the Senate minutes and Hansard records that are relevant to these matters and to otherwise inform themselves about the affairs of these companies to satisfy themselves on the points that I have mentioned. I hope that they will have found that these companies are indeed worthy of receiving a federal charter. I believe that wholly Canadian owned companies doing successful business should indeed be encouraged to expand their operations on a national basis, for which a federal charter is a virtual necessity. I also believe that they should be encouraged further to expand their business into the United States.
Accordingly, I have pleasure in commending the bill to hon. members.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I do not
want to say very much except that this type of bill will not have to come to Parliament after the legislation concerning insurance companies is passed later on in this session.
I am pleased to note that the company which is to be incorporated is wholly Canadian owned and is operated by Canadian personnel. I also note that the bill contains a few other items of information other than the fact that the company is connected with the Dominion Automobile Association. The fact that the company is Canadian, and that it is operated by Canadians, meets the criterion that we suggested should be a requirement for companies being chartered in Canada. Personally, I will be interested to hear the arguments advanced by counsel in the committee indicating their support of the idea of insurance companies operated by Canadians and for Canadians.


John Leroy Skoberg: Let me
say very briefly that I also am pleased to note that this company is to be wholly Canadian. However, I should like to say that regardless

January 15/ 1970
Private Bills
of whether the company is Canadian or owned by foreigners applying for such a licence here in Canada, it is just as incumbent upon it to observe the laws of Canada. Too often we have heard it said that because such companies are Canadian they might have an edge in the business. I hope that the hon. member who sponsored this insurance bill tonight can assure the House that this company will pass on the benefits that will accrue through its operation to its policyholders. I would also like to suggest that this company take cognizance of the bills which are before the House at this time and supply information to its shareholders in a manner that can be clearly understood by them. All too often insurance companies use language that is not readily understood by the average policyholder. I suggest that the hon. member sponsoring this bill should pass on this information to those who have asked him to bring the bill before the House.
I believe that since we are still in the process of passing these insurance bills the insurance companies should lower their premiums to their policyholders and to those who will apply for their insurance under whatever the terms may be. All too often the reverse has applied. There are many thousands of insurance companies, and this fact does not do the user a bit of good. I hope that the hon. member can truthfully tell the House that the company he is sponsoring will take cognizance of these few facts.


Randolph Harding: It
is not our intention to talk out this bill, I can assure the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill. Over the years, members of this party have examined this type of bill very closely and we have been accused by some members of the House and by certain individuals outside it of trying to block this type of private bill. The two hon. members who spoke previously have indicated that Canadian owned insurance companies bringing in private bills, which will eventually lead to Canadian control of these companies over the years, need have no fear of being blocked by discussion or debate in the House by members of the NDP. I should like to point out, as one of the members has done already, that this is one of the few remaining bills which will be debated in the House.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I understand that under the amendments to the Canada Corporations Act this task will be passed on to a board, and I am a little appre-
[Mr. Skoberg.l
hensive that a board will not give the same amount of consideration to the desire for Canadian ownership that members of this party have supported. This is one of the amendments to the Canada Corporations Act which I view with some apprehension, because I believe it has been good, for Canada and Canadians, to have people stand up in this House and review legislation of this type.
That is about all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. We welcome the formation of Canadian companies, although not all insurance companies. In this particular case, we have no objection to the formation of this company, and we welcome second reading of the bill and its reference to the finance committee for discussion and questioning.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make about Bill S-10 entitled "An Act to incorporate Pitts Insurance Company."
I have heard the sponsor of this bill say that the House seems unanimous in wanting to pass this bill. Perhaps the hon. member has never heard about the general agreements which are made in the House from time to time and personally I am a little hurt by his attitude. Besides, this is not a reason to stop that bill since we recognize that a Canadian entreprise is involved. But when he says that a general agreement has been reached in the House, I would remind him that he spoke as if the members of the Ralliement creditiste did not exist, as nobody asked us if we agreed.


James Alexander Jerome: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that there had been any such agreement as described. What I did say was that I hoped the contents of this legislation were such that members of the House would not find much with which to disagree. I did not refer to any agreement because there has been no agreement among parties in the House that this legislation would pass today.


André-Gilles Fortin: In any event, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I misunderstood what the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) meant. So, I wish to apologize to him. However, it seems I am not the only one who did.
However that may be, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, on behalf of my colleagues, that we support the principle of that bill. However, I want to stress the fact that it is a thoroughly
January 15, 1970

Canadian undertaking, with Canadian capital, controlled by Canadians, and this pleases us very much.
I realize that many foreign companies come to Canada to obtain capital, and that they do not necessarily reinvest this capital in our country, not even to a very small extent.
If we, personally and as Canadians, do something to promote private enterprise and economic expansion in our country, we shall be doing our duty. That is why we should vote in favour of this Bill.
Insurance companies and private firms in other fields in Canada never fail to report annually to the House on their operations. They are under no obligation to submit their annual reports to the House and to the newspapers, but members of Parliament greatly appreciate their doing so, because this allows us to realize all they do for the development of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the directors of Pitts Insurance Company to send us every year the report of their activities as well as their financial statements, not necessarily in order to control their operations, but to obtain some information and convince us further that this Canadian insurance company is serving the Canadian people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

James Alexander Jerome: that Bill S-ll, to incorporate Pitts Life Insurance Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at length on this bill. It is identical with the previous one. I just want to say to hon. members opposite who have spoken, particularly the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) and the hon. member from Lolbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that I will see to it that today's Hansard will be placed in the hands of the directors of the company. Since
Private Bills
some of the directors of the company were present at the committee meetings previously held on this bill I would expect that they would return to the standing committee meetings, to which I would invite the hon. member for Moose Jaw so that he could ask his questions of them there.


John Leroy Skoberg: Let me know when.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Mr.   Robert-B. Major@Argenleuil: that Bill S-15, respecting McOuat Investments Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to revive the charter of the company known as McOuat Investments Limited. The McOuat brothers live in and operate a rental and wholesale agency in Lachute for outboard motors, chain saws and allied products. The purpose of the bill is to clearly spell out the ownership by various members of the McOuat family. By the way, Bill S-16, which is also before the House at present, concerns the company known as Buccaneer Industries Limited, which is actually engaged in the running of the family business. Both companies are owned by the same family. They are small companies which forgot to file the annual reports required by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The McOuat family is an old Lachute family of United Empire Loyalist stock and has operated this business successfully over the years. The failure to file the proper reports was clearly an oversight on the part of a small company. I therefore propose, seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), that this bill be referred to committee.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, this problem has developed a number of times. While I agree with the hon. member who introduced the bill that there probably is not anything sinister about it, yet I must point out that according to the bill the notices given on June 20, 1968, and May 7, 1969, which were published on June 22, 1968, and July 12, 1969, in the Canada Gazette

January 15, 1970
Private Bills
instructed the company to file certain returns under the Canada Corporations Act, and obviously it did not do so. When the bill is examined in committee, members of the committee should be very interested in knowing why it failed to do so.
It was not exactly an oversight. It had been a matter of government discussion with the company at a fairly high level. During the period set forth in those Canada Gazette notices these companies could have retained their incorporation by filing the reports. As I say, I know the hon. member probably has an intimate knowledge of the companies and the people involved, and knows there is nothing sinister about them, but since there have been several such instances over the years we would be remiss in our duty if we did not inquire into the failure of these companies to file the required reports over a two-year period of time.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The refusal to make the returns demanded by law should, I think incur some penalty. These returns should be made or the companies should not be reinstated. I think the companies should be forewarned that when they come before the committee they had better be prepared to give some good explanation for this oversight and an assurance that it will not occur again. We have now modified the Canadian Corporations Act to allow the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to examine each company's activities under its licence. Though it may have been an oversight on the part of the company we are dealing with, it was not an oversight over the whole period. A number of notifications were given to them and, knowing some of the government officials concerned in inspection, they were probably hounded over the two-year period. Unless they are prepared to meet the requirements we should be skeptical about re-issuing their incorporation and they Should know that we are concerned on this point.


Mr. Major:: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the member?


Mr. Speaker:: If the member answers, he will be closing debate. Is it agreed?


Robert Benoit Major: May I point out to the hon. member that I am not familiar with these people; I do not know them. All the information I got was from the solicitor and what I gave to this House was given in good faith. I agree with the member that the government

has perhaps been remiss in not pursuing these people, but I understand that in the new department this is not done. They do not notify and if a report is not filed apparently the charter is annulled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Mr.   Roberi-B. Major@Argenieuil: that Bill S-16, an act respecting Buccaneer Industries Ltd., be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the hon. member relates his remarks to both bills. Sometimes it is fortunate that we have these bills in pairs as we do not always get sufficient time for rebuttal. If what the hon. member said in respect of the company being notified is correct, then in these two bills we may have an opportunity to ask officials of the Canadian Corporations Act about the methods used in requesting information. It may be that we should look at the question of notice of request for information and with these two bills before us perhaps we will have an opportunity to see how it works. We should be concerned with the method of notification, ensuring that companies understand it and their responsibility to comply with the regulations. The committee is going to look at this and we appreciate the opportunity the company will have of bringing this to our attention. I wonder if there is any relationship between the two, Mr. Speaker, because this company is operated by United Empire Loyalists?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
January 15. 1970
[Stage Direction]
Water Resources

Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: that Bill S-17, to incorporate ICG Transmission Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


William Arnold Peters: Is the sponsor going to indicate what the bill is about?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this bill to incorporate ICG Transmission Limited will be an affiliate of Inter-City Gas Limited, a Manitoba company in the business of distributing natural gas throughout the province of Manitoba. The company has signed a contract with Boise Cascade Corporation to fulfil its requirements through a plant to be built at Fort Frances, Ontario.
Because of the particular terrain in the northern part of my constituency, it is less expensive for the line to drop down south from Falcon Lake, Manitoba to the United States than to cross over at Rainy River, Ontario and go the 50 or 60 miles to Fort Frances, cross over at International Falls and also provide service for the Boise Cascade operations, one at Fort Frances and the other at International Falls.
The contract signed by this company is to run for 20 to 25 years and will provide an alternative source to a company which has been using lignite coal and which produces a great amount of air pollution in the town of Fort Frances. I might say the sponsors of the companies are all Canadians. I anticipate this will be the condition in which the company remains.


David Orlikow: Could I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker? To what areas does this company distribute natural gas?


John Mercer Reid: My information is that it distributes natural gas throughout the southern part of Manitoba and parts of the city of Winnipeg.


John Leroy Skoberg: For the record, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a very short question. When he concluded his remarks, he referred to the Inter-City Gas Company. I presume this is a company formed within the province of Manitoba and that shareholders are throughout the province of Manitoba or are they throughout the country generally?


John Mercer Reid: This is a publicly held company, Mr. Speaker, and I understand the shareholders are concentrated in the province of Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Transport and Communications.
John Mercer Reid: May we call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that we call it six o'clock or that we go on with other business?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we believe the legislation now before the House falls far short of what the country expected and what this Parliament expected as a means of dealing with a serious and growing problem. We believe the government of Canada has already set the necessary constitutional precedents involved in the use of the Fisheries Act, so the constitutional complexity of effectively dealing with pollution is no longer relevant. I believe the Fisheries Act clearly establishes the precedent that the federal government does in fact have a well-defined responsibility in this area, covering the entire country. What concerns me is that this bill would make the application of the government's anti-pollution policy more complicated throughout the whole area inasmuch as it envisages the setting up of ten separate

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
standards applicable to pollution throughout the country. It does not attack the problem of pollution in its entirety.
Reference has been made to the serious oil pollution threat not only to contiguous waters but to all our navigable waters, especially major waters such as the St. Lawrence River. In addition, we must consider the serious effect of pollution from an ecological point of view. At this point I would refer briefly to a paper prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service by Professor Richard E. Warner of Memorial University in which specific recommendations are made for coping with the serious threat of oil pollution. One of the serious shortcomings of this bill is that it contains no reference to the effect of oil pollution on the ecological balance of nature. The paper to which I have referred calls for the carrying out of a national survey to identify si.es of special importance preparatory to the development of special protection programs. The criteria suggested for the evaluation of these sites are as follows:
1.	Their ecological significance to wild life and/or to man.
2.	Their aesthetic, recreational and scenic values.
3.	The presence of highly susceptible life forms, for example, Atlantic sea birds and inshore water fowl.
4.	The presence of rare or endangered species.
5.	The uniqueness of the area as representative of Canadian habitats.
The paper goes on to suggest that the survey should be linked with present Canadian activities in the international biological program and with whatever activities Canada is carrying out in an effort to obtain international agreement. I believe this is an important recommendation not only because of the threat pollution poses to man himself but because of the fact that many of our wildlife species are threatened with extinction.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We feel that the legislation should incorporate the government's total approach to this problem. All that this bill provides is some pussyfooting around the problem, and this notwithstanding the very eloquent speech of the minister in introducing the bill on second reading.
I am sorry that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), who while the minister was ill carried the message of the bill across
[Mr. McGrath.J
Canada and met representatives of the provincial governments, has not participated in this debate. Indeed, I am sorry he is not in the chamber, because I am sure that he would be able to confirm what in fact many of us believe to be true, namely, that there are no standards applied across the country in the matter of pollution. Each province will approach the problem of pollution in its own way, as best suits its own interests.
I suggest that is not the way to approach the problem of pollution. Pollution is a national problem and requires a totally national, federal approach. It has already been established that the federal government has constitutional authority to deal with pollution, and in fact has exercised this authority under the Fisheries Act.
The picture of pollution is a total one. There is pollution of our water by phosphates, industrial and human waste; there is air pollution by industry, and by probably the biggest polluter of the atmosphere of all, the automobile. We have environmental pollution, such as that posed by the introduction of the non-returnable bottle which is now littering the countryside. We have pollution of our contiguous waters by oil and industrial waste. We have the increasing threat that is posed by the advent of the exploitation of oil resources on both the east and west coasts of Canada and by the opening up of the Arctic oil storehouse, Alaska, and the transportation of its oil through the Northwest Passage; and lastly, we have pollution of the high seas. You cannot isolate one source of pollution from the others, and in order to make a total approach to the pollution threat all these factors must be taken into consideration.
The bill now before the House is a very sad attempt to meet the challenge presented. It is a very sad attempt to live up to the expectations of Canadians who are very concerned about the threat of pollution. They are concerned not only with the destruction of this natural environment but, indeed, the threat to their very survival. We in North America are reaching the stage where pure water, like pure air, is practically as rare as some of our wildlife species that are threatened with extinction.
We believe very strongly that the government should reconsider this bill with a view to making pollution an offence in Canada as a whole, not just in the designated water management areas which this legislation will set up if agreement can be reached with the provinces. I believe water quality standards
January IS. 1970

for the whole country should be defined and enforced. We are concerned that none are set out in the bill, with the exception of the standards to be applied in the water management areas.
This legislation should spell out the federal government's jurisdiction in water policy control. The federal government should be prepared to enforce this jurisdiction, as it has already as evidenced by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and the agreements that we are negotiating to try to obtain some meaningful international control of pollution of the high seas.
Further, we believe that the bill should be strengthened by co-ordinating all federal water efforts in some manner, and we suggest there be a more precise definition of how the total federal approach to the problem can be co-ordinated. In addition, the bill should spell out the terms of federal financial support. We in Parliament should be told exactly what will be the cost-sharing formula. We also believe the bill should indicate that where new local water boards are necessary, a lot of the bureaucratic red tape in connection therewith should be removed. We believe that in this way the bill could be strengthened and made much more meaningful and effective than it is in its present form.
I feel very strongly that before the government concludes the legislative passage of this bill it should convene a national conference among representatives of provincial governments, the Northwest Territories, the Canadian Wildlife Service and other similar organizations, and scientists from our universities and research centres across Canada who are continually preoccupied with the grave problem of pollution.
Surely it would be logical to expect that from such a meeting of minds and expression of opinion as to how to deal with the problem there would evolve, first of all, a recognition of the federal government's responsibility meaningfully to legislate for pollution control for the entire country; and second that the provincial governments for their part would, as they have in many other cases, be prepared to yield whatever jurisdiction they feel they may have. Only in this way do we feel that the government will be able to bring in meaningful legislation which would be able to cope in the coming decade with this new challenge of pollution which poses a threat not only to our environment but to the environment of the entire world.
Water Resources
If, in fact, the government is sincere in its intentions, this bill is a misrepresentation of those intentions. We strongly believe that the minister should reconsider the bill and should be prepared to do so when it gets to the committee. The minister should be prepared to call witnesses from across Canada, such as learned scientists, scholars and wildlife experts, who would present papers to the committee. The government, as I say, for its part should be prepared to enter into discussions with these groups before finally concluding the legislative passage of the bill. In its present form this bill, in my submission, is not only a disappointment to this House, but will prove to be a disappointment to the entire country.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that even the issue of pollution must be converted into a political football by some of the opponents of this government. If ever an issue existed which confronts Canadians it is the issue of pollution, which should be met on a non-partisan basis. Beyond that, we must not only meet it nationally on a non-partisan basis but we have reached the point in our human existence on planet earth where we have to meet it on a non-political, non-ideological and international basis.
The statement is made that there has been federal failure, yet members of this government have explored the situation and initiated action designed to overcome some of the very real constitutional problems inherent in the pollution problem. I look back on the years when our friends to the left had the responsibility of governing this country and call to mind all the excuses that were cited for their inability to fight pollution in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Two wrongs don't make a right.


Raymond J. Perrault: The hon. member admits there was something wrong with the preceding government and many Canadians thought the same way. One of the reasons this government was elected to power was that the Canadian people were concerned about the do-nothing, lack-lustre policy with respect to pollution which was a feature of that preceding regime. The last thing I want to do is become political tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 15, 1970
Water Resources


Raymond J. Perrault: The important measure
before us reflects the concern of Canadians of all parties. We are all concerned about it, because we are all affected by it. It does not matter whether we vote Liberal, Conservative or NDP, we are all concerned with the quality of our environment and the pollution of that environment in recent years. We are concerned with the pollution of air, water and soil because this costs Canadians an estimated $1,175 billion per year, or $72 per capita. About $22 per year per capita is attributable, we are assured by experts, to water pollution; yet there are people parading around this country, some occupying responsible positions, who say the smell of pollution is the smell of money. That is the old theme song. In terms of the cost to Canada today, we are all losers even on the economic side, let alone the sociological and health side.
When our environment is threatened by industrial wastes, sewage, chemicals or by any other agent, we know we are on a collision course with disaster unless we act now to guard our heritage of natural resources. Increasingly the problem of pollution threatens to render this planet uninhabitable. Some regard this kind of statement as scientific fiction-you meet these people every day in Canada-and a vast overstatement of the fact. They say the "in" thing now is to talk about pollution; everybody is talking about it and you might as well join the parade, but don't believe what you hear, Charlie! In their hearts they still regard the smell and sight of pollution as one of the inevitable byproducts of industrial progress; they still see in Canada a land with limitless possibilities for further damage to the environment without any measurable harm being done.
The fact is that man's technical ability to create and destroy, combined with a rapid increase in world population, has been associated with alterations in the environment which are not only unpleasant and harmful to health, but which may be altering, quite irreversibly, man's natural habitat. It is no longer true to say that the effect of mankind's activities on his environment are minimal.
The Canada Water Act was attacked here tonight and earlier during the debate as being insufficient and lacking the power to stop pollution in Canada. I do not think anyone on the government side suggests for a moment that this legislation is an end. We say it is a beginning; it is one step in the national effort to arrest this trend before it is too late.

We are blessed with the largest freshwater supply in the world, and the Canada Water Act expresses Canada's determination to protect that water. The days of unlimited exploitation are over: that is the message of this bill. We are seeing the beginning of a cooperative attack, with the provinces, against pollution and a joint program for comprehensive water resource development based upon the most modern management methods available.
The Canadian Water Act reflects-this was touched upon by the previous speaker-the limitations of confederation under the BNA Act. Some have been critical of the federal government for failing to end pollution a long time ago. We all know the BNA Act gives the provinces jurisdiction over water resources; the federal government's powers have been limited. Despite this fact, previous governments have enacted legislation dealing with water resources, fisheries, pollution of the sea by oil, navigable waters and harbours, protecting waterfowl from oil and other harmful wastes. This is hardly the record of a party not concerned about the problem.
The Boundary Waters Treaty signed in 1909 provided for the establishment of the International Joint Commission, which apportions control of the Great Lakes between the United States and Canada. The commission has recommended action to compel industries and municipalities to treat their waste before dumping it into the lakes and river basins.
A major step foward is to be found in this measure, that of greatly broadening the scope of federal action in conservation and pollution control. This measure can work to the maximum benefit of Canadians only if cooperation is forthcoming from other levels of government. There is no reason to suppose that most of the provinces and municipalities are not thoroughly alarmed about the problem of pollution. Unfortunately, because of the lack of a clear definition of lines of responsibility, pollution has been the pathetic orphan of Canada, shuttled from one jurisdiction to another.
The effort of the federal government at this time should not be condemned but should be encouraged as a step in the right direction. With the full knowledge that a great many people have said much about pollution in recent months, and said it very well-many important things have been said-I suggest that the Canada Water Act and similar measures are vital in the context of worldwide efforts to protect this planet.
January 15, 1970

Water Resources
Many issues were discussed at the recent session of the United Nations in New York. Almost all the debates were featured by disagreements in respect of different ideologies. This is characteristic of debates at the United Nations and in this Parliament, and there is nothing unhealthy about it. Significantly, on perhaps one of the rare occasions in the history of an international assembly of nations- capitalists, communists, yellow, white, black and brown races-all were thoroughly aware of the threat which hangs over the world. There are few illusions left about the future of mankind unless we protect the environment. The feeling of all nations is that during the generation of which we are a part, planet earth could be converted into a tragic graveyard unless we get together on the problem of pollution.
We may succeed in solving the Middle East crisis and the hundreds of disputes, large and small, which threaten nuclear war; but beyond that lies the very challenge of survival. I should like to quote to members of the House part of a report which was prepared by world scientists and made available through the Secretary General's office at the last session of the United Nations. This is the kind of report which has seriously disturbed not only the United States, Canada and South America, but Soviet Russia, South Africa and all black and white nations throughout the world. In this work entitled "Problems of the Human Environment" the Secretary General-and he is not given to overstatement- said this:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
-for the first time in the history of mankind, there is arising a crisis of world-wide proportions involving developed and developing countries alike, the crisis of the human environment.
He continued:
It is becoming apparent that if current trends continue, the future of life on earth could he endangered. It is urgent, therefore, to focus world attention on those problems which threaten humanity in an environment that permits the realization of the highest human aspirations, and on the action necessary to deal with them.
He then said:
The need to provide food, water, minerals, fuel and other necessities for such increasing numbers of people will place pressures upon virtually all areas of the earth and demand the most careful planning and management of natural resources. No nation can any longer be isolated from these global pressures. It has become clear that we all live in one biosphere within which space and resources, though vast, are limited.
Some people may say these are just words and that the Secretary General himself is given to overstatement. But let us not exclude scientific evidence about the possibility of the world running out of oxygen, and the possibility that in 40 years' time we may not be able to breathe. I quote directly from the United Nations report:
Some agricultural chemicals have side effects on the environment that we are now only beginning to comprehend. Thus, the maintenance of both atmospheric oxygen and the productivity of marine environments depends upon photosynthesis by marine plants, mostly the floating algae of microscopic size. Minute amounts of such pesticides as DDT have been found to inhibit photosynthesis in these algae by 75 per cent.
These are the algae which produce the oxygen for the people of the world to breathe. The report continues:
Nevertheless, we have dumped an estimated billion pounds of DDT into our environment and are adding an estimated 100 million pounds per year.
This DDT has found its way into the waters of the earth, some of it from Canadian rivers which drain into the oceans.
The total world production of pesticides is estimated at over 1,300 million pounds annually. The United States of America alone exports over 400 million pounds per year.
Based on the scientific evidence produced by scientists, if anything, the danger to our environment from pollution has been understated. This is relevant to what my friend from Newfoundland said about air pollution. The scientists of the United Nations tabled this evidence during the discussions of the General Assembly at the 23rd session. I read from the report at page 5:
-the reliance of modern technology upon the combustion of fossil fuels has brought a 10 per cent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past century. With increased rates of combustion, this could rise to 25 per cent by the year 2000 A.D. The consequence of such an increase upon world weather and climate are uncertain, but could eventually be catastrophic.
This report was not prepared by the National Liberal Federation, by the Conservative Party or by any other party; it was produced by the scientists of the world who in the gravest possible terms say that we are in danger of ending life in the biosphere unless we end pollution.
The increased use of modern technology has brought major increases in the amount of waste products which serve as environmental pollutants. It has been stated that in the United States of America alone, this amounts each year to 142 million tons of smoke and noxious fumes, 7 million automobiles, 20 million tons of paper, 48,000 million

January 15. 1970
Water Resources
cans, 26,000 million bottles and jars, 3,000 million tons of waste rock and mill tailings and 50 trillion gallons of hot water along with a variety of other waste products. Other industrialized nations make their comparable contributions of debris and toxic materials.
I give the undertaking tonight that I will try to obtain copies of this report for members of all parties in the House who wish to have a copy, because this matter goes far beyond party lines. We talk about the deaths in Viet Nam. Today in North America more people are dying from emphysema, caused by air pollution and cigarette smoking, than are killed in Viet Nam each year. Some may say that these scientists are nothing but alarmists. Those who say that have not taken into account the fact that there are dangerous levels of nuclear radiation which, depending upon the type of radioactive material in the radiation will be in the earth's biosphere for the next 1,000 years.
The report I have quoted was tabled in the United States. Representatives of all parties were there and they will know of it. Fifteen of the world's leading scientists, including Canadian and Soviet scientists, produced absolute evidence that nuclear radiation causes carcinogenesis in man, genetic defects and birth defects. These have been among some of the early, clearly identifiable byproducts of the nuclear age. Through the statistics being made available from all over the world we now know that nuclear pollution, let alone everything else, is a terrible threat.
The clean water act, in its own modest way, does not claim to solve these problems. It does not say it will end pollution in Canada. Solving this problem clearly calls for co-operation by municipalities and provincial governments. We cannot be successful unless there is this kind of co-operation. But the clean water act and counterpart measures adopted by other nations of the world-Britain, Soviet Russia and the Scandinavian countries-can do more than just confer national benefits upon the citizens of these countries. Measures such as this are for all mankind. These are measures which may serve to preserve a healthy biosphere for generations to come.
Water from Canada which flows to the sea burdened with pollution and harmful waste containing everything from DDT to human effluent, industrial pollutants and nuclear pollutants, contribute to the death of the earth just as surely as clean water from Canada gives hope for a new and better earth in the

future. Pollution control measures in Ontario and British Columbia confer a benefit on those provinces. But beyond that a benefit is conferred upon mankind. A clean water program and a clear air program will cost money, but it is a price we must all pay.
A short time ago 26,000 questionnaires were sent to every home in my constituency. The replies overwhelmingly called for tough pollution control measures. The people are fed up with raw sewage being dumped into the sea, the belching smoke of oil refineries in their back yards and the ominous chemical wastes from industries and homes which in one instance at least killed all plant growth in an area of Burnaby. The growth of algae is killing beautiful lakes in British Columbia.
I think we all realize that as elected members we must establish the basic laws and guidelines under which we want to operate in Canada. We must have the courage to bring in more bills like the clean water bill, as imperfect as they may be.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The tidings we must bear to the people and the industries of Canada are that pollution control will cost money but the end benefits will confer untold blessings on all of us.
Some industries in this country are acting as good corporate citizens; other industries belch forth noxious fumes and dump industrial pollutants into the water, oblivious of the harm they are doing. They are bad corporate citizens and have to be made to clean up or close down. We cannot afford to destroy the environment. Our health is in danger; upper respiratory infections are on the increase from coast to coast. The photochemical reactions which take place are a deadlier killer than war. Incinerators, heating and process furnaces, automobiles, buses and trucks-they are not directly relevant to the bill but I refer to them because they were first touched upon by the preceding speaker-all constitute problems with which we have to cope.
In the short run, some products that we buy may cost more, and more public funds may be required. In saying this, I subscribe to the growing view that the cost of dumping industrial waste in the water should be placed on the people who are responsible for it. Is this unfair? A prominent leader in public life in North America said;
But this is a proper cost because there are a lot of alternatives to dumping waste in the water ... These alternatives range right up to relocating the plant.
January 15, 1970

There must be heavy penalties imposed on those who dump waste in natural waterways. Pollution must be traced to its source. We must tax until it costs more to pollute than it does to clean up. Pollution can be controlled at levels consistent with the greatest good of the community. If water quality is lowered by an industry, that industry must pay for the deterioration.
Let us all hope this measure will be but the beginning of a whole range of enactments which, as was said by my friend in the official opposition a few minutes ago, will place Canada in the forefront of those nations determined to protect and to preserve the biosphere of this planet. Beyond the borders of this country there must be international punishment for pollution of the environment. We need international machinery that would be empowered to propose, prepare and execute common, co-operative plans of action.
When the tanker Manhattan came into dry dock in New York-and I was there-people were shocked to find gaping holes in the hull. They said, "Isn't that interesting. That ice is really hard". What if the Manhattan's tanks had been loaded with oil instead of sea water, and the oil had seeped into our Arctic seas? There has to be punishment for the violation of international principles in respect of pollution control, and these must be established on the international level. The time to do so is now, not some time in the future when a tanker like the Manhattan will have ruined the ecology of some sections of our Canadian coast.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, we invite the international community to support our initiative for a new concept, an international legal regime designed to ensure to human beings the right to live in a wholesome environment. This is just one step in the government's program to battle pollution in all its forms in the face of difficult constitutional obstacles.
The record of the government has been clear. In essence, we have established a program of support for conservation in its* broadest sense-a shift in purely economic thought to include consideration of social capital and profit. That is an enlightened attitude. We have established a program of support for research and development to fight pollution and to emphasize environmental conservation. That is an enlightened attitude. Our aim is the integration of pollution-control planning with regional, river basin and district planning and land, water and air conservation and
Water Resources
development, use and management at all regional levels from local to provincial to international and global. This is an enlightened attitude.
This bill is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction and deserves the wholehearted support of all members of this House, regardless of party.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I should like to say that I think it is like a bulldog without any teeth. It pretends to be an effective answer to water pollution, but it will not impress either industry or the provincial authorities. Most important of all, it will not meet adequately the challenge of rapidly accelerating pollution.
It is appalling to me that this government should have hesitated so long before acting, and once having decided to act has produced only this one, anaemic piece of legislation. It will be a tragedy if the bill is passed in its present form because it will lull the public and the executive into lethargy and the belief that an adequate pollution measure has been passed.
Surely, it is not necessary at this stage in our national development to have to demonstrate the need for control of pollution. Surely, even this government is conscious of the urgency of solving this problem. For months now various ministers have been promising quick action to control existing pollution and to prevent future pollution. They trumpeted their determination to wage all-out war on pollution of our land, air and water to whoever would listen. What have they produced? They have produced a bill that attacks only one part of the complex, over-all problem and attacks it half-heartedly. This is merely shadow-boxing. As I described the bill before, it is like a bulldog with rubber teeth, no bite, and not even much of a growl.
The imperative nature of the fight against pollution has been brought home to all of us in recent months in numberless examples of the pollution of every facet of our environment. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), documented many of these. Those who read in the recent issue of the National Geographic magazine the struggle for the conservation of Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union against the industrialists and their pulp mills, will find that situation duplicated many times on this continent. This problem exists in many countries. The latest, of course, was the discovery

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
of mercury in remote lakes and streams in Manitoba, an area which up to that time most Canadians thought to be beyond taint.
What has the government done while faced, as it is, with such an urgent challenge? It has produced a bill that utilizes none of the powers at the exclusive disposal of the federal authorities; a bill which, to be effective at all, requires the full consent and co-operation of the provinces. This government has always been very exact and meticulous about its exertion of power and financial assistance in the area of personal health care services. Why are they not so aggressive and positive in meeting a social problem which I believe to be of far greater proportions and of even greater urgency?
As far as I can see, this bill simply provides that certain action may be taken in some restricted areas, and only after agreement is secured from a province to act jointly. Its provisions apply only to a river basin for which a joint federal-provincial water control board has been established. Aside from the fact that the establishment of such a board will be a long and cumbersome process, the bill fails to provide for the essential financing of the work of the board once it has been established. I presume the intent is that the province or the community affected, or both, will be asked to foot the bill. I can well imagine the speed and effectiveness of any action when three levels of government are left to haggle over the bill.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This bill only permits federal action by agreement with the province. There is no provision for the federal authority to act of its own volition. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the bill that will permit the federal government to provide the aggressive leadership and set the pattern for comprehensive, anti-pollution action that this critical challenge demands. Above all, the bill fails to stipulate any financial backing for action that might be contemplated under its provisions.
One of the greatest gaps in the bill is its failure to prescribe any standards of water purity or any standards of control and prevention methods. There is no national code; there is no national goal. The ideal of pollution-free waters is not even hinted at in this shockingly defective piece of legislative drafting. Reading the bill leaves me with the distinct impression that the federal government has deliberately shirked its responsibilities to

protect Canada's natural resources and environment, and the health and well-being of her people. This bill is a legislative mirage; it appears to tackle the problem but in reality avoids it. The ball has been successfully tossed back into the lap of the provinces.
There is clear authority in the provisions of the British North America Act for federal leadership and action in the area of a national anti-pollution battle. Within its constitutional jurisdiction the federal government controls vast areas of land, water and air, certainly sufficient for a determined federal government to establish anti-pollution procedures, standards of purity, a pattern of public behaviour hostile to pollution, and a clear example to be followed by other governments.
The federal government does not have to wait upon the provinces in starting the fight against pollution. It has more than ample scope to go it alone if necessary. So far it has failed dismally to give a lead or inspire action. It could make a good start by coordinating anti-pollution action in all federal jurisdictions, departments, agencies, and under all federal statutes. Pollution is a national problem requiring national leadership and national co-ordination.
The bill permits the federal government to act only in the restricted area of water pollution control and to act alone, free of provincial agreement, only in the very restricted area of inter-jurisdictional waters. This, I presume, means such waters as the Ottawa River, which constitutes a provincial boundary. Even here, stinking as it does under the very noses of Parliament, the Ottawa River has not been tackled by the federal authority. The bill provides only an endless array of federal-provincial commissions, boards and other agencies, each with its own program tailored to the needs of the locality in which it may be situated, and each with its own standards and procedures.
An attempt has been made to give the bulldog the illusion of teeth by providing for a penalty of $5,000 a day for committing the offence of pollution. But where are the standards set out, the violation of which would constitute an offence punishable by a fine of $5,000? What, indeed, is water pollution according to this bill? Under the provisions of the bill it is conceivable that an industry discharging effluent into a body of water common to two or more provinces could be guilty of pollution in one and not guilty in the other. There is no national standard. I
January 15, 1970

wonder what is the intent behind this suggested fine of $5,000. Is it a deterrent, or is it a punitive measure? Has the accumulation of such fines been designated for financing antipollution work, or will the money simply go into the general fund of a province?
I am of the opinion that the bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to give it a national purpose and some hope of being an effective instrument. As it stands, it will do very little in only a small part of a very large, very complex and very urgent problem that affects all Canadians and, indeed, the whole future of the Canadian people.
This bill should be only one of a series of bills designed to wage determined and vigorous war on the pollution of our natural environment. Environmental control is not something that can be divided and sub-divided between elements of our environment and between various governmental jurisdictions. The enemy is one, and must be fought as one by all Canadians.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is the constitutional and moral duty of the government of Canada to prepare, lead and sustain the fight. In my opinion, this bill is hopelessly inadequate. What provisions it has are weak and full of future pitfalls. It is notable chiefly for what it does not contain. Let us kill it and then work together to prepare a proper measure that we will find useful in the coming years.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, we are now studying Bill C-144 entitled: "An Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources."
As far as this bill is concerned, I have in hand a statement made by Mr. Richard Nelson, a well-known citizen of Hull, urging us to look seriously into this problem. At the very beginning of my remarks, I should like to quote his statement to show you that pollution reaches into every corner in Canada, and even right here in the Canadian capital area. That statement appeared in the July 4, 1969 issue of Le Droit, and I quote:
And as if to back up our scientists, two sad or downright tragic pieces of news were reported in the newspapers during the ensuing days: the first one, the poisoning of the Rhine waters over a distance of 150 miles, All aquatic wildlife actually perished because of damage caused by an insecticide. Two countries, Germany and Holland, had to resort to their water reserves because of the
Water Resources
potential effects of water pollution on humans. For her part Holland considered the event a national disaster.
The other no less disturbing fact is the pollution of the waters of the Rideau River. For the past week, according to Dr. Nelson, it has been impossible to use the beaches because of slime. Would-be bathers would have come out black with oil. And the worst of it all is that the source of this evil is not known, "at least officially". For the city of Ottawa, this is a major disaster, unthinkable in a region that is not industry-saturated and where lakes and mountains are a mere bicycle ride away. The Ottawa, into which the Rideau flows, is in no better condition. Polluants discharged into it also spoil the waters all the way to Lake St. Louis in Montreal. Where, then, is that pure water our forefathers drank?
Mr. Speaker, I could also add that in this region of Levis and Quebec City, the St. Lawrence river, where small fishermen used to increase their revenue by fishing, is so polluted, in particular because of oil waste dumped in it by ships, that fishing is no more possible, even at Riviere-du-Loup. Fishermen are therefore obliged to forget about this revenue which allowed them to make ends meet.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is true that most governments have fairly well succeeded in their fight against water pollution. The federal government itself can say that it has passed four different pieces of legislation in this respect, namely the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, and the Criminal Code.
In Newfoundland, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is the prime responsible for the control of water pollution under a section of the health and welfare act.
The Nova Scotia water act has been amended so as to give the government the power to approve the building of water and sewer systems. On the basis of what had been done in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia has created a water administration whose jurisdiction includes all water bodies in the province.
As for Prince Edward Island, no special step has been taken against water pollution.
The Ontario Water Ressources Commission, which is responsible for control and regulation of water pollution by industries and municipalities, must approve all sewer and water installations.
Since its inception in 1957, the Commission has assisted more than 200 municipalities in the construction of sewage treatment plants.
The Provincial Hygiene Control Board, established as far back as 1935, is responsible for the implementation of water anti-pollu-

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
tion measures in Manitoba. The standards are spelled out in the Water Pollution Prevention Act enacted in 1954.
In Saskatchewan, the ministers of Health and of Natural Resources are responsible for control of water pollution. They must approve the construction of sewage treatment plants and the disposal of industrial wastes.
The Minister of Health in Alberta has the necessary authority to compel municipalities to instal sewage plants.
In British Columbia, under the anti-pollution legislation, a five-member committee was created to approve the discharge of sewage water into the Columbia and Fraser Rivers basins as well as on the East coast of Vancouver Island.
In the province of Quebec, the Quebec Water Board is being reorganized with a view to give it full authority in matters of surface and underground waters. Under the new legislation, municipalities may allow private companies to build and operate sewage treatment plants.
The Quebec Water Technology Association has been studying for several years the various aspects of the water question in the province.
According to the studies which have been conducted, it does not follow that it is compulsory nor even desirable for the federal government to take upon itself the responsibility of the whole water problem but that it should take a strong interest in all the aspects of the problem with regard to the whole country.
In my opinion, the water problem may be divided into three parts:
(A)	Supply of municipal and industrial waters.
In this regard, it is recognized that provincial jurisdictions have been adjusted and that they are generally accepted in Canada.
(B)	We should consider waste treatment.
It is a relatively new problem the solution
of which rests mainly on the collective will to take the necessary action.
The total cost of waste treatment remains essentially the same, whether the means to do so are provided by federal, provincial or municipal governments and private industry.
From this point of view, the federal Government can and must contribute financially to eliminate certain regional disparities and provide the required incentives.
Water as a basic environmental element.

I feel that the quality of the environment must go with the way of life of all Canadians. There may be some different concepts from one province to another. However, a general concept of the minimum requirements is necessary and the federal government can and must play a constructive role in channelling objectives.
With regard to all these aspects of the management of water resources, each government level must take its own responsibilities within the framework of Canada's political institutions, and that in a spirit of co-ordination and co-operation.
Any federal initiative or action liable to interfere with the provincial jurisdictions would have effects contrary to those which are sought. Furthermore, any more by Quebec to refuse federal co-operation would also indicate short-sightedness and regression.
Bill C-144 clearly shows the federal government's intention to establish new administrative methods of water management in cooperation with the Canadian provinces. I fear, however, that the measures suggested go beyond the legislator's intent. From our experience with the evolution of administrative methods with regard to water, we are led to believe that in practice the rigid enforcement of this act may result in the complete control of water by the federal government and in the consequent lapse of the provincial powers.
Besides, the Quebec Water Association, comprising the titular heads of state Health Engineering Services in the U.S., has clearly expressed its disapproval of the American government's intention to replace the states' jurisdictions in the fields of supervision and inspection. Its point of view is shared by most experts in the field of water management and sanitation on the North American continent.
The action taken by the federal government ought, on the one side, to be very energetic in the fields where it holds an individual role and, on the other side, to be complementary only in the fields pertaining by tradition to the provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, we strongly oppose the establishment of Crown agencies to operate in mixed federal-provincial undertakings in the fields of services operation or water quality management. We cannot see any benefit deriving from direct or indirect participation of the federal government or its representatives in these fields.
January 15, 1970

Incidentally, we once opposed a project to set up provincial agencies in which the state would have usurped the role of private enterprise, because we of the Ralliement Creditiste are and will always remain in favor of private enterprise in the field of planning as well as implementation.
However, the interest of the provinces is to use all financial and technical assistance the federal government is willing to grant them. In our opinion, initiatives and planning should come from the provinces. On the other hand, the federal government can and must act as-catalyser of opinions in promoting the direction of national objectives and in adopting measures which will create a collective urge towards action and eliminate regional disparity.
For this purpose we suggest that federal government action at first be concentrated on research, information, technology and public education. There must be co-ordination in research and information. Canadians should be made to realize in a rational way the problem of water and environment.
Secondly, minimum standards should be set up concerning quality of water and sewage in cooperation with the provinces. Progress has already been made by proposing Canadian standards. All that remains is to improve these standards and incorporate them into our legislation.
Thirdly, an inventory of our Canadian water resources should be made in cooperation with the provinces because every province is interested in such an inventory, yet without overlooking the overall viewpoint.
Fourthly, mechanisms for federal financial participation should be set up on the basis of long term financial liabilities. In other words, we suggest that a cost study be undertaken for each province and for Canada as a whole. The distribution of costs among levels of government and the mass of consumers should be established on the basis of those estimates and within the framework of a financial program tailored to the estimates. Every effort should be made in order to devise fairer and more reasonable financing methods. At the present time, municipalities and industries are faced with a financing problem which impairs the implementation of the necessary programs. We think the federal government can give without delay the required financial assistance.
Finally, I feel that setting up a Canadian water commission to plan the overall, long
Water Resources
term management of water in Canada is a must. We are convinced that the federal government must assume its role in the field of water management. Its presence in that field must generate more co-operation than friction, more efficiency than administrative complications, and stimulate rather than impede present means of action.
Finally, and I feel this is one of the most important points, I suggest that the Bank of Canada should grant low-interest loans to municipalities and cities to enable them to deal with those problems themselves. If low interest rates can help foreign countries, namely developing countries, it seems to me there is all the more reason for the Bank of Canada to be allowed to use them in the case of the municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, some Canadian citizens want to help solve the problem of water pollution. They see the problem but, led as men are today by filthy lucre, they will die of poisoning tomorrow, victims of their own cupidity, unless they use the methods we advocate.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale). I mean, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and I have occasionally been mistaken for each other, so I can understand Your Honour's temporary confusion in the matter.


Gérard Pelletier: You can't play the trumpet!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I appreciate the remark of the minister in that regard. A great many remarks have been made on this bill this afternoon and this evening, and I have no desire to be repetitious. There is one thing on which we are all quite clear. I am quite sure every member of this House, regardless of which side he or she sits on, is very anxious to make sure that not only the water, but the air, soil and other elements in our country are free of pollution as much as possible in years to come.
I do not think there is any disagreement as to the objectives in this matter. The only question is how best to go about achieving them. As has already been indicated by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and others, it is the feeling of this party that the legislation presented to this

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
House by the government is quite inadequate to accomplish the objectives and purposes that are intended.
Ordinarily, I do not take time to reply to members who have spoken, but earlier this evening the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) made some of his customary non-political observations. I sincerely feel that some of the observations he made should not be left completely unanswered inasmuch as he referred to the previous Conservative government with which some of us were associated. The hon. member said nothing whatsoever had been done at that time with regard to pollution control. A great many things were done, including granting loans to municipalities for sewage disposal.
There is one matter I feel should be brought to the attention of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour and other hon. members who were not in the House at the time. I refer to what the government of the day did at the United Nations in connection with worldwide pollution. I believe we were the first government in the world to take steps at the United Nations to control pollution. In the early sixties, as I am sure many here will recall, there was a great fear throughout the world about fall-out from nuclear testing. All of us remember movies like "On the Beach," and the general apprehension throughout the world about what would happen because of the constant testing of bombs by the major powers, the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France. There was great concern about what would happen to nuclear fall-out. People asked: Where does it go? Does it fall uniformly around the world? What will happen to the soil, air, basic foodstuffs and the like? We were very concerned about this problem.
At that time I had the honour of looking after our country's affairs at the United Nations. We put forth a resolution at that time requesting the United Nations to insist that all member nations take samples of soil, water, air and basic foodstuffs for analysis so that the effects would be known throughout the world. There was a great deal of opposition to our resolution. The Soviet Union objected to it. As a matter of fact, even our good friends to the south, the United States, were not very enthusiastic about it. Many other countries were enthusiastic. We received great support after long and prolonged negotiations and we finally succeeded in obtaining unanimous passage of the resolution 
at the United Nations. I believe this fact should be remembered.
At that time the then Leader of the Opposition, who later became Prime Minister, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, was very enthusiastic and supported our project. I think it had the support of all Canadians at that time. I mention that in passing because I do not think it is fair to say that the former Conservative government did nothing with regard to pollution. I think it took a major step at that time.
I now wish to deal with the details of this bill. It is always interesting to look at legislation that is placed before Parliament to see what is really intended to be done. As is often said, Mr. Speaker, you can lose sight of the forest when looking at the individual trees. It is necessary to take a good look at legislation such as this to see what is expected.
This measure was vigorously promoted and received much publicity. Nice green pamphlets were sent out stating what was to be done. The measure received all the publicity available from the government's publicity resources. Naturally, we expected a great deal would be accomplished. There were some misgivings. Many of us found that very little action was proposed. Other of my colleagues have already pointed out many of the shortcomings of the legislation and the reasons we feel the government should withdraw this bill, reconsider it and present to Parliament a bill that has some teeth in it, not one that has all the appearances of a propaganda effort.
One of the implications inherent in this legislation is that in matters of pollution the government does not have jurisdiction, and therefore it has to make agreements with the provinces with regard to water. This is getting into the legalistic aspects of our constitution. I am rather surprised the government would present this point of view. All that is necessary is to look at the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to see that the government has already assumed complete jurisdiction in all sorts of matters which, from a de facto point of view, affect pollution.
In the first session of this Parliament legislation was presented with respect to amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. At that time I had a responsibility on behalf of my party to look after these matters. I remember the highly detailed discussions that went on in committee. I have the committee reports in front of me, but I will
January 15, 1970

not take up the time of the House to refer to them; they are readily available.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I point out that the federal government has absolute jurisdiction over any kind of navigable water-"navigable", apparently, being defined as anything upon which one can float a canoe-and with respect to any matter affecting those waters. One of the amendments imposed severe penalties upon people putting sawdust and other pollutants into the water. Then again, the Canada Shipping Act provides for the imposition of penalties in respect of those who allow oil to get into the waters.
The excuse used by the law officers has always been that the presence of oil, sawdust, and so on, in the water might affect its navigability.
The Canada Shipping Act covers the ships which carry the oil, so for all effective purposes the federal government has already assumed control with respect to the direct aspects of pollution in all the waters of Canada. This being so, I completely fail to see why the government, in bringing forward this legislation, did not take bold steps to take the lead in presenting strong legislation which would put teeth into the fight against pollution.
If anyone wants to challenge the federal jurisdiction, let them do so in the courts. It may well be that one or two provincial institutions will do so. But let them try it. The federal government should take the lead. It has every right to do so. If there are jurisdictional disputes, let the courts settle them. If any provincial government sees fit to take responsibility for objecting to federal control of pollution, let it do so. The government had a good chance to take a lead, but it has completely missed this splendid opportunity to set an example by leading the attack against pollution. Everybody in Canada wants to see this problem solved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Members of the opposition are always suspected of looking for the worst possible motives on the part of the government. Their fears are not always justified, but one cannot help coming to the conclusion that this piece of legislation is designed largely for propaganda purposes; that it is intended mainly to escape responsibility in this field, particularly in relation to the cost of pollution
Water Resources
control. This, when one gets down to dollars and cents, is what counts. The present government, not only in this legislation but in other measures, has done everything it can to avoid responsibility for paying anything, and to throw the burden on the provinces who simply do not have the financial capacity to bear it.
Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that this is a broad charge and ask whether I can substantiate it. There is legislation on the statute books which provides for payment by the federal government of 37J per cent of the cost of water conservation projects. This has been of particular importance in provinces such as Ontario. I refer, of course, to the Upper Thames Conservation Authority, the Grand River Conservation Authority and others. These projects have been financed jointly by the federal government and the provincial governments, the federal government paying 37J per cent, the provincial governments 374 per cent and the municipalities 25 per cent. Great benefit has resulted from the multi-purpose projects which have been developed for flood control, conservation, recreation and the like. They have been highly successful all over Ontario.
When this legislation passes, the federal government will no longer be obliged to pay 374 per cent of the cost of these projects. There is nothing to say the federal government could not pay anything; I suppose it could pay something toward this type of project, if it chooses. But there is nothing to insist that it do so. The legislation is silent in this respect. Again, it is a case of sloughing off federal responsibility on to the provinces while trying to gain propaganda kudos without putting the money where the mouth is, as the saying goes.
From time to time the federal government has tried to weasel its way out of paying anything toward these projects. In the past their capital cost was paid in part by Ottawa. When requests were made by Ontario, for instance, for assistance in meeting some of the maintenance costs, the federal government refused on the grounds that such a responsibility was not specifically spelled out. The question was raised as to whether the federal government should pay something toward the capital cost of the land which was acquired for recreational purposes. On this point, the spirit of the legislation as explained by a former minister, my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris, is clear.

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
It is interesting that Your Honour should have confused that hon. member with myself. My hon. friend, when he was minister, made a statement in the House making it clear that federal participation in these conservation projects covered conservation and recreation. The spirit and intent of the legislation were made clear at that time. Nevertheless, subsequent administrations failed to honour that intention.
Although the conservation authorities have sought to obtain federal moneys to improve parkland and the like, the federal government has on every occasion declined to provide any money on the ground that authority was not specifically given in the act, despite anything the minister may have said or whatever commitment had been made. I blame this entirely on the senior civil servants of the department. One is not supposed to mention these people; they are faceless, sacred cows who should never be criticized. I do not think that is a valid attitude. We have plenty of information to indicate that senior officials of the department are always opposed to any contribution being made by the federal government for recreational purposes, and they have been able to persuade subsequent ministers to adopt this point of view.
The federal government has succeeded in welching and weaseling out of paying its share of these conservation projects. With the advent of this legislation, welching and weaseling will be a little simpler. No argument will be necessary, because it will not be obliged to pay a cent from now on if it does not wish to do so.
For this reason, as well as for others, many of us are entirely opposed to the legislation in its present form. The federal government is anxious to project a good image as a government which is taking the lead in conservation and opposing water pollution. I am sure everybody in the country would support it in taking such a position. But now the legislation is before us it is clear that its main purpose is to gain all the kudos it can from the point of view of public relations, without putting up a nickel-while abdicating most of the financial responsibility it has undertaken in this regard in the past.
The minister is a man for whom I have high regard and with whom I have enjoyed a very pleasant association over the years. I sincerely hope he will give consideration to the suggestions made by members of the opposition; that he will withdraw his bill and

incorporate some of our proposals in a new one. We cannot all be wrong, you know! I am sure that should he do so, he would receive a great deal of acclaim and support from all sides of the House, particularly if he would put a few teeth into the legislation he presents.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it has been rightly and justly said that we get the government that we deserve. It can be rightly and justly said that we are getting the pollution we deserve. We are moving from an affluent society to an effluent society. When we think of the spewing out into our lakes, rivers, soil and air of vast quantities of waste and spent products that pollute and poison our air and water and impair our ability to feed ourselves, is it any wonder that we are moving from an affluent society to an effluent society?
We have been graced this evening with the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) who put the debate on a very high level. He put the question into the international sphere and spoke well and ably about it. We also heard from the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who gave some credit to his party for initiating action in the United Nations and set forth some problems with which we may be faced if this legislation passes.
I hope that when the bill goes to committee, or perhaps when the minister closes the debate, he will answer some of the questions put to him by the last speaker, particularly the point about the 37J per cent contribution in regard to conservation projects, which the hon. member indicated a former minister of the government had said included recreational projects. We are discussing a very important matter and I am sure we could have 264 speakers on the subject of pollution, because pollution affects all the areas that we as members represent. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour said, it has international implications of a startling nature.
I have had the good fortune of being a member of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. The committee has had before it the estimates and officials of the two departments. I gained the impression that their presentations to the committee and their answers to the question put to them by members were indicative of inaction on the part of the government.
January 15, 1970

Water Resources
Indeed, they indicated an attempt to study the problem of pollution without bringing forth any real solution.
I also had the privilege of visiting the Inland Water Centre at Burlington with other members of the committee, and I could not help being impressed by the work that that centre is doing. It is up to us as members to translate into effective action some of the projects being developed by the centre. This we must do in legislative form; we cannot just tinker with the problem of pollution.
I have an uneasy feeling that this bill is no more than an administrative framework to deal with the jurisdictional problem that exists in the matter of pollution between the federal government and the provinces. This point worries me in view of the necessity of immediate and direct action. By that I mean a joint, co-operative effort with the provinces and municipalities to study the problem, find solutions and raise money to implement those solutions.
I have read the bill. I have read comments in periodicals in regard to the bill. I feel that I should bring to the attention of the House the comments made by the Minister of Energy and Resources Management for the province of Ontario. In an interview reported in the Executive magazine for the month of November, 1969, which we have all received, George MacKinnon put to that minister the effect the new water act would have on the province of Ontario. In order to save time I shall summarize some of the answers given, because I think the views of the Ontario minister responsible for pollution should be known by this House.
In this regard, I hope that when the bill goes to committee representatives of provincial departments will appear and give their views on the operation of the act and its effect on the different provinces, because this is an important aspect of the whole subject.
The bill was presented by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), who I thought made a rather stiff, sober and sterile introduction of it. We are very happy, indeed fortunate, to have back in this House the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), because he carries with him a flair for speech. He is the Abe Lincoln of the House and carries with him a vast store of ideas as well, I think, as the determination and initiative to carry those ideas into effect. I hope that when the bill reaches the commit-21611-17
tee the minister will listen, and listen hard, before making the appropriate changes.
When the Ontario minister was asked about the announcement of the introduction of this legislation by the Minister without Portfolio, he said:
I think that the idea of federal legislation dealing with water quality across the country is a good one. However, I am disappointed in the way it was presented to Ontario and the way it was presented to other provinces. I think that there has been too great an attempt to impress on the people of Canada that no one has been doing anything about the pollution of water and the treatment of waste ... and now the federal government is coming in and will solve all our problems.
Then he said that the Ontario Water Resources Commission had been in operation for 13 years and had done a very effective job in this particular area. The point was then raised about having so many different federal agencies concerning themselves with water quality, and the minister set forth 17 federal agencies involving at least nine different departments of the federal government. There was the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transport-which was involved with commercial shipping-and the Department of Public Works which was involved with harbour installations. He said the dumping of waste into our harbours was the responsibility of the federal government. The Department of Fisheries is also involved, as is the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
The minister went on to point out that it is very important that there be only one federal agency dealing with water pollution and water quality control in areas of federal jurisdiction, rather than nine departments and 17 different federal agencies. Then he said:
This is why I welcome the suggestion that the federal government is finally planning to do something about its role in combatting water pollution.
His next point is well taken:
The disappointing aspect of the federal government proposals and the way it was made and the comments in the background notes and in their press releases is that they are involved almost directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is important that the federal government not worry about municipalities and not worry about establishing river basin agencies which would control the various watersheds. These are things which, as far as Ontario is concerned, the OWRC and our Conservation Authority Branch are already looking after.
He claims that federal jurisdiction involves-
-our lakes... our navigable waters.. .commercial shipping and our harbours have been neglected

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
and not properly looked alter. This is where X would like to see the federal government involved and working in concert with the Ontario government to eliminate pollution. They have their areas of responsibility. Let them do something about it. If there is to be an overall policy on water-
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This raises the problem of jurisdiction. The Ontario minister is pointing out that there appears to be an evasion, as far as he is concerned, in respect of Ontario government projects in the municipalities; the federal government has neglected its responsibility. There should be a shift to assuming its responsibility, working in co-operation with provincial governments, to take care of some of the problems of municipalities.
His next point is with regard to the question of uniform standards across Canada. He pointed out that the federal government does not recommend uniform standards across Canada-this, of course, concerns the provinces-and said:
I realize that the same standards should not apply to some small lake or stream in northern Ontario as, for instance, Toronto harbour-this is something for the experts to decide. But if there are too many variables, too many different standards, this will lead to trouble. You will give certain areas of the provinces, because of the nature of their waterways, an advantage over others.
He gives an example as follows:
-in other words industry which is polluting may say, "well, if the waterway that we wanted to establish our plant on in Ontario is class A...we had better look for a class C one...as defined by the Canada Water Act".
This is a problem in not recommending uniform standards across the country, and it is certainly of concern to the minister. The Ontario minister's final point was that there were no incentives given industry by the federal government. He suggested that there should not be any imposition of federal sales tax in respect of pollution equipment. He went further and said there should be no municipal taxes on buildings that house pollution equipment. He stated on behalf of the province of Ontario that he was prepared to recommend this to his government, and hoped the federal government would take another look at the suggestion of lifting the 11 per cent sales tax on pollution equipment and buildings that house such equipment.
Hon. members have seen, from the short analysis I have given of this interview with the Ontario Minister of Energy and Resources
[Mr. Gilbert.!
Management, that there are four or five points with which he is very concerned. These include the lack of national federal standards, the lack of incentive and the existence of so many federal agencies with not one federal authority dealing with the problem of pollution. I hope when we get to the committee the minister will consider these problems and solve them to the advantage and benefit of all Canadians.
I suppose at the very basis of the problem is money. The federal government has been very cautious in respect of committing itself to contributing any money toward the implementation of its ideas. The minister should come clean, so to speak, and give us an idea of how much money the government is prepared to spend to meet this problem. I hope the minister will have at the committee meeting a representative of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is very commendable that we advance moneys to municipalities for sewage treatment and disposal plants. In September and October of this year there was a directive to CMHC not to accept any more loan applications for sewage treatment plants.
I should like the Minister without Portfolio to assure us that if we are really going to deal with this problem and battle and solve pollution, he will guarantee so many million dollars to municipalities for sewage treatment projects. Therein may lie the key to the solution of this problem. So much for the attitude of the minister of Ontario regarding this bill.
May I now direct the attention of the House to the attitude of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. This short statement was made by Mr. R. C. Passmore on November 21, 1969, after this bill was introduced in the House:
Although the Act seemingly bristles with defences against water pollution it actually nips only cautiously at the periphery of the problem.
Then he set forth some of the salient features of the Act in this way:
It would allow the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to enter into arrangements with the provinces and form joint committees which would consult on water resource problems, develop programs and co-ordinate their implementation.
It would allow establishment of regional federal-provincial boards wherever there is a "significant national interest" in water resources; collect information on their quality, distribution, and use; conduct research and undertake programs designed to conserve and develop water resources.
It would allow establishment of joint federal-provincial water quality management agencies in regions or water basins where water quality
January 15, 1970

management has become a matter of urgent national concern. The agencies would design, build, and operate sewage treatment plants; conduct continuing surveys of water quality and potential sources of pollution; and set water quality standards for the area.
It would make water pollution an offence for which a polluter could be fined up to $5,000 for each day that the release of polluting substances occurred, but only within an established water quality management area.
This is his approach to this measure:
All of which adds up to a piecemeal geographic approach to solving what is now a full-scale national emergency. Is this another case of pussyfooting through the jurisdictional maze of our "cooperative federalism"? Surely, the magnitude of the problem requires bolder action.
He then indicates that Canadians would welcome more meaningful participation by the federal government. He points out that there are insufficient resources available to provincial governments with which to make full use of any program to solve the problems of pollution. He states:
People everywhere would welcome comprehensive multipurpose water resource management. But the need is everywhere, not just where "there is a significant national interest"-
He then states:
-success will depend on massive inputs of capital through loans, grants and shared-cost programs. But the Canada Water Act in its present form, is extremely cautious about committing the federal treasury.
He ends by saying:
Unless the Canada Water Act can be given a stiffer backbone, Canadians will still be looking for ways to curb pollution.
He suggested that we are entitled to the human right of a clean, healthy environment and that this right should be part of Canada's Bill of Rights, thus giving any Canadian legal backing in his search for a high quality, unpolluted life. I hope the chairman of the committee will invite a representative of the Canadian Wildlife Federation to set forth its ideas in respect of this problem.
I am going to become very parochial and discuss the Toronto scene. In Toronto we have two main rivers, the Don and the Humber. In metropolitan Toronto we also have the Credit River. The industrial and human waste that flows down these rivers is a disgrace to the fair city of Toronto. The beaches along the lakefront are unusable. There is no swimming in the summer. This fall, ducks died as a result of the pollutants in the water. The commission was not able to prove this, but 21611-171
Water Resources
the evidence did not indicate that they did not die from the drug called diacid.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The air in Toronto is polluted by the emission of waste from the factories and industrial centres. At times this makes Toronto a very unpleasant place in which to live. In fact the people in my constituency have had to put up with pollution from the Consumers Gas Company for many years. They have had to put up with having a glue factory, and the emission of ash from a project which produces electricity in the west end of Toronto. These are three ways in which the people of my riding have suffered.
I recall that when we had the minister and officials before us in the committee, the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) spoke strongly and urgently about the government taking action concerning the pollution which prevailed in the south end of his riding. I recall the former mayor of Toronto, the member for York West (Mr. Givens), speaking in his usual flamboyant and eloquent way about the pollution problems in Toronto. I would think the former mayor would get up and tell us just what he thinks of this bill and the remedies he thinks should be taken.
Just the other day we heard the news that the Ontario Water Resources Commission had laid a charge against Gulf Oil of Canada for having polluted the water of Lake Ontario as a result of its operations at the lakeside. I would think the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) would get up and tell us what he believes the government should do with regard to this pollution caused by Gulf Oil on Lake Ontario, because there in that area are many other oil companies. The people in the area have the right to have their member ask whether this bill will be an effective instrument to control pollution.
I do not like to continue being colloquial and speaking of the problems in my constituency and the city of Toronto, because the problem of pollution embraces the Great Lakes of Ontario. The Great Lakes probably represent the largest natural water resource in the world. This area is quickly becoming polluted to the point that a crisis is occurring. In 1964 the International Joint Commission, composed of three Canadian and three United States representatives, studied pollution in the Great Lakes. That commission has been very active because some people have said that Lake Erie is now a dead lake and that Lake Ontario is quickly becoming the same. It

January 15, 1970
Water Resources
has also been stated that Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake St. Clair are in danger of becoming much like Lake Erie.
It behooves us to take immediate action in this House. Just recently I saw an article entitled "Lake Ontario Program" which appeared in a periodical I obtained. I believe it is interesting and indicates how much Lake Ontario is polluted. It states:
To preserve the usefulness of Lake Ontario and other waters in an 18,000-square-mile area of upper New York State is the objective of a program now being conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
That is in the United States. It continues:
The threat comes from municipalities and industries-mainly pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, and chemical plants. While requiring enormous amounts of water, these industries at the same time are discharging wastes which in quantity and complexity inevitably damage water quality and make further use of the waterways difficult if not impossible.
More than 40 pulp and paper mills are operating on tributaries to Lake Ontario. The food processing plants-more than 240 in number-freeze, can, grind, package or otherwise process meat, dairy products, fruit, vegetables, beet-sugar, and wines. Chemicals and allied products are manufactured in about 20 large plants, mainly in the Lockport, Syracuse, and Rochester areas.
Few of the pulp and paper mills treat any of their process wastes. The discharged material is extremely demanding on the oxygen resources of a stream. Deposits of one to two feet of fibrous pulp material, to cite one example, have been found as far as two miles downstream from some of the mills on the Black River.
He points out that wastes from chemical plants are toxic to fish. This indicates the enormity of the problem with regard to Lake Ontario. This is a report by a federal commission of the United States. I am sure we could indict ourselves with regard to the pollutants from factories and the human waste which enter Lake Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue tomorrow morning. May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on November 19 of last year the IMr. Gilbert.)
government proclaimed a portion of the omnibus Criminal Code amendment dealing with the breathalyzer provisions, but it adopted the curious course of specifically omitting in the proclamation one subparagraph, one clause and one paragraph of the breathalyzer provisions. The government omitted in each instance a portion which dealt with the right of an accused to receive, in an approved container, a sample of the breath that had put him behind jail bars.
My curiosity was aroused when I found this out, for several reasons. The first was that in the debate and the disputation which led up to this provision being put into the Criminal Code, many lawyers had a doubt about the breathalyzer clause because, after all, people were being asked to incriminate themselves out of their own mouths. However, the Members of the Bar felt the sting of their criticism blunted because there were these three safeguards in respect of the breathalyzer test. It puzzled me that the government should take this step, flying in the face of the Bar. I was puzzled because I had never heard of a proclamation in this form.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I note that it has been accepted over the years that certain sections of acts can be proclaimed, and indeed have been proclaimed, without the whole body of the act being proclaimed at one time. But I have never heard of a package within an act being proclaimed and little snippets and pieces of that package being cut out and held-up until a future proclamation.
My understanding that this was a very unusual course was reinforced when I spoke to two members of the class of 1940 in the House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In their vast parliamentary experience-and nobody is their equal in that regard

they could not recall such a course being adopted. So I think it is a very fitting and proper subject to be raised. If my research leads me further into it, and I think it is serious enough, I suppose a motion will have to be presented to the House so that we can in some way obtain the opinion of the House on the unusual course taken by the government. What particularly hurts about this action is that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), a man sworn to uphold the laws of Canada, should adopt a wholly new approach
January 15, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	2465
by selecting the method of proclamation that he did.
There was a third member of the class of 1940 with whom I might have checked when I was trying to find out if this procedure had ever been used before, and that is the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith). But I suggest that he is an accessory to this rather dastardly crime, and so I did not go hunting for advice in that direction. Besides, sometimes he can be a very persuasive fellow and he probably would have overwhelmed me with a lot of words which would add up to nothing but which might have kept me off the case.
There are three sections that are withheld from the proclamation of November 19. Section 224A (1) (c) (i) reads:
at the time the sample was taken, the person taking the sample offered to provide to the accused a specimen of the breath of the accused in an approved container for his own use, and, at the request of the accused made at that time, such a specimen was thereupon provided to him.
I think this is a pretty substantial right which the government has seen fit not to give an accused person. The second part that was held up concerns a qualified technician taking a sample of the breath. It contains wording which is similar to that which I have just read, and is again a substantial right.
The third one is in subclause 6(b), which is the definition of the approved container and reads as follows:
"approved container" means a container of a kind designed to receive a sample of the breath of a person for chemical analysis and that is approved as suitable for the purposes of this section by order of the Attorney General of Canada.
I suppose the whole difficulty was that they have not yet, and never could, come up with an approved container. But because this is such a substantial part of the right that is given to an accused within this part of the amendments to the Criminal Code, I suggest there has been a very serious breach of what we regard as the practices of this House in dealing with legislation.
I do not think anyone in this chamber, at the time we gave the government the right in the last paragraph of that omnibus bill to proclaim certain provisions, ever thought that little bits and pieces would be hacked out of one part of the Criminal Code. I suggest that no matter what the expression of the will of the House of Commons is as we set it forth here-and the only way we can express our opinion is by putting it down in writing-our will is not what we say but what we put
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion down, as best we can in words, in legislation. No matter what our will is, if the government can use the proclamation approach to proclaim certain parts of the act and leave out others and perhaps never proclaim them, it means that the government itself and not Parliament has the say in what legislation comes out of the two Houses of Parliament.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council)1: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the substance of the matter I might say to the hon. gentleman that in consulting the class of 1940 representatives on the question of drinking he might have introduced a little more balance than just consulting the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on this question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
wanted a sober opinion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will not say that necessarily my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) would have provided an equal balance on the other side, but I am sure he would have had a viewpoint on this question.
In the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who, I regret to say, had a previous engagement this evening, and the illness of the parliamentary secretary, I have been asked to exhale a few remarks on the subject raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). The hon. member said that he had thought, when the law passed, that this part of it would be proclaimed. But I am advised with reference to section 224A, subsection (6)(b), which deals with the approved container in which to provide the accused with a sample of his breath, that it was dealt with at length by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on March 18, 1969. The Attorney General at that time indicated to the Justice Committee that evidence given to a previous standing committee dealing with Bill C-195, that is, that a suitable container was available, was in fact inaccurate.
The Attorney General explained to the committee that at the time of their considering Bill C-150 no suitable container had been developed and that in fact the Canadian Forensic Society, which was working on a suitable prototype, did not expect to have a container ready for production until later this year. In view of this, the Attorney General
January 15, 1970
2466	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion undertook to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee that he would not proclaim the section dealing with an approved container until such a device was available for distribution and use at a reasonable cost.
The Minister of Justice has kept that undertaking, and it is the view of the law officers of the Crown that the legislation in question affords enough protection to an accused as it now stands, through strict control over the type of breathalyzer machine which may be authorized. It is still open to an accused person, if he so wishes, to request a [DOT]urine or blood sample in addition to being required to take a breathalyzer test. This, of course, would be a voluntary act on his part and would be dependent upon the appropriate facilities being available to accommodate such evidence. For that reason I would demur to the comments of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants as to the propriety of this procedure, since it was predicted before the bill was carried into law, but I shall be glad to convey his remarks to my colleague, the Minister of Justice.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-CHARGES RESPECTING OPERATIONS OF COUNCIL

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on December 3 of last year, as recorded at page 1548 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs:
In view of the serious charges by members of the Canadian Consumers Council that the council has spent a year in almost total idleness, is torn by bitter internal dissension and is gagged by the chairman, will the minister investigate these charges and inform the House of his findings?
The minister replied that he had written the members of the council and asked each of them for their views on the role and structure of the council, and said he intended to discuss these views with them when he got them. I thought it was rather frivolous when he said:
I have read the report to which the hon. member refers and from reading the report all I can say is that one can only have some sympathy for the chairman in view of the divergent views which were expressed.
I thought it not only frivolous but a mild way of putting it, because one member of the Council had told the press:
The public didn't know what we were doing, which was nothing. But they should have been told we are doing nothing.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J

Another, a former president of the CAC, said:
The council is certainly not effective at the moment. After a year of fruitless meetings next to nothing has been accomplished.
The chairman, referring to the minister's original request that the council produce a charter of consumer rights, said:
We have got no tangible results on this so far.
Another member, referring to the minister's request that the council look into ways to help the low income consumer, said that "nothing meaningful" had been done about this.
In view of all this, I asked the minister, as a supplementary question, whether he would now consider appointing to the council representatives of low-income consumers. He dodged that question and said he was going to weigh the views of the council members as to whether there should be a change in the role and structure of the council. Later I asked, through a motion for the production of papers, for the full correspondence on the matter between the minister and the council members. Yesterday, January 14, the minister refused my request saying that this correspondence was "of a confidential nature and therefore it would not be in the public interest to release it."
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that last year the taxpayers of Canada paid $100,000 for the operations of the Consumer Council of Canada, I do not think council could be considered the private property of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford), nor even of the government. Also, in view of the opinions which council members gave to the press, it seems to me eminently reasonable that there should be an investigation into what has been going on in the council and that the elected representatives of the taxpayers, the members of this House, should have access to the full text of the correspondence between the minister and members of the Consumer Council.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member. I should point out that when a decision was taken to appoint a council with members drawn from various economic sectors, consumers, manufacturers, the advertising industry, labour and the universities, it was
January 15, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	2467
expected that there would be vigorous discussions and differences of viewpoint. The task of the chairman could not have been easy, and we are grateful to him for the leadership he has given in the council.
As the minister indicated last month in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), he is engaged in
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a review of the role and structure of the council. This review has not yet been completed, but the results will be announced when it is. I will, of course, draw the minister's attention to the remarks made in this debate.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Friday. January 16, 1970