1970-05-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: A tew days ago the hon.
member for Hillsborough raised in the House as a question of privilege the matter of free access to the Parliament Buildings by members of the House of Commons. The complaint arose following an official visit to the centre block of the Parliament Buildings by the Minister of External Affairs for Israel. Certain reports suggested that some hon. members had been prevented from gaining access to the building during the minister's visit to the centre block.
I should take this opportunity to restate, if this is necessary at all, the time-honoured privilege of hon. members to have free and unimpeded access to the Parliament Buildings. This principle should be recognized even if there is some question as to the extension of the term "parliamentary precincts", and in particular whether the jurisdiction of the Speaker, exercised on behalf of hon. members, extends beyond the limits of the Parliament Buildings themselves. In any event, the incident referred to by the hon. member for Hillsborough has been the subject of an investigation conducted under the direction of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The report which I have now received indicates that as part of security arrangements the Royal Canadian Mounted Police kept people away from the main entrance to the centre block during the two brief periods while the minister actually entered and left the building. Arrangements were made with the House of Commons security personnel to stand just outside the main entrance to identify anyone approaching the building for admission. The report states that no one, that is, no member of the House and no member of our staff, was denied admission during the period. It is recognized, however, that there might have been a momentary delay if a
member had to be identified by the protective staff officer posted outside the main entrance for this purpose.
In any event, 1 think I should reiterate the essential point made in the report submitted by the Sergeant-at-Arms, that in fact no member was denied access to the building on the occasion in question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee of Transport and Communications, in French and in English.-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle).

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English.-Mr. Clermont.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in French and in English.-Mr. Duquet.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.3

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, copies of the final communique issued on May 22,

May 25. 1970
Questions
1970, by the Organization for Economic Co- Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secre-operation and Development at the end of the tary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Reministerial level council meeting in Paris sources): The National Oil Policy instituted from which I and my colleague, the Minister in 1961, and reaffirmed by successive gov-without Portfolio from Windsor, have just ernments, is under current review but there returned.	is no government decision at the present time
to present a white paper.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Comeau: Has the Canada Council taken concrete measures in its grants policy to reduce the exodus to foreign countries of Canadian professionals, whose studies have been subsidized by the country's taxpayers?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: A great number of Canada Council grants have the effect of creating more opportunities and better working conditions for Canadian professionals in the social sciences and humanities and the arts, and thereby reduce what reasons these professionals may have to pursue their careers in other countries.
For example, the Council's assistance to the social sciences and humanities is directed both at training Canadians for careers in university research and teaching and at maintaining conditions whereby Canadian universities can attract and hold first-rate scholars. The Council also assists the universities to find teaching staff among those who are receiving doctorates with Council Fellowships.
In a somewhat similar way the Council's assistance to individual artists is backed up by grants to the organizations on which the artists depend for their livelihood and to bring their work before the public. These include theatre, dance and opera companies, orchestras, art galleries and publishers.


WHITE PAPER ON OIL POLICY
Mr. Yewchuk: Does the federal government plan a white paper on oil policy, or a revision if one now exists, as a result of recent discussions on this topic with the United States Government?
[Mr. Basford.l


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-HIRING OF TRUCKS AND DRIVERS, MONTREAL
Mr. Ricard: From January 1 to April 8, 1970, to make up for the insufficiency of the service of the firm G. La-palme Inc. (a) how many trucks were hired (b) haw many truck drivers were hired (c) how many hours were these trucks in service (d) how many hours were the truck drivers working (e) what was the hourly rate paid for the trucks (f) what was the hourly rate paid to the truck drivers
(g)	how many security officers were hired (h) under what conditions (i) what was the total amount paid to the security officers (j) were there other expenditures and, if so, for what purposes and in what amounts?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: (a) Minimum 20 per day; maximum 155 per day. (b) Minimum 40 per day; maximum 310 per day (each vehicle was staffed by 2 men for protection purposes), (c) 20,742 hours, (d) 41,484 hours (20,742 drivers; 20,742 helpers), (e) $11.00 per hour (including driver and helper), (f) $3.15 per hour for the drivers (paid by the contractor); $2.92 per hour for the helpers (paid by the contractor), (g) Minimum 10 per day; maximum 200 per day (2 men per car).
(h)	On an "as required" basis subject to need.
(i)	$208,244 as of March 31, 1970. (j) Yes, for vandalism and damage to rented trucks, amount involved not yet determined.


CBC-BROADCAST TIME GRANTED &quot;QUEBEC-PRESSE&quot;
Mr. Portelance: 1.	How much broadcast time did CBC grant Quebec-Presse with which it entered into, as indicated in the answer to Question No. 998, a contra-account advertising contract in exchange for 14 advertisements estimated at $3,000 in all, which appeared in Quebec-Presse in December 1969 and January 1970?
2.	How was this time apportioned and at what
rate?
3.	Did CBC sign such contra-account advertising contracts with other Montreal newspapers in December 1969 and January 1970 and, if so, by newspaper, how many advertisements and for what amount?
May 25, 1970

Questions
4.	Did CBC purchase advertising in December 1969 and January 1970, but paid for the advertising instead of concluding a contra-account advertising contract in other Montreal newspapers and, if so, for how many advertisements and for what total amount in each case?
5.	What are the names of the heads of the radio and TV publicity departments mentioned in Part 5 of the answer to Question No. 998?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Broadcast time granted to Quebec-Presse in December 1969 and in January 1970: CBFT-Montreal, 30 advertisements of 30 seconds each; CBVT- Quebec City, 23 advertisements of 30 seconds each; Total: 26 minutes and 30 seconds.
2.	The time was apportioned between December 18, 1969 and January 31, 1970 as follows: CBFT, 25 class A advertisements at $205; 5 class B advertisements at $130; CBVT, 7 class A advertisements at $128; 11 class C advertisements at $77; 5 class D advertisements at $51.
3.	The Corporation did not sign any contra-account contracts with other Montreal newspapers in December 1969 and January 1970, but used existing contracts and obtained contra-account advertising as listed below: La Presse, for a value of $726; Journal de Montreal, for a value of $2,570; Montreal-Matin, for a value of $582.50; TV-Hebdo, for a value of $16,975; Publications Peladeau for a value of $5,825.65; La Patrie, for a value of $1,462.50; Placedart, for a value of $400.00; Hebdos A-I, for a value of $12,839.25; Dimanche Matin, for a value of $4,621.50; La Semaine, for a value of $570.00; Actualite, for a value of $2,580.00; Vie et Carriere, for a value of $1,085.00; Echos-Vedettes, for a value of $1,800.00; Total: $52,037.40.
4.	Yes, because existing contracts had expired. As follows: Tele-Presse, 4 advertisements, $1,020; La Presse, 28 advertisements, $9,800; Spec, 6 advertisements, $2,750; Montreal-Matin, 30 advertisements, $5,243; Journal de Montreal, 8 advertisements, $846; La Patrie, 1 advertisement, $600; Petit Journal, Photo-Journal et Derniere Heure, 1 advertisement, $1,430.
5.	Pierre Therrien is Supervisor of Publicity-Television and Gaston Lebarbe is Supervisor of Publicity-Radio.


FOOD PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL SALES TAX
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Which food products are still subject to federal sales tax?
2.	What was the revenue to the federal government in collecting federal sales tax on these food items in 1967, 1968 and 1969?
3.	To what extent has the latest International Sugar Agreement contributed to the increase in the price of these food products?
4.	When will the government remove the federal sales tax from these foods?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question seems to me rather lengthy; the House would perhaps agree that it be printed in Hansard and deemed to have been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above-mentioned answer is as follows:]
1.	Excluding alcoholic beverages, carbonated beverages, and candy, the main products, generally regarded as foods, which are subject to sales tax are: margarine (except when for consumption in the Province of Newfoundland); fruit drinks, fruit juices and fruit nectars which do not consist of at least eighty-five per cent of the pure juice of the fruit; certain diet foods and substitutes for sugar and for dairy products; processed nuts.
2.	Information is not available concerning sales tax paid on particular products. It is estimated that revenue from taxation of the above-mentioned products, excluding alcoholic beverages, carbonated beverages and candy, in the 1969-70 fiscal year was $6-$8 million.
3.	Because of the limited sugar content in these products, the increase in cost attributable to sugar is negligible.
4.	This is a matter of government policy. If the governmnt should decide to propose an amendment to exempt any product from sales tax it will be announced at the appropriate time.


ACCIDENTS ON LIQUID PRODUCTS PIPELINES
Mr. Maiher: 1.	During 1968 and 1969, how many operational accidents occurred on liquid products pipelines?

May 25, 1970
Questions
2 What was the total of Injuries from such accidents?
3.	What was the total of property damage, in dollars?
4.	What was the most common cause of the accidents?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Energy, Mines and Resources):: The following reply refers only to interprovincial and international pipelines which are subject to the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. For purposes of definition, it is assumed that "liquid products pipelines" means both crude oil and petroleum products pipelines and that "operational accidents" refers to incidents which result in leaks or breaks which are reported to the Board under its normal reporting procedures. 1. Sixty-five.
2.	None.
3.	None.
4.	Defective longitudinal seam welds in pipe.


RISE IN COST OF LIVING
Mr. Mather: In the past ten years (1959-1969), what was the overall rise in (a) living costs (b) medical costs?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports:
(a)	Consumer prices*
Date	Consumer Price Index
Canada (1961 = 100)
March	1959	97.1March	1969	123.2
The percentage increase over this ten year period is 26.9 per cent.
(b)	Medical costs
Date	Health Care Index* *
Canada (1961 = 100)
March	1959	95.7March	1969	128.6
The percentage increase over this ten year period is 34.4 per cent.
*The Consumer Price Index measures the change in living costs only in so far as they arise from the movement of consumer prices. Other factors that would affect living costs would include family size, income taxes, quantity and quality of goods purchased.
** Includes, doctor's fees, dentist fees, optical care, prepaid medical care and pharmaceuticals.


REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEB AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	With respect to Question Number 1,014 answered March 11, 1970, how many, and what are the names of the regions established and used by the National Film Board to distribute audio-visual materials through private agencies?
2.	Do the criteria defined in the answer to Part 1 of Question Number 1,014 apply to each region and, if not, for what reason?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Distribution by sale through private agencies in Canada of NFB filmstrips, 35mm slides, multi-media kits, overhead pro-jectuals and 8mm film loops has been divided into three regions on the basis of the National Film Board's past marketing experience and estimated market potential, (a) British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Northwest Territories; (b) Ontario; (c) Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
2.	All the criteria defined in the answer to part 1 of Question 1014 applied to the distributors selected for each of the three regions.


DISTRIBUTORS OF NFB AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What are the names of, and when were the distributors of audio-visual materials selected by the National Film Board?
2.	Were any of the owners, partners or employees of the successful bidders formerly employed by the National Film Board and, if so, at what time and in what positions?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. The three distributors selected by NFB are: Harry Smith and Sons Ltd., 1150 Homer Street, Vancouver, B.C.; Visual Education Center, 95 Berkeley Street, Toronto, Ontario; La Societe Secas Internationale, 400 est, rue Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec. The contracts were signed on December 17, 1969 in the case of Secas Internationale and Visual Education Centre; in the case of Harry Smith and Sons, the contract was signed on December 12, 1969. All took effect on January 6, 1970.
2.	Former NFB employees are associated with these NFB distributors as follows: Harry
May 25. 1970

Smith and Sons: Mr. Paul Azaroff, 1965-69 as Distribution Officer. Visual Education Center: Mr. Don Wilder, Cinematographer, 1944-58; Mr. Hans Moller, 1955-69, Executive Producer of Filmstrip Unit; Mr. Grant McLean, 194567, film-maker in many capacities; executive, 1966-67, Acting Government Film Commissioner; Mr. Gordon Burwash, 1950-54 and 1960-67, Writer, Actor, Producer.


DISTRIBUTION CONTRACTS, NFB AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Was there any public invitation to tender made by the National Film Board on the distribution contracts for audio-visual materials in any region and, if so (a) which (b) by region, how many tendered?
2.	In the event there was no public invitation to tender in any or all of the regions, how many distributors, by region, were (a) considered (b) approached by National Film Board personnel?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Public invitation to bid was not requested. National Film Board personnel in offices across Canada were asked to approach and/or submit names of companies which were deemed by NFB worthy of consideration.
2.	(a) Distributors (b) Distributors
considered approached
Prairies, B.C. and 25 N.W.T.
10 in Prairies 2 in B.C.
Ontario	35	7
Quebec and
Atlantic Provinces 28	15 in Quebec
1 in Atlantic Provinces


NFB AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS-FORMAL SUBMISSIONS BY DISTRIBUTORS
Mr. Nowlan: By region, when and how many distributors submitted a formal written submission to the National Film Board and, in particular, gave a commitment in writing to a marketing plan as stipulated by the criteria set out in answer to Part 1 of Question Number 1,014?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: Marketing plans were submitted as follows: Western Canada (2): 1 on October 22375-4U
Questions
16, 1969, 1 on November 7, 1969; Ontario (3):
1 on November 17, 1969, 1 on November 26, 1969, 1 on December 12, 1969; Quebec and Atlantic Provinces (2): 1 on November 19, 1969, 1 on December 16, 1969.


AWARDING OF DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, NFB AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS, TO VISUAL EDUCATION CENTRE
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Using the criteria established by the National Film Board to select its distributors as set out in the answer to Part 1 of Question Number 1,014, and in the case of Ontario, was a bid received from any company which (a) had a more broadly based and better established reputation than Visual Education Centre (b) did not duplicate the product of the National Film Board (c) was approximately equal to Visual Education Centre in enthusiasm and proximity to the market (d) specialized in marketing audio-visual software as well as audiovisual hardware (e) was stronger in financial resources, had more experienced sales representatives, and substantially greater marketing experience?
2.	On balance, does the firm Anglophoto Limited meet the National Film Board's criteria better than Visual Education Centre and, if so, on what grounds was the contract awarded to Visual Education Centre or, conversely, on what grounds was the submission of Anglophoto rejected?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) A bid was received from a company which did market hardware as well as audio-visual software but in terms of what NFB considered specialization in audio-visual software marketing, the company in question was not a software specialist. In fact, the salesmen of this company were at the time of selection devoting most of their time to hardware sales effort. Visual Education Centre was actively producing and distributing only software materials, (e) Yes, a bid was received from a company with stronger financial resources and with representatives who had longer sales experience than those of Visual Education Centre, but these salesmen were not, in the Board's view, as specialized in educational audio-visual software; and hence did not offer suitable experience in the marketing of audiovisual educational software materials. Visual Education Centre, on the other hand, has specialists who are best experienced in understanding the relationship of audio-visual software to educational requirements.

May 25, 1970
Questions
2. Audio-Visual Systems (Division of Anglo-photo) did not on balance meet the NFB criteria as well as Visual Education Center did. The contract was awarded to Visual Education Centre because: the firm specialized in audio-visual software; its personnel had a broad understanding of the relation of audiovisual concepts to educational requirements, and promotion; its financial resources were adequate; its management had a known record of accomplishment; the key personnel had a very high reputation in the education milieu not only in Canada but abroad, and an intimate knowledge of the Film Board's product; it had a more comprehensive line of audiovisual software which did not compete with NFB's.


OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTORS OF NFB AUDIO-VISUAL, MATERIALS
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Are the distributors of audio-visual materials selected by the National Film Board Canadian owned and controlled and, if not, what is the degree of foreign ownership and control?
2.	Has there ever been a fourth partner in Visual Education Centre and, if so (a) who was such partner (b) of what country was he (c) when did he terminate his connection with Visual Education Centre?
3.	Does Visual Education Centre or any of its owners have any contract or agreement affecting or relating to ownership and financial control with one Charles Benton, President of Films Inc., of Willmette, Illinois, U.S.A., or with any company owned or controlled by Mr. Benton and, if so, what is the nature of such contract or agreement?
4.	Have any distribution rights to any CBC production been acquired by Visual Education Centre and, if so (a) which ones (b) on what date (c) was there public tender?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. All three distributors of audiovisual materials selected by the NFB for the sale of NFB products in Canada are Canadian controlled. NFB included in the contracts a clause to this effect, as follows: "The distributor warrants that at all times during this Agreement the outright ownership, or the absolute majority of the issued share-capital of the distributor will be held by Canadian citizens residing in Canada. In the event of the sale of the outright ownership or of the absolute majority of the issued share-capital of the distributor, the present Agreement will be subject to review by the Board and pos-

sible termination. The foregoing subject to all other terms and conditions of this Agreement".
2.	To the best of the NFB's knowledge, Films Inc., of Willmette, Illinois, U.S.A., had and still holds a non-controlling interest in Visual Education Centre.
3.	As stated in Question 2 above, Films Inc., has a non-controlling interest in Visual Education Centre. Details as to the nature of such an agreement are not available to the National Film Board.
4.	Not applicable.


GRAIN ELEVATOR DELIVERY POINTS
Mr. Burion: What are the names of the 22 elevator delivery points in Manitoba and the 31 elevator delivery points in Saskatchewan which were on the initial unit quota as at April 13, 1970?


Hon. Oifo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The following are the 22 elevator points in Manitoba and the 31 points in Saskatchewan which were on the initial unit quota as at April 13, 1970: Manitoba: Barnsley, Birtle, Darlingford, Cypress River, Delo-raine, Foxwarren, Goodlands, Gretna, Holland, Holmfield, Killarney, Landseer, McTavish, Medora, Melita, Morden, Nesbitt, Plum Coulee, Reston, Sinclair, Treherne, Winkler.
Saskatchewan: Archerwill, Churchbridge, Codette, Cymric, Drake, Duval, Foam Lake, Garrick, Glamis, Govan, Leslie, Lockwood, Marchwell, Mozart, Nipawin, Pambrun, Red-vers, Rose Valley, Rouleau, Shamrock, Sheho, Simpson, Smeaton, Stalwart, Tuffnell, Tyvan, West Bend, White Fox, Wishart, Vogel, Burrows.


INDIAN POLICY PROPOSALS-HIRING OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Simpson: 1.	How many consultants has the government hired or entered into contracts with to advise them on means of gaining acceptance of the Indians in various parts of Canada to the Indian policy proposals?
2.	What are the names of these consultants?
3.	What remuneration has each received?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The
Department has entered into contract with the following persons for consultation and/or liaison services:
May 25, 1970



2.	Mr. Gus Debassige, Mr. Roy Gould, Mr. Andrew Bear Robe, Mr. W. I. C. Wuttunee.
3.	Payment:	Mr. Gus Debassige, $3,850;
Mr. Roy Gould, $4,427; Mr. Andrew Bear Robe, $4,714; Mr. W. I. C. Wuttunee, $600,
Plus accountable travelling expenses.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-MONTREAL DELIVERY SYSTEM
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since February 3, 1970, what has been the total expenditure for extra help and security guards for the Montreal postal delivery system?
2.	Since February 3, how many trucks for mail delivery have been (a) purchased or (b) rented by the Post Office Department?
3.	What is the estimated total cost of (a) and (b) in Part 2.
4.	From what individuals or organizations were these trucks purchased or rented?
5.	What is the total number of trucks involved in mail delivery prior to February 3?
6.	How many drivers previously employed by G. Lapalme Inc., have applied for employment since April 15?


Eric William Kierans: 1. (a) For
extra trucks and help $657,204.45* (truck, driver and helper are provided as a single unit.); (b) For security guards $397,090.80** (car and two guards are provided as a single unit).
* Up to May 4, 1970
** Up to April 30, 1970
2.	(a) 439; (b) None, see 1 (a) above.
3.	$1,054,966.59.
4.	Courrier M & H Inc., Moses & Duhamel, Menard & Desmarais, G. Lapalme Inc., Service Leasing, J. L. Auclair, R. Bisson, R. Smith, J. P. Gagnon, Luneau Auto Inc.
5.	Three hundred and ten.
6.	As of 8th May 1970, five were employed and five have applied for employment.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS-COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Gleave: How many representatives from the following Provinces serve on the Council of the Company of Young Canadians (a) Saskatchewan (b) Ontario (c) Quebec (d) others?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young
Questions
Canadians as follows: The Council of the Company of Young Canadians consists of nine persons who live in the following provinces: (a) Saskatchewan, none; (b) Ontario, 2; (c) Quebec, 3; (d) British Columbia, 1; Alberta, 1; Manitoba, 1; Nova Scotia, 1.


MANPOWER CONSULTATIVE SERVICE
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What is the number of people who have received assistance under the Manpower Consultative Service of the Department of Manpower and Immigration since its inception?
2.	How many of these people have succeeded in locating employment or finding suitable employment after utilizing the service?
3.	Has any follow-up study been made on these people and, if so, what is the percentage of these people still employed one year after finding employment?
4.	What were the costs to the Department of this program for each year since beginning its operation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The Manpower Consultative Service is concerned with encouraging joint assessments by management and labour of necessary manpower adjustments needed as a result of economic and technological change within an industry, plant or enterprise. It does not provide direct assistance to individuals. It does, however, indirectly assist people who are affected by technological or other change at their place of work by providing financial incentives to employers and technical and consultative assistance to management and labour, thus helping them to jointly assess the needs of the workers and develop effective manpower adjustment plans. Where necessary, it assists in co-ordinating the plans, so developed, with the public programs such as training, retraining, referral, placement and mobility, provided by the Department of Manpower and Immigration through the Canada Manpower Centres. Since the inception of the service 123 agreements involving 12 employers associations, 92 plants of 89 companies, 131 unions and affecting some 166,900 people have been negotiated.
2.	Not applicable. See 1 above.
3.	Not applicable. See 1 above.
4.	1965-66, $38,838.46; 1966-67, $85,859.60; 1967-68, $46,295; 1968-69, $101,922; 1969-70, $66,784.

May 25, 1970
Questions


YA-HA-TINDA RANCH, BANFF AND JASPER NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Is the federal government responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Ya-Ha-Tinda Ranch adjacent to Banff National Park and, if so (a) are horses maintained on that Ranch (b) for what purpose are the horses used?
2.	Are horses used in the operation of Banff and Jasper National Parks and, if so, to what extent?
3.	Has the federal government made contractual arrangements with the Alberta Government for Ya-Ha-Tinda Ranch and, if so, what are they?
4.	Have any plans been formulated to use Ya-Ha-Tinda Ranch area as a recreational area or to preserve it as a wild life pasture range?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes. (a) Yes; (b) they are used by National Park wardens in the performance of their duties in the undisturbed areas. The horses are also bred at the Ranch to provide replacement mounts.
2.	Yes, they are used by the wardens for patrolling, fire protection, game management and to carry materials and supplies needed to sustain wardens and their families in remote outposts.
3.	No.
4.	No.


EDUCATION OF INDIAN STUDENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	By province, how many young Indian people entered (a) grade nine in 1966 (b) grade ten in 1967 (c) grade eleven in 1968 (d) grade twelve in 1969?
2.	Of those Indian students attending High School from 1966 to 1970, how many were enrolled in (a) the two-year course (b) the four-year course?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Prov. P.E.X.	N.S.	N.B.	P.Q.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.
Enrolment								
1966 Gr. 9	
1	50	62	169	701	287	294	416	5401967 Gr. 10	
2	33	42	152	528	224	158	214	3861968 Gr. 11	20	18	136	316	144	80	177	3241969 Gr. 12	13	12	39	268	107	81	139	1952. No information is available	as to	the	many are in academic, commercial or	vocationalnumber of students enrolled in two-year	and	(two or four year)	courses?	four-year courses.	Mr.	Russell C.	Honey (Parliamentary Sec-	EDUCATION OF INDIAN STUDENTS	retary	to Minister of	Indian	Affairs and	
Question No. 1,743-Mr. Orlikow:			Northern Development):					
Of Indian students attending High	School,	how	Type of Enrolment	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70Academic	
3,935	4,472	4,584	5,628Vocational	
1,565	1,482	2,239	1,835Total	
5,500	5,954	6,823	7,463
Student enrolments in commercial courses are included in the vocational category. No information is available as to which students are in two or four year courses.


AMHERST, N.S.-RENOVATION OF FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Coates: On what date will tenders be called for the renovation and expansion of the federal building 
at Amherst, Nova Scotia, which houses the Post Office?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Not known. Accommodation requirements are being reviewed as a result of changing client requirements.
May 25, 1970


AMHERST, N.S.-NEW FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Coales: On what date will tenders be called for the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): Not known. Accommodation requirements for Amherst being reviewed as a result of changing client requirements.


ROUTING OF MAIL TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What is the routing of mail from points in central or western Canada, or United States addressed to (a) Wabush, Newfoundland (b) Labrador City, Newfoundland?
2.	What is the routing of such mail if addressed to (a) Wabush, Labrador (b) Labrador City, Labrador?
3.	Would the Department consider having all mail addressed to Wabush or Labrador City routed via Montreal?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Prepaid air mail from the U.S.A. and first class mail of central or western Canada origin are routed to the Air Mail Facility at Montreal International Airport for onward air conveyance via Quebecair Flights. United States first class and all other classes of mail are routed via Montreal and Sept lies, P.Q.
2.	Same as above.
3.	No. Mails originating in Newfoundland province are conveyed direct to destination via flights emanating from St. John's.


EFFECT OF INCREASE IN INCOME TAX EXEMPTION
Mr. Mather: Had income tax exemption for persons 70 years and over been increased from the present $1,500 per annum to $2,500 what, in 1969, would have been the amount lost to national revenue in terms of percentage?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The estimated revenue loss is $35 million. This is .8 per cent of total federal budgetary personal income tax revenue in 1969, or 22 per cent of estimated federal personal income and old age security tax paid by individuals over age 70.
WORLD WAR n VETERANS


Mr. Caouefte: How many World War n veterans are still alive and, of this number, how many receive (a) a pen-
Orders for Returns
sion for disability attributable to service (b) a veteran's allowance and, in each case, what is the total amount?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minisier of Velerans Affairs):: Preamble-Information not available, (a) 103,728, $114,794,950; (b) 23,152, $33,440,521.
Note: In addition to (b) above there are Dual Service (World War I and World War II) recipients of war veterans allowance as follows: 831, $831,808.


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


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Preamble-Information not available. (a) 24,361, $32,360,102; (b) 18,632, $16,097,715.
Note: In addition to (b) above there are Dual Service (World War I and World War II) recipients of war veterans allowance as follows: 831, $831,808.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tabled an Annual Report containing information reported by corporations under Part I of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act for each of the years 1965, 1966 and 1967 as required by Section 16 of the Act and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Has the Minister tabled an Annual Report containing information reported by Labour Unions under Part II of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act for 1967 and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Is it the intention of the Minister to table the 1968 Annual Reports of both Corporations (Part I) and Labour Unions (Part II) at the end of 1969 or immediately thereafter, as required by the Act?
4.	How many of the 185 corporations for 1965, 745 for 1966, and 2,990 for 1967 reported as in default as of December 2, 1968, have since filed returns and how many of the defaulting corporations have been prosecuted and fined pursuant to Section 6 of the Act?
5.	What type of employee organization is deemed to qualify as (a) a reporting union, and (b) a nonreporting union, under Part II of the Act, and on what grounds?

May 25, 1970
Orders for Returns
6.	For each of the years 1963 to 1969, what has been the total expenditure incurred in administrating Fart I of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act?
7.	For the same years, what has been the total expenditure incurred in administrating Part II of the Act?
8.	For each of the years 1963 to 1969, how many persons have been on the permanent payroll engaged in the processing, analysis and publication of information collected from corporations under Part I of the Act?
9.	For the same years, how many persons have been on the permanent payroll engaged in the processing, analysis and publication of information collected from labour unions under Part II of the Act?
10.	In view of the time-lag in the publication of Annual Reports on Corporations, what direct action has been taken, or is contemplated, by the government to place the Corporation and Labour Unions Returns Act under administration, which will require prompt returns to be filed?
11.	What does the government regard as the primary purpose and basic objective of the Corporation and Labour Unions Returns Act (a) as it relates to corporations, and (b) as it relates to labour unions?
12.	Has there been any deflection from the main goals originally established when this Act became law, or is there a policy designed to discourage implementation of the legislative intent as originally conceived by Parliament?
13.	What amendments have been made to Part I of the Act, the corporations' part, since enactment, and if there have been any, what was the purpose of each?
14.	Have any amendments been introduced to correct defects in Part II of the Act, the Labour Unions' part and, if so, what were these?
15.	Has the Minister or his predecessors, or any officials of his department received any representations urging the adoption of such amendments or changes in the reporting procedures and, if so, how were they disposed of?
16.	Will the adoption of the amendments to the Canada Corporations Act proposed in Bill C-4 involve the simultaneous filing by Corporations of the same information under two different Acts of Parliament, namely the Canada Corporations Act and the Corporations and Labour Unions' Returns Act, and will the government consider transferring the administration of the latter Act (CLURA) to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
17.	As unions are requested to file with the Department of Labour (Research and Economics Branch) essentially the same type of non-financial information required to be filed with the Minister's Department under Part II of this Act (CLURA), is any action being taken to relieve Unions of this burden and thereby eliminate duplication of filing returns?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-CUSTOMS AND EXCISE PERSONNEL
Mr. Broadbeni: 1. How many positions are there in the Customs and Excise Branch of the Department of National Revenue?

2.	How many of these positions are filled?
3.	What is the breakdown of employees in the Customs and Excise Branch in the following categories (a) Executive (b) Scientific and Professional (c) Administrative and Foreign Service (d) Administrative Support (e) Operational (f) Technical?
4.	How many employees have been laid off during the past twelve months?
5.	What is the breakdown of employees by job category?
Return tabled.


DRUGS-&quot;DIAZEPAM&quot; PATENT
Mr. Gilbert: 1.	When was the drug Diazepam patented by the firm Hoffmann LaRoche?
2.	Does it still have the status of a new drug?
3.	What are the criteria in determining what is a new drug?
4.	How long does a drug retain the status of a new drug?
5.	When will the drug Diazepam not be considered a new drug?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the experience and the findings with regard to 2-4D and other chemicals such as 2-4-5T, is the Department of Agriculture conducting a comprehensive study of such chemicals which are used for agricultural and other purposes?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A continuing review of these chemicals is carried out by research people in the Department of Agriculture as well as in co-operation with several other departments which also have the capability to review the effects, particularly the residual effects, of these chemicals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the growing indications that an increasing number of these chemicals have very serious side effects in terms of effects on future generations, are the department and groups associated with the department making a substantially increased effort in terms of urgency and availability of staff and resources for this purpose?
May 25, 1970


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there has been a substantial increase in technicians assigned to this task. However, I should advise the Leader of the Opposition that we have made some changes very recently in the recommendations or the purposes for which these particular chemicals will be licensed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, one further question with regard to 2-4D which is now useable in Canada only for certain restricted purposes. I should like to ask the minister whether he has considered any new evidence of increasingly serious effects of the use of this chemical and whether his department is considering abandoning completely the use of 2-4D and related chemicals?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not seriously considering banning them entirely. I should advise, however, that wherever we find there is any risk to human health in the residue that may be found in any food or where they may find their way into the food chain, we are severely restricting the licensing of them for uses that would have that result.



ADEQUATE RESEARCH PRIOR TO MARKETING OF NEW CHEMICAL PRODUCTS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the same subject. Is the government considering any regulations to prohibit the marketing of any new or changed chemical products until such time as more adequate research is done as to their effects either on the food chain or in other ways ecologically?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the department, especially during the last year, has been increasingly concerned about these chemicals and we are reviewing the whole situation to ascertain what greater precautions can be taken.



PRESENCE OF MERCURY IN ALBERTA PHEASANTS AND HUNGARIAN PARTRIDGE

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Has the use of the chemicals which rendered pheasant and Hungarian partridge in southern Alberta unfit for human consumption been banned?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. The residue of the chemical that was found in those birds was mercury and thus far we have been unable to determine where the birds obtained it, whether it was from treated seed, which is a common use of mercury, or from some other source. As the hon. member knows, there has been a ban on the hunting of these birds, and therefore presumably on their consumption by humans, until the place where this mercury entered their diet can be determined.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Have any steps been taken to have the chemical companies substitute some other type of product than a mercury compound for the treatment of seeds?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of chemicals now available that are suitable alternatives to the use of mercury in treating for "smut" and "bunt".



STUDY OF EFFECTS OF USE OF TORDON AS DEFOLIANT

Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker, concerning the chemical, Tordon, that is used as a defoliant along the Canada-United States border. Have there been any new studies on the possible dangers arising from the fact that this chemical may be getting into water supplies along the Canada-United States border?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drug Directorate has been concerned in this area and is reviewing the situation. As soon as I have anything more definite to report, I shall make a statement to that effect in the House.



ALTERNATIVE CHEMICAL TO 2-4-5T

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Are active investigations going on to find an alternative chemical to 2-4-5T so that this chemical, in view of its very bad record, need not be used in the future?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is erroneous to say that it has a very bad record. This particular chemical has not been found in any form in any food. As I pointed out to the
May 25. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry House a lew days ago, there is a nil tolerance of this chemical in any food. The additional restrictions were introduced as a result of testing by administering minute quantities of this chemical to pregnant mice and rats.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that we have heard quite a few supplementaries on this subject. We should go on to another matter and return to this subject if there is time at the end of the question period.



POST OFFICE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of newspaper reports about negotiations in the postal dispute. Is the impression given in those reports that only two or three major issues are left in the discussions correct, or are there still 10 or 12 issues not resolved? Also, we would welcome any general report that the President of the Treasury Board might feel it appropriate to make.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I think the House is aware, the negotiations have been continuing throughout the weekend and are scheduled to continue today and tomorrow. The parties agreed on Friday that it probably would be useful if the negotiations were continued on a confidential basis. This being so, I would not want to do anything to impede or disrupt these negotiations and so will refrain from any general comment on their progress. I can say, however, that there are more issues still to be negotiated and under discussion than the two major issues the hon. gentleman mentioned.


David Lewis: The minister just spoke about the confidentiality of the negotiations, which I can fully appreciate at this state. My supplementary question arises out of the statement made by the minister on some program yesterday that a certain pattern as to wage increases had been set by some sections of the Public Service and that the postal unions are seeking to pierce that pattern. Would the minister inform the House what unions dealing with the Treasury Board have set such a pattern and whether his statement to the public of Canada that the postal unions are

seeking to pierce that pattern-I ask this seriously-is in line with the understanding between the parties that the negotiations would not be given a public airing?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not got a list of the agreements with me to which reference was made but I will undertake to produce that tomorrow for the hon. gentleman. In relation to the remark attributed to me that the postal unions are endeavouring to pierce this pattern, this was in response to a suggestion that the government was endeavouring to make use of the negotiations with the postal union to set an example, in an endeavour to enforce anti-inflationary measures, to the public through the medium of the postal service unions. I indicated that one was not singling out the postal unions as an example of restraint but merely hoping that the postal unions would conform with the general pattern of restraint which other agreements have indicated.


David Lewis: I wish to ask a further supplementary in view of what the minister has just said. Is the minister informing the House and also the postal unions that further negotiations with respect to wages at least are of no use and that the government is going to stand by a certain pattern and will not move from it?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Lewis: I ask this question because of the statement just made by the minister and the deleterious effect it is likely to have on the negotiations. I am giving the minister an opportunity to straighten it out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked a question. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement made on the weekend by the Postmaster General that there is not to be any reduction in staff as a result of automation and, indeed, there is to be an increase, is the government giving consideration to making an offer to the postal employees during the negotiations with regard to job security?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think on reflection the hon. member will agree that he is asking me to conduct the negotiations, which other people are supposed to be conducting elsewhere, across the floor of the House.
May 25, 1970


David Orlikow: A further supplementary
question. Is the President of the Treasury Board in fact considering entering the negotiations so that when the postal employees and their officials are dealing with the government they will be dealing with the minister rather than with an official who must come to the minister for approval before making any offers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thank the hon. member for this advice as to how the negotiations might be conducted. I can only reply that should my participation appear to serve a useful purpose I will be only too willing to do so.



AGRICULTURE


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question.
Quebec mills are having trouble getting feed grain because the shipping season has begun for export purposes. Is the minister aware of the situation and, if so, what does he intend to do about it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that several feed mills in eastern Canada, not only in Quebec but in the Maritimes as well, have been finding it difficult in the last few days to obtain sufficient quantities of feed grain. I have asked the Livestock Feed Board to investigate this and to give me a report as quickly as possible along with suggestions as to what remedy might be put into play at once. A preliminary survey of the situation appears to indicate that there were insufficient forward orders placed for feed grain, perhaps in view of an unanticipated increase in demand, compared to the same period last year.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I will wait for silence, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government discussed with the government of the United
22375-42J
Inquiries of the Ministry States President Nixon's proposal that all countries should renounce their claims to undersea natural resources beyond a point where the water reaches a depth of 200 metres? If so, what reaction did the Canadian government express to their counterparts in the United States?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government is studying President Nixon's proposals to ascertain the precise extent to which they indicate a change from the previous position. Until there is a decision on that, I have nothing further to add.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. When does the government intend to discuss these proposals with the United States government and to advise the Canadian people of the stand of the government on this important matter?


George James McIlraith: When they have completed the study, which will be very soon.


George Harris Hees: Must we really wait that long, Mr. Speaker?


POLICY ON MUTUAL TROOP REDUCTIONS BY NATO AND WARSAW PACT COUNTRIES
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the meeting of NATO foreign and defence ministers which will begin in Rome tomorrow, I believe, is the minister prepared to make a statement to the House on government policy with regard to appropriate steps which might be taken toward the objective of mutual troop reductions on the part of NATO on the one hand and the Warsaw Pact on the other?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: .1 am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be discussing this particular question when he attends the meeting in Rome. Perhaps he will be in a position to make a report on his return.


John Angus MacLean: Is the government prepared to support the suggestion of the British Foreign Secretary that the NATO powers should propose the setting up of a standing commission which would act as a channel of communication for the consideration of east-west relations in this important matter of troop reductions?

May 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Drury: As I have said, this subject will be discussed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, again, 1 believe it would be better to await his return rather than to attempt to elaborate on it now.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the hon. gentleman give every assurance that there will be no forgiveness for any municipality which deals with Ottawa using guile, skulduggery or a less-than-honest approach, as was recommended on Saturday by the hon. member for York West?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt as to the form of the question asked by the hon. member; I should like to have the opportunity to reflect on it. If there is urgency attached to it, it seems to me this is eminently the kind of question which hon. members always enjoy debating at ten o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will try it again, if I may. Will the Solicitor General, since there is no more parliamentary privilege, consider putting the hon. member for York West in jail for the statement he made on Saturday?


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion regarding conditions in Cornwall, Ontario, where at the present time it is estimated there are some 3,300 unemployed representing about 18 per cent of the labour force. I asked the minister a question about this matter some weeks ago and he replied that a special task force was looking into the situation in the area. Has he yet received a report, and what action, if any, is his department taking to meet this unfortunate situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the task force returned last week. I have not received any recent report on that matter. I will inquire and give the House the results of the study tomorrow or the day after.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A short time ago, when the minister was answering questions about the unemployment situation in Cornwall, he explained it away by telling us there were a number of other cities in Canada where unemployment was worse. Will he inform the House which cities he was referring to?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, the sleeping giant-stirrer, regarding the white paper on transforming the Post Office Department into a Crown corporation. This is a document which, according to the minister, has been discussed with the postal unions but, to quote the hon. gentleman, "the cabinet doesn't even know about it, yet." May I ask the minister when he intends to let his cabinet colleagues see this document, and when members of this House might be given a look?


Eric William Kierans: As soon as the document is complete, Mr. Speaker.




Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: My question is addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs; I have given notice of it to his office. Has Canada taken steps through diplomatic channels to condemn the attack on an Israeli school bus which originated in Lebanese territory last Friday causing the death of 11 people, most of whom were children?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sure all hon. members share the sense of shock and distaste which this incident has produced. I do not know as yet what effective formal steps we could take in protest, but clearly an expression of dissatisfaction should be registered.
May 25. 1970


REPRESENTATIONS TO LEBANON ON CONTROL OF TERRORIST ACTIVITY
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Will the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs urge upon the government of the Lebanon that it take steps to control terrorist activity based on its own territory, since such murderous attacks are bound to lead to the escalation of hostilities?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I believe such representations have already been made collectively to the states in that area. Perhaps a reiteration of this view would be helpful.


ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT-USE OF UNITED NATIONS FORCE TO SEPARATE COMBATANTS
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Bearing in mind the continuing escalation of the war in the Middle East, is the government giving consideration to making representations to the United Nations that that body should interpose a force in sufficient strength to separate the combatants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As the hon. member knows, the possibility, or the reality, of the escalation of hostilities in the Middle East has been a source of great concern to both the United Nations Assembly and to the Security Council. Unhappily, they have not yet been able to produce the kind of solution which would put an end to this almost intolerable situation but efforts toward realizing this laudable objective are continuing.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Approximately a month ago the minister was questioned concerning the fact that his counterpart in British Columbia was violating the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan by refusing welfare payments in certain circumstances. The minister stated at that time that if actual cases were cited he would take the proper action. Since there is now evidence in regard to specific cases, may I ask what action, if any, the hon. gentleman proposes to take to persuade or compel the Hon. Phil Gaglardi of the British Columbia government to authorize these welfare payments in cases of need?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Some of the observations made by the hon. member are correct. Complaints have now been received that applicants for social assistance have been rejected and that these rejections involve persons in need. We are discussing these complaints and looking into the individual cases. If we reach the conclusion that these applicants are in fact qualified to receive assistance and are not receiving it, I intend to approach my counterpart in the Province of British Columbia with a request for a meeting as soon as possible in an endeavour to iron out the situation before taking any further action.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Is consideration being given to revising the formula or formulae under which assistance is made available to Canadian provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan and various other pieces of legislation in order to give these schemes a regional flair?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member probably knows, the welfare ministers from the Atlantic provinces were in Ottawa to see me three or four weeks ago. They suggested then that the question raised by the hon. member should be looked into. I assured them I would study the situation in consultation with my cabinet colleagues and have a reply ready for them as soon as possible. We are still in the process of formulating our position on the matter and I shall have nothing to announce concerning the conclusion of that study for at least a month or six weeks.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, now that the Canadian Labour Congress has quite vigorously rejected the government's proposals with regard to wage restraint I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he or the Prices and Incomes Commission proposes to take any further initiatives with a view to convincing the CLC,
May 25, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry for example, that the government's policy is valid, or does the minister regard this particular program as dead?
Hon, Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs); Mr. Speaker, the commission is making its price review procedure as strong as possible in line with the agreement reached earlier in the year. It is also endeavouring to enlist the support of the Canadian people generally in a price, wage and salary restraint program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the government apparently made no effort to appear before the CLC convention to support its policy, I ask the minister whether this particular policy of the Prices and Incomes Commission and of the government, that of reaching an understanding with regard to wage restraints, has been abandoned or can the minister tell us of any specific initiatives the government proposes to take, because otherwise we will have to assume it has been abandoned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly the second part, appears to invite a rather general statement. The minister might like to reply to the first part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have forgotten the first part now, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the Opposition would rephrase the first part, I would be happy to answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to make it easy and simple for the minister. I ask the minister specifically whether, inasmuch as the government made no effort to convince the CLC in regard to its policy, we are now to assume that the government is in fact abandoning this policy or whether there is some specific measure the government proposes to take to implement this policy?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, for some time, both through the government and through the Prices and Incomes Commission, we have been endeavouring to persuade the Canadian people of the wisdom of a restraint program in respect of salaries, wages and other money incomes. We will continue to do that and persist in that program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister to stop speaking in generalities and relate his answer to the question I asked him with regard to specific proposals. I am asking

specifically whether the Prices and Incomes Commission and the government intend to take any other specific measures in order to implement the restraint program which would now appear to be largely in ruin at the moment?


Mr. Speaker:: This is the part of the question which I suggested invited a general statement and to which the Chair took exception.


INFLATION-DISTRIBUTION BY PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION OF LEAFLET, &quot;FIGHT INFLATION-SAVE JOBS&quot;
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a supplementary question to the minister regarding a notice which I understand has been sent to all Canadians. I received a copy and, judging by the number of people who have mentioned it to me, almost everybody has received one in the mail, at a cost of over $300,000. It is entitled, "Fight Inflation-Save Jobs". Was the minister's approval obtained by the Prices and Incomes Commission prior to sending out this piece of literature?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Commission is independent and it is the wording of the commission. I think the wording of the pamphlet to which the hon. member refers is a great deal more useful than the speech the hon. member made a few days ago to the Canadian Labour Congress.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My speech was not sent to five million people at government expense. May I ask the minister if this piece of literature represents the government's policy and whether the government's "fight inflation" program has saved any jobs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the-we-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -we have tried to persuade the country that the more effective the program of the Prices and Incomes Commission is the more jobs we will have in this country. If the leader of the New Democratic Party does not understand simple economics it seems to me it would be very difficult to get that through his head.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three or four hon. members seeking the floor to ask supplementaries. I remind hon. members that there are only a few minutes left before the
May 25. 1370

end of the question period. I suggest that we move on to another subject for the moment in any event.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration relating to a question I asked him about ten days ago. Is the minister now in a position to report to the House concerning how many United States citizens took part in the recent riot in Toronto and how many helped to incite the riot? If the minister is not prepared to do so now, will he undertake to make a statement on motions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in this regard it is very difficult to be certain concerning the numbers. I know there were a number of persons involved in the demonstration who came to the attention of the police. Of that number only a portion were residents of the United States or were United States citizens. The larger portion was made up of Canadians.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, would the minister now tell us what action it is proposed will be taken against the United States citizens who took part in this violence in the city of Toronto and, specifically, does the minister intend to have them deported?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the normal
course of the law will take place and if they come to the attention of the department they will be deported. The full force of the immigration law will be applied to them.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that a number of survivors are unable to collect their benefits under the Canada Pension Plan because the deceased contributors, in most cases selfemployed persons, failed to obtain a social insurance number, is the government taking any steps to correct this situation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I anticipate that within the next two weeks such survivors of self-employed contributors to the Canada Pension Plan will be able to receive benefits without the necessity of the deceased having a social insurance number.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister make a statement in the House at that time? Also, may I ask if the new arrangement will be retroactive?


John Carr Munro: I will make a statement in the House at that time. I believe it is to be retroactive but I will check that.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming medical reports that phenacetin, an ingredient in pain relievers, can damage the human kidney, will the minister urgently consider banning the sale of non-prescription compounds containing this dangerous drug?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the federal Food and Drug Directorate has had this under review for some time. I would remind hon. members that there is a very severe warning on the labels of products containing this particular chemical, but our concern is continuing. We have brought together a committee of outside experts to give us advice on what further action, if any, should be taken. As soon as I have the benefit of that advice I shall advise the House.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LEDAIN COMMISSION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare when the LeDain commission report will be tabled in the House, because two months ago he promised it would be brought in within two weeks?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate I will receive the report possibly within the next week or ten days. I know I have said
May 25. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry that many times, but I am assured now that it will be coming forward. I shall take up the matter with my colleagues and will make a decision at that time on whether or not the report is to be made public.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the House that neither he nor his colleagues have interfered with the commission in the preparation of its report, and has such government interference caused any delay?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the members of the commission were advised by me that I preferred that the report not be turned over to the government until it was ready in both official languages, at which time I considered it would be in a proper form to be turned over. I understand that that process is completed and I shall be receiving it very shortly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister probably did not understand my question. I asked him whether he or any of his colleagues had interfered with the recommendations that are now being put together in that report?


John Carr Munro: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenf-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he indicate to the House why requests by interested parties for copies of his Bill C-197 are being refused, and can he assure the House he will make it his responsibility to ensure that such copies are made available?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As the hon. member knows, my office is not responsible for the distribution of bills. If insufficient copies were printed in the first instance, I will do what I can to encourage additional copies to be printed, but I am not able to answer whether or not there was a greater demand than the first printing was able to satisfy.



IMMIGRATION


Francis Andrew Brewin: My
question is for the Minister of Manpower and


Immigration. In light of the fact that certain distinguished visitors from North Viet Nam to a conference at York University over the weekend could not get visas to enter Canada, can the minister assure the House that there is no change in the government's liberal policy to welcome visitors to such conferences without reference to their political views?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The inability to issue visas on this occasion was not related to any change in policy. The existing and previous policy will continue into the future. If these delegates had applied earlier and given us an opportunity to process the applications, it might have been possible to avoid these difficulties.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Can the minister say whether it would not have been possible in this case to abbreviate the time for making such inquiries?


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seems to me the hon. member is now asking a question which has a hypothetical flavour.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Paul Sf. Pierre (Coasl-Chilcotin):: have a question for the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I shall address it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Has the government taken any more initiative in the towboat strike in British Columbia, and has he any progress to report?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: In the interests of the economy of the west coast and because of the thousands of laid-off workers who are helpless victims of this totally unnecessary stoppage of operations, the Minister of Labour has requested that both sides assume their full responsibilities to their members and the public, and to this end he has directed the director of the conciliation and arbitration branch, Mr. W. P. Kelly, to consult with representatives of both the parties involved in the towboat dispute for the purpose of determining their attitude to see if any avenues of settlement have opened since the pre-strike mediation.
May 25. 1970



COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR QUANTITY


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the substantial acreage of grain that remained unharvested last fall in western Canada because of wet weather and snow and the resulting serious loss in quantity caused by mice, deer and other wildlife, which has now become apparent in spring harvest operations, what provisions, if any, is the government making under PFAA or some other means to compensate farmers for these serious losses?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Any townships that were not harvested last fall, or many of those townships, were inspected this spring, and the amount of actual yield per acre after all of these factors are taken into account is what the PFAA estimates or awards are based on. So I suggest that, in so far as PFAA is concerned, that is automatic when they take into account the yields that were actually obtained from these fields this spring.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 21, consideration of Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, motion No. 7 (Mr. Comeau) and motion No. 14 (Mr. Harding).
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part very briefly in this debate as the result of a statement attributed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail.
Before I come to that, I would like to say that in the Committee on National Resources and Public Works, where this bill was being
Water Resources Programs discussed clause by clause, the members of all opposition parties endeavoured by every means at their disposal to amend this bill by making provision for national water standards for comparable bodies of water. On every occasion when these amendments were introduced, the government members of our committee used every device to thwart the introduction of this proposal, indicating that it was against the wishes of the minister, against his policy and the statement he had previously made.
The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) have amendments which are essentially the same. Now, at this stage of the bill, we are endeavouring to have these amendments placed in the legislation, having failed to do so in the committee. In support of that endeavour, I would like to read, if I may, from this morning's issue of the Globe and Mail in which the minister is reported to have made the following statement:
We shall have to maintain some very strong federal inputs in the authorities to assure that standards for comparable bodies of water will be the same in all parts of Canada.
Surely, this is the identical view we were trying to get the government to accept in the committee. The minister having said that, it must make it very easy for all members of the government to support the two motions now before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 7?


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: would like to make a few comments on the two motions which are before the House, namely, motions Nos. 7 and 14. Both of them deal with the need for national standards for different bodies of water all across Canada. Needless to say, the reason that the Conservative party and our own party have moved these amendments to bring in national standards is that the minister, his department and the government, have not seen fit to bring in national standards for the various bodies of water in Canada.
I would like to join those who have expressed their disappointment in the government not moving along these lines simply because our fight against the water pollution problem in Canada will not be too successful unless we establish some type of national standards for the various bodies of water mentioned by previous speakers. I feel that
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs the Canada Water Act is the most important piece of legislation which has come before the House this session. It deals with the management of our Canadian water resources and is supposed to be a blueprint for a national attack on water pollution.
Several hon. members have indicated there are so many weaknesses in the bill that the major, all-out attack against our pollution problems will have difficulty in even getting off the ground. The government, and the department in charge, have passed up a golden opportunity to give real leadership in a Canada-wide fight against pollution problems which are destroying the quality of our environment and, in fact, are threatening our very existence. Instead of firm and vigorous leadership in the fight against pollution the bill is an example of a weak, vacillating, ineffective and piecemeal approach to one of the most serious problems facing our nation.
One of the major weaknesses of the bill is the failure of the minister to establish water quality standards for all classes of water in Canada. That is what we are debating this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. We are determined to make a last ditch attempt to have some kind of a national standard written into the bill, which will help to prevent further deterioration in water quality throughout the nation. The more I read the bill, the more I am convinced that the government is on the wrong track, and the more convinced I am that members of the House have not really grasped just what the bill will bring about. Instead of setting up national standards for the various classes of water in Canada, the bill will create a hodge-podge of water quality management areas throughout the nation.
Each management area will be able to set its own standards. These areas will not include an entire river basin. Such an area may include one tributary, or a section of a river. A good example is the intention to set up a management area for the lower Fraser River in British Columbia. As I say, each management area will be able to set its own standards. The bill will allow industry to pay effluent fees to pollute our waters. Quality standards will vary from area to area, and from province to province. This piecemeal approach cannot help but have a detrimental effect on the over-all solution to our pollution problems.
The Government's approach could lead to area competing with area for industry, by deliberately lowering both their water quality standards and their effluent fees. It could lead

to province competing against province for industry on the same basis. This piecemeal approach will encourage greater concentration of industry, particularly industries whose effluent is difficult to purify, in areas which have low water quality standards or no standards at all. This means that citizens who live in an industrialized area can expect to have waters of low quality, waters which will be unavailable for many of the uses to which water is normally put and for which there is a growing demand.
The present plan will create pollution havens from one end of Canada to the other. There is no doubt that, as drafted, the bill is a sop to industry, and is an extremely fragmented approach to solving our pollution problems. I cannot understand why the minister and the government are opposed to the setting up of national quality standards for the various classes of water. I cannot understand why all the Liberal members on the National Resources Committee, who last year voted unanimously for national standards, have failed to take a similar stand on this piece of legislation.


Mr. Alexander:: They have been reached.


Mr. Greene:: Some people learn.


Randolph Harding: In fact, every Liberal member on this year's committee voted against the setting up of national standards, and decided to go along with the piecemeal approach which will result in the setting up of pollution havens throughout the country. It seems to me that the minister received a great deal of bad advice from those who helped him frame the legislation. They certainly did not check very carefully with the Canadian people, nor did they take the advice of many of the provinces and interested organizations.
The people of Canada were looking for leadership. The provinces and the municipalities generally would have accepted federal leadership in a nation wide fight against pollution. The government, the minister and his department have failed to give such leadership. It is difficult to believe that a department could have worked for years on the type of legislation which was brought into this House last fall and which, despite major amendment, still provides a weak, indecisive and fragmented water authority.
The need to fight pollution on a national basis, with broad national guidelines and standards, should be obvious to everyone. It is the only method which will prevent industry
May 25, 1970	COMMONS
from seeking low cost, low standard pollution havens. National standards will protect those provinces and areas which want to clean up pollution against provinces and areas which fail to act. By not instituting over-all standards, the federal government might well slow up pollution campaigns in those provinces that want to get on with the task yet cannot afford to lose industry and jobs by demanding standards higher than other areas. This point has been made to the federal government by the provinces, but seems to have been totally ignored. The lack of federal interest and initiative in this respect is discouraging. It is a sure sign that the federal approach to the problem is faulty and has been poorly planned.
The setting of national standards for various classes of water makes sense. We do not hesitate to set national standards for certain types of pollutants such as phosphate detergents, the use of DDT, the methods to be used in oil drilling, etc. The Fisheries Act contains broad national standards which can be enforced in the fight against pollution. It is not only members of the opposition who are calling for national standards. A number of the provinces want them. This was clearly indicated to the federal government at the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on February 16 and 17 of this year. The submissions made by the provinces at that time are interesting and informative. It is no wonder that the government tried to keep this information from the committee when it was studying the Canada Water Act.
At the conference, the province of Alberta urged that the federal government's role should be the establishment of national minimum standards for water quality, backed by tough statutory penalties applicable to all offenders, public, private or otherwise. It felt that the question of how such standards were met or maintained should be the responsibility of the provinces, and it pointed out that the working relationship with a province should be similar to that which has long applied under criminal law. Alberta pointed out that the right of the federal government to enforce national minimum standards is essential in the interest of preventing unfair industrial competition between provinces, as otherwise there might be a temptation for a province to compromise on water quality standards. Not only would that approach place responsibility for pollution control directly on the offenders and hold the provinces responsible for primary enforcement,
DEBATES	7275
Water Resources Programs but it would also avoid the establishment of another expensive bureaucracy of the type envisioned under the proposed Canada Water Act. The Alberta brief pointed out that, in the final analysis, it is not industry but the consumer who must pay the price of industrial pollution control. The important factor, therefore, was that all industry be subject to the same basic pollution control requirements which, in turn, required the establishment of national water standards or pollution criteria.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The Saskatchewan brief pointed out that common water quality standards are being widely advocated. It supported the idea of using common criteria on a national basis to assess the degree of pollution in water supplies. The province was hesitant to accept the concept of national minimum standards because such standards often became the maximum requirements. Saskatchewan felt common standards on a regional or river basin basis was more practical.
The brief for the province of British Columbia called for the formulation of common interprovincial and provincial-federal approaches, uniform minimum objectives of waste treatment and control and target dates for such control. It felt that efficient intergovernmental communication could be achieved by creating an intergovernmental body representing the responsible single agencies. British Columbia felt the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers would be an effective vehicle to consider this problem. The brief pointed out that the proposed Canada Water Act will not create a nationwide uniform approach to water management or pollution prevention, but would destroy the existing provincewide concepts by creating a confusing mix of federal, joint federal-provincial and provincial legislative programs and institutions with their overlapping federal and provincial jurisdictions and administrations.
The province of Manitoba pointed out that unless there was strong federal co-ordination, those provinces which applied adequate antipollution standards would be placed at a decided disadvantage in the competition for industrial development. Here again, Mr. Speaker, province after province is worried about this piecemeal approach to the pollution problem but the federal government, it appears, has completely ignored many of the representations made by the provinces. Going back to the position taken by Manitoba, that
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs province indicated that unless there was strong federal co-ordination those provinces which applied adequate anti-pollution standards would be placed at a decided disadvantage in the competition for industrial development. This emphasizes the fear of all the provinces of losing industry and the need for national standards and national enforcement.
The Ontario government also expressed concern that no agency or province should employ unrealistically low water quality standards in order to create an undue advantage over other jurisdictions for the attraction of industry. Here is another province asking the minister and his department to watch this point. Ontario felt that a major criterion that must apply to the quality of water anywhere in Canada was that it should not endanger human or animal life. The province felt this was a minimum health requirement and the standard agreed upon after relevant research and consultation must be adopted throughout the nation. It felt that the provinces or agencies should adopt sets of standards in excess of this absolute minimum, taking into account the economic uses which recreation, agriculture, fishing, harbour activities made of water in particular areas or localities. Ontario also expressed deep concern about the provisions in the bill which give water quality management areas authority to permit the discharge of waste into provincial waters in return for payment of a fee by the polluter. Ontario is opposed to this concept. They found it would not work and their present plan is that everyone must treat waste adequately before disposing of it. I feel that this is the right approach and the one which should be taken on a national basis.
The province of Quebec believes that except for federal waters, it is the task of the provincial governments to decree minimum quality standards, to define pollutants, and to take decisions concerning offences, set fines and carry out the inspection and analyses required. In view of the recent election in that province, there may be some change in their over-all approach to the pollution problem. In the maritime provinces there is also a great concern over pollution problems and they call for more federal assistance; however, here they do not specifically ask for national standards.
There is no doubt that generally throughout Canada the provinces, organizations and individuals have been expecting leadership from the federal government in establishing a

code of standards that would apply all across Canada and would be uniformly enforced. This is one of the keys to a successful fight against our pollution problems and I regret that the minister and this government have not seen fit to move in this direction.
If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and his advisers do not see the advantages of national standards, there is at least one member of the Cabinet who, up until recently, has been advocating such a stand. I refer to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). For the last two years, he has been pressing vigorously for national standards in the Fisheries Act to cope with our grave pollution problems. Lately, he has been tempering his speeches and avoiding references to national standards, but let me quote several of his speeches in which I think he has properly outlined the need for the establishment of national standards if we are to be effective in our fight against pollution. This minister feels that the most effective weapon Canada can use to fight water pollution is the Fisheries Act, and at this stage I am inclined to agree with him. He has waxed lyrical about the need for broad national standards and the need for national enforcement. It amazes me that the government, and the Cabinet in particular, have not listened too carefully to this particular minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to part of the campaign carried on across Canada by the Minister of Fisheries over the past two years in the fight against pollution and the fight for national standards of enforcement. There are one or two paragraphs of an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of August 7, 1969, which I think should be put on the record. The second paragraph of the article contains the Minister's definition of pollution which reads:
Pollution, in other words, must be stopped at the factory fence. It must be confined to our industrial plants themselves. It must not be allowed to spill out into our rivers or to pollute our seas. Instead, it must be limited to the scene of its own beginnings. It must not be allowed to get away. It must not be allowed to contaminate the wholesome environment in which we live.
So what does the government do? They set up water quality management areas in which they will allow industry to pay to pollute-to pay to pollute-the very opposite to the position taken by the Minister of Fisheries who says that pollution must be stopped at the factory fence. That is where Canadians want it to stop, at the factory fence.
May 25, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Fisheries also said in that same article:
The Fisheries Act must, of course, be applied uniformly across the country.
I repeat, he said that it must be applied uniformly across the country. We must not have a piecemeal approach to the matter. I continue quoting:
New plants should be up against uniform standards wherever they locate. They must be up against the same laws and the same regulations. Otherwise they will be able to seek out the provinces which have poorer standards and exploit their pollution laws.
That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. If water quality management areas are created in this country, they will become pollution havens.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Hear, hear.


Randolph Harding: We shall find that industry will seek out these havens. That is why the minister, in his wisdom, advocated a year ago that we adopt uniform laws throughout the country which would apply to industry and to different bodies of water. It amazes me that the minister and his advisers cannot see the damage they will do to the fight against pollution by their refusal to accept national standards for different classes of water in this country.
May I now refer to a speech the Minister of Fisheries made on January 15, 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will not mind being interrupted by the Chair. As he knows, we have before us at present a specific amendment which stands in the hon. member's name. It is my impression that some parts of his speech are rather general and would be more appropriate if raised at third reading rather than in relation to a specific amendment. I realize, also, that we have had rather far reaching debate up until now on these two amendments. I hope hon. members who take part in the debate at this stage will not forget that this is neither the second nor the third reading stage of the bill, but rather the report stage where speeches ought to be limited as much as possible to the amendment before the House. I say this in a general way, while taking into full account the fact that we have had a very general debate until now. I hope at the same time that these reservations will be kept in mind by hon. members.
DEBATES	7277
Water Resources Programs


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have confined my remarks to the Motions No. 7 and 14. We are debating them jointly. Both refer to the need for national standards in the various classes of water throughout Canada. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks will be confined to this aspect of the amendments and to those clauses of the bill that we are currently discussing.
Not only members of the opposition but cabinet ministers, provinces across Canada and members of important organizations feel that there is a need for national standards. Because the issue is so vital, I submit it requires a little more discussion and debate than might normally follow when the House is dealing with other amendments which may not be quite so all embracing as this one. I should like to put on the record something the minister said in January of this year. He said that there is a great need for a national water quality code. The Minister of Fisheries was interested in the setting up of a code which would be national in scope. At page 4 of his speech he said, "We need a national water quality code. Also we need regional guidelines drawn to meet regional needs. We need to know what the performance standards for each industry are." The minister, I believe, has pointed to one of the great weaknesses of this bill. It should be changed to include a provision for national standards. We submit that the effectiveness of the act will be impaired very seriously by the fragmentation of standards. We ought to be applying a uniform system of standards on a Canadawide basis.
We find that in a number of speeches delivered during the past year, the Minister of Fisheries has indicated that what Canada needs desperately at this stage is broad, national guidelines upon which to base our over-all attack on the pollution problem. In addition to what the minister said, we can rely on the submissions of a number of organizations, including the Canadian Wildlife Federation, which presented a brief to the committee. The Federation, too, is extremely worried about the approach the government is taking to national standards. May I quote briefly from the brief? It reads in part:
In its present form, Bill C-144 provides for establishment of water quality standards only in those areas which have been designated as water quality management areas. As we understand it, standards would vary from area to area. We believe that this piecemeal approach would have a most detrimental effect on the quality of water in Canada, through
7278	COMMONS DEBATES	May 25, 1970
Water Resources Programs encouraging greater concentration of industry, particularly those whose effluent is difficult to purify, in those areas which have low water quality standards or no standards at all.
We believe it is essential that a uniform, high standard of quality be established for all the waters of Canada.
I shall not read more from that brief. Again, I say to the minister that almost one year ago this day, on May 30, 1969, the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works brought in a unanimous report, which reads in part:
Your Committee recommends that the government draft a code of standards for the cleaning up of and the future protection of all Canadian waters: that provincial approval of such code be sought; and that the federal government provide an enforcement procedure-if necessary by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Here, we find that one year ago the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, after a year of study, recommended the introduction of national standards to be enforced, if necessary, through an amendment to the Criminal Code.
I realize other hon. members may wish to say a few words on these amendments. But may I again appeal to the minister to consider the amendments. While we feel critical of the government's approach to the question of national standards, we think it is not yet too late for the minister to accept the amendment which would give him the power, under this act, to set national standards. I also say this: unless these types of standards are set up, we shall find that those provinces and areas throughout Canada in which quality management areas are established will become havens for those who would evade pollution controls. We shall find, too, that unless provinces and areas can be assured they will not have to compete with areas tolerating lower standards than theirs, the fight against pollution will not get off the ground. That is because many of these areas and provinces will be reluctant to adopt higher standards if by doing so they may lose their industries and lose jobs for their people. As I have said, that is the reason for the need to establish these broad standards which a number of members in this House have requested.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate the other day. I was surprised that the discussion on this amendment was similar to a discussion we had the same day in a committee which was dealing with a different subject.

The committee was discussing the reluctance of the government to set standards for quality control on items such as electrical appliances. The committee was setting up a new standards control council. The committee members felt that the CSA should set standards and that, although the government was not going to underwrite standards, there was room to institute various controls which would allow the establishment of standards in areas where no one else is involved.
It was indicated in the discussions that there should be mandatory measurements which are not flexible in any way, shape or form. The measurement of inches, yards, pounds and other weights and measures should be mandatory, not negotiable or flexible. These standards must be set. The minister has not indicated the standard he is going to establish. However, I imagine there are now measurements set by the federal government which cannot vary because they are exact measurements.
There should be a similar type of measurement for water, one that does not vary. There should be a standard of 100 per cent pure and from there down the scale to the point where it lacks those qualities which permit its use for drinking, washing, and as a coolant or lubricant in the industrial sense. These standards must be set by the minister. Standards should be established for water just as there are for grain. There is the No. 1 northern grade, No. 1 northern with rocks in it and No. 1 northern with weeds of all types. Each is given a designation. These measurements do not change. They mean exactly what they say. If you know the code, you know what is in that particular grade of grain. You know whether it has been windburned, sunburned, whether it is damp or whatever else may be wrong with it.
There must also be a water standard that cannot be varied. The top of the scale would be 100 pure distilled water. The standards could vary according to the impurities. However, the basic measurement would not vary. This would be an exact, scientific measurement. I do not see how the minister can refuse to set a standard for the quality of water.
When we talk about water quality control, we talk about many things. This matter is obviously open to negotiation. For example, the standard for water for drinking purposes would obviously not be 100 pure. Distilled water is very unpalatable and, in my opinion, is unsuitable for drinking. There are a
May 25. 1970

number of impurities in drinking water, and according to a federal standard it would not be classed as pure water. Some water is suitable as long as logs can be floated in it. Other water is suitable as long as it can be used to run turbines. The quality standards would vary according to the use to which the water was to be put.
The minister should decide the kind of water control standards which should be established. Such standards should be established by the National Research Council and this scientific yardstick would not vary from province to province. It could be augmented by the controls to which the minister has referred. The controls could be negotiated because a lot will depend on the use to which the water is to be put.
The Liberal party has failed to make a number of final decisions. I hope in this case they will establish standards for water quality. I hope they will be willing to set standards which will be readily understood by all users in this country and which will be uniform in every province. Obviously, there must be different standards for industrial, domestic and recreational uses.
The minister has said that the situation in the Ottawa River is to be corrected. The pollution in the river behind Parliament Hill will now be cleaned up. The standard set for cleaning this pollution must be the same as the standard applied to Lake Timiskaming, the head water of the Ottawa River. It is true that if arsenic is put into the water it will pollute the water. If this were done on a large scale, it would be fatal. This could easily happen because vast amounts of arsenic have been sitting in barrels for years within 10 or 12 miles of this lake, and it could easily get into the drainage systems and into the water supply. Unless lethal doses got into the water supply, it would not have any effect on the pollution which the minister is talking about cleaning up in the area. Arsenic could be a very serious pollutant. The water should be protected against this pollutant in the same way we are now protecting it against mercury.
It is not good enough to say that each area or each province is going to be able to establish its own standards of quality control. There will have to be a standard which must not be flexible. Eventually the minister will be obliged to provide a scale against which the purity of water can be measured, a system which everyone can operate. Each type of impurity will be reflected by this
Water Resources Programs measure, enabling the scale to be used universally. Canada is in a specially good position to carry out this work and produce a system of classification which might be of use to other countries as well. This gives us an opportunity for leadership. We possess the technical facilities, and the variety of our resources would provide material for a complete scale covering water from many sources.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If the bill which the government now hopes to pass is intended to last for many years, surely we should start at the beginning by setting up a system for measuring water standards rather than allow a variety of standards to be set, varying from one area to another.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: On
rising to take part in this debate with special reference to Motions Nos. 7 and 14, I wish to make it clear that in my opinion the federal authorities have altogether failed to implement water purity programs for which they are directly responsible, and which they could have carried out had their approach to this question been as sincere as we are asked to believe.
The standards set with respect to sewage disposal at some of the Canadian Forces bases, for example, is far below what could be considered as meeting reasonable criteria. I will refer particularly to the situation in Moose Jaw. At the present time the Canadian Forces Base there is enlarging its sewage plant along existing lines. Only a short distance away the community of Moose Jaw has spent millions of dollars in constructing a modern sewage treatment plant which could be utilized by the base rather than allowing the sewage to flow into the river and pollute it, as is now the case beyond question. Surely, when it talks about imposing standards of water purity throughout Canada the government should take a close look at the standards it is setting in areas under federal jurisdiction. These are the first areas which ought to be examined, and where the water should be treated as it ought to be treated.
The pollution control committee in Moose Jaw has been most concerned about the situation. The bacteria level in the Moose Jaw River exceeds that which is acceptable by their standards. I recognize that the Saskatchewan Water Resource Commission says this level may be acceptable. Nevertheless, one should realize, I think, that the water in the river probably ceases to flow from the middle
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs of July until break-up the following spring; yet sewage from the base continues to pour into it during all that time. It can do nothing but pollute the river further. Now, the minister's department tells us it is gravely concerned about standards of water purity all over Canada. I should think its first task ought to be to put its own house in order. The only way in which we can restore confidence in parliamentary government to citizens throughout this nation is to impose water purity standards on direct federal authority rather than attempt to do so by means of a hodge-podge of provincial regulations which, in the end, could not be enforced.
I have received a very short letter on this subject from a very young person. It reads: Dear Mr. Skoberg:
I am protesting the pollution of the air and water of Canada and Saskatoon. I am writing to you in the hope that as my M.P. you will do something about this dangerous problem. I suggest you organize a bill which would make anyone polluting the air or water a criminal, punishable by a fine etc. In any case I hope you will do something.
Today, the entire nation is on a pollution kick, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said not long ago. If public insistence on these projects declines, I am afraid this bill will lose whatever teeth the government may be thinking of putting into the regulations which are to accompany it.
I urge the minister to regard with favour the idea of implementing national water standards in order that the provincial boards will not be placed in the position of trying to play one province against another. Only by establishing national standards can we avoid such a situation. I support the amendments which are before us for consideration. I plead with the minister to realize that the people want action now, and that they want national standards to be set-not provincial standards which would be used as a means by which certain provinces would seek to obtain new industries. Only national standards can prevent further pollution of our waters and their application is the only means by which Canadians will be persuaded to place their faith in this government and in this Parliament. We must show them we are prepared to be sincere and put teeth into the legislation now before the House.


Mr. Aiken:: I have already spoken on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I am now rising on a point of order to inquire whether the minister intends to speak on this amendment. Does he accept the statement which is attributed to him in the Globe and Mail this

morning that he is in favour of standards governing the purity of our water being set in all parts of Canada? I would also ask the minister whether he is prepared to accept one or more of the amendments which are before the House.


John James Greene: I am not sure that the hon. member has raised a point of order. I do not know that I ought to seek to answer the Globe and Mail, but I would be perfectly prepared to speak briefly when others who may wish to speak on this amendment are finished.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am only rising to make sure that the minister intends to speak. I do not know of any subject upon which the Canadian people have expressed their views more clearly in the last year or two, than upon this one. I remember a speech made by the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) when he was minister of health and welfare in which he promised the introduction of a bill which would guarantee pure air and clear water to every Canadian. I must say that in my opinion this legislation has proved a great disappointment to a very large number of Canadians who have formed various organizations in an attempt to arouse the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to pass legislation which would stop the increasing pollution of our rivers, lakes and streams. I hope the minister will tell us why it is not possible to entrust some central agency with the task of setting national standards.
I wish, also, to draw attention to two things which are apparent to anyone who has even an elementary knowledge of public administration. The first is that if standards are to be set by water quality management boards, industry wiU naturally gravitate to areas where standards are lowest, or to where there are no standards at all. As a matter of fact, the pressure on these boards to lower their standards will be tremendous. I can think of scores of communities where the promise of a new industry that would provide 1,000 or 2,000 jobs if the pollution standards were lowered would bring so much pressure from the Chamber of Commerce, the trade unions and the people of the community that it would be a very unusual board indeed that would be able to withstand the pressure and retain high pollution control standards. The
May 25, 1970

only real protection there could be in these areas would be to have a series of national standards so that these boards would be in a position to say that their task was to administer the standards set by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Then, they could say that the toxic content of the effluent cannot go above a certain figure. They could further say to the industry that it is its responsibility to see that the content does not go above that figure and if it does the industry will be prosecuted.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
As a matter of fact I have spoken to the heads of a number of plants, particularly in British Columbia, where there is a great deal of pollution from paper mills and also from concentration plants. They say very frankly that if they knew what sort of standards the government intended to set they could begin to cope with the problem. They say that if they were to spend large amounts of money for equipment which might be found to be inadequate and had to do it all over again, this would not be the kind of market into which they would wish to buy. However, they say that if standards were set then they could begin to cope with the problem.
In my constituency, there are two mills, one of which discharges 43 million gallons of effluent a day and the other 47 million gallons of effluent a day into the bay. The effects have been disastrous. Everybody in the community is concerned. Even the companies are concerned because they know they cannot continue to do this. Some day someone will call a halt and they will be required to spend money in order to take the toxic material out of the effluent. Certainly, no local board will set the standards.
The other thing which should be apparent to the minister is that water quality management arrangements which do not cover an entire river basin or entire lake would be ineffective. We, in Ottawa, are in a very good position to judge this. What value would there be in having a set of standards on one side of the Ottawa River and a different set of standards on the other side or of having one set of standards in Ottawa and another in Hull. Unless an entire area is covered of course the fight against pollution will become an impossible task. It would be an effort of no avail to try to clean up the mouth of a river without doing anything about what is dumped into it at its source.
I rose purely for the purpose of urging the minister to consider this matter and to tell us

Water Resources Programs why it is not possible to have national standards established. I recognize that such standards would have to be flexible and that there would have to be some agency composed of scientific personnel, because if certain chemicals which had been thought to be harmless in the past were now found to be dangerous the standards would have to be changed from time to time.
I do not think anyone could argue against the fact that the only effective standards would be national standards, so that the standards would be similar all across Canada for the various types of water. I suggest to the minister that the water quality management boards will face an impossible task and that their work will prove to be ineffective unless there are national standards. If that should happen all the people who have spent so much time arousing public opinion against pollution will feel they have been let down by Parliament, and they will feel they have been let down by the minister.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we had several days of debate in this House during the second reading of the Canada Water bill. There have also been 36 hearings during the committee stage. Last week, two days of debate were spent on the amendments. Hopefully, we will adopt the committee report and move on to third reading. We have said that this is an important bill and members on the other side of the House have all agreed. It is for this reason that we have all, I am sure, waited patiently and eagerly for everyone to speak, often on the same point it seems. To my knowledge no one has been restricted in the deliberations or cut off from airing views. My patient friend, the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins), as chairman of the committee, has conducted a very thorough examination of the bill. He gave every member an opportunity to speak on every point as often as he wished.
I believe that on every occasion in this House, when a member wished to have his time extended, he was given unanimous consent to speak longer. So, in total, to date we have had something like the following in respect of this bill. We had one day on first reading on November 5, when this important bill was first introduced. At that time, we were all cognizant of expressing our determination to get ahead with this very serious problem and to move as expeditiously as possible so that a remedy might be provided. On second reading, we had six days in this
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs House. In committee we had 25 days and 36 hearings on this bill. To date, on the report stage, we have spent two days so far and we do not know how much longer we will be. There are 140 pages of Hansard in respect of first and second reading of the bill in the House. There are 571 pages of the committee reports dealing with the deliberations of the committee on Bill C-144. There are 58 pages in Hansard dealing with the report stage. In total, including both Hansard and committee reports we have 769 pages of debate in respect of the deliberations on this bill. A total of some 693,450 words have been spoken in respect of this matter to date.


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I suggest that the minister is out of order. You quite properly called to the attention of this House that we are debating specific amendments. All these statistics, interesting though they are, have nothing whatever to do with the amendment introduced by my hon. friend that we are now discussing.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. I had taken the liberty a moment ago of interrupting one hon. member who was taking part in this debate. I suggested at that time that, in my view, some members taking part in the debate had gone somewhat beyond the terms of the very specific amendment now before us. I would have to make the same observation in relation to the contribution of the minister. What he is saying now may be relevant when we reach third reading. I am not sure whether it would be then, but I judge it is quite clearly beyond the terms of the amendment now before the House.
Perhaps the minister might keep this in mind. At the same time, I judge these remarks were introductory in character, and I assume that by this time he would wish to reach the meat and substance of his argument for the consideration of the House.


An hon. Member:: He does not have any.


Mr. Dinsdale:: There is no meat or substance to it.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I understand the gist of the amendment is a single standard and the one single standard which seems to have applied to date is verbosity. I think that is the point I wished to make.


Mr. McCleave:: Yours or somebody else's?

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John James Greene: Again, if we are serious about our intention to get ahead with cleaning up pollution, I think we all want to make this legislation available to the authorities as soon as possible. The longer it is delayed here, the less likely it is that they can get ahead with it at an early date.
As I said, we all agree this is an important bill, and we have given it close scrutiny in the past months. I hope sincerely that we will soon get ahead with the passing of the bill so that we can start the process of cleaning up our lakes and streams.
We heard last week and again today several speeches on motions Nos. 7 and 14. First, however, I would like to reply to my friend, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), who made some suggestions. I always look very carefully at the words of the hon. member. He stated that there was need for co-ordination. The hon. member had some kind things to say about the bill, and particularly kind things to say about me which I very much appreciated. As I said, I always look carefully at his words. I am sorry he is not in the House today as he was so kind as to refer to my absence when he spoke. Whenever he is here we hear him, so I can tell he is not here without even looking. I want to say but a word with regard to the criticism he made with respect to my absence. I think it was inferentially a criticism of my parliamentary secretary (Mr. Orange) who was conducting the debate on the bill on behalf of the government, as he is very properly supposed to do. He was carrying it out admirably, and certainly not only his constituency but the country, and I, are all most fortunate to have such an able representative.


Mr. Turner (Oiiawa-Carleion):: Yes, he is very able.


John James Greene: I certainly think that, in so far as the words of the hon. member are concerned, he implied that the Parliamentary Secretary was not carrying out his duties properly. I say that he is certainly very well able to do so and it is the function of the Parliamentary Secretary to carry bills through the House of Commons. However, as I say, I looked at the words of the genial buffoon of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, and I strained very hard to see if I could find but a modicum of worthwhile argument in his speech.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and point out to the minister
May 25, 1970	COMMONS
that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings did not speak on the amendment we are now considering. He spoke on a previous amendment which was passed.


William Arnold Peters: The minister does not know that. He has just come back.


John James Greene: After reading his speech, I did not even know he was speaking on the bill. But this is the first opportunity I have had to reply.


William Arnold Peters: Why not answer some of the hon. members that spoke on the amendments?


John James Greene: I will get to them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Some time soon, we hope.


John James Greene: As I said, there was a reference to the need for co-ordination. Of course we need co-ordinated programs, and that is why in 1966-and this has been explained time and time again in this House and in the committee, as every hon. member knows if he has paid any attention to the debate and if he was interested in anything but the sound of his own voice-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Apparently you were not interested.


John James Greene: As I said, in 1966 a co-ordinating structure was conceived. In fact, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was formed then and was given mandate. If I may quote again for the umpteenth time, it was formed for the purpose of:
Co-ordinating, promoting and recommending national policies and programs with respect to energy, mines, minerals, water and other resources.
Two years ago, the inter-departmental committee on water, involving some 13 departments, as I have stated again and again, was formed. Every water matter of any significance was brought before that committee for careful review and comment before being recommended to the government. The cabinet committees carry the co-ordinating one step further in providing the general policy in the particular area concerned. Finally, the cabinet itself provides the over-all policy decisions which the water resource programs must be designed to promote.
So that this single standard that is so admirable in the eyes of some is not within the purport of the bill because we do not deem it practicable in Canada. But certainly on the question of uniform standards for bodies of water having the same quantum and the
DEBATES	7283
Water Resources Programs same number of uses, water of the same calibre and quantity, there is ample assurance of co-ordination and an assurance that no competition in standards will occur between one part of the country and the other as a result of this very effective co-ordinating process.
I think that probably some hon. members, either deliberately or merely for the sake of hearing the debate or hearing themselves in the debate, seemed to be somewhat confused about Canada's constitutional make-up when they discussed the needs for federal-provincial co-ordination. What would the hon. members do? Do they want to abolish the rights of the ten provincial governments so that a federal minister could co-ordinate the provincial policies and programs?
We recognize the individual roles of government in this bill, as does perhaps no other piece of legislation, in an area of divided jurisdiction. We have provided for new forms of consultation for the examination of water resource problems and the determination of priorities. We have provided for step by step consultation and agreements for joint planning and implementation of water resource programs. If hon. members will examine this bill closely, they will find in it a major advance in the area of co-operation and co-ordination.
I think there was some criticism of the need to work with the United States to solve the problems of Lake Erie and other international waters. In this regard, I have already held discussions with my U.S. counterpart, and, as a matter of fact, senior officials in my department are meeting with U.S. officials today here in Ottawa. The next step will be another ministerial meeting next month. We are particularly anxious to respond to the recommendations of the International Joint Commission, and to encourage a joint approach to the water quality problems of the Great Lakes.
Hon. members opposite have made a number of recommendations regarding the financing of pollution control. If they examined the bill, they would note that it contains provisions for joint federal-provincial financing of the planning and implementation of programs. They will note that the amended bill provides for loans for the implementation of provisions on water quality, operating expenses and capital works. The suggestion for low interest loans would involve subsidizing the polluters.
Water Resources Programs Mr. McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? I have to follow the minister in this debate, but I do not want to follow him all over the geographical water resources of Canada. I think he should confine his remarks to the amendments that appear on page 5 of today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. That is the area we are supposed to be debating.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the amendments deal with the so-called single standard-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is no such thing as a single standard.
Mr.^ Greene:	-of which the members
opposite are so enamoured.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister is deliberately misleading the House as to the position of the opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There has never been a discussion of a single or uniform standard for water quality in the committee or here in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have a little difficulty interpreting this. It does seem to me to be a matter of debate. I understand the hon. member's point of view. I heard him develop it. It seems to me that the point of order raised is a matter of dispute between the member and the minister.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is not a matter of dispute as far as I am concerned, and I think I am speaking for the members of the opposition. We have never proposed a single standard or a uniform standard. That is not what is

DEBATES	May 25. 1970
included in this amendment, and that is why the minister is making it difficult to debate the subject because he is not talking about the amendment at all.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the members for wanting to get off the hook on the single standard, or the unilateral standard, or whatever you want to call it, because there may be some of them who may have referred to something beyond their own innate genius with respect to what they consider should be anti-pollution control in Canada. If one looks beyond the inherent wisdom of the members themselves, one will find that every scientific authority comes to the conclusion that water can and should only be managed on a water basin approach, which is exactly the genius of the bill itself. Of course, the members may feel that by some divine gift they know more than the scientists do. But on this question of standards set from above by Ottawa, uniform standards across Canada or whatever you wish to call it, I have yet to hear one single member quote one single authority for that strange proposition, except possibly their own party platforms. I do not think that in the scientific field either the party platform of the Conservative party or of the NDP is held in very high esteem.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) fails to see, so he says, the relevancy of questions of co-ordination to the propositions contained in Motions Nos. 7 and 14, which allude to a standard set for all of Canada, whatever you may want to call it, a single standard, a standard set by the Ottawa Government, or whatever other nomenclature hon. members prefer to give it. What has been made quite manifest during the debate, and what I think the country now appreciates, is the fact that there will not be competition between the various water quality management areas, as alleged by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). That is assured by the very co-ordinating process which takes place under the federal aegis. As I think I have said often, and probably ad nauseum to most but those in the House who do not wish the bill to go through quickly, the co-ordination process which will assure uniformity of standards is the fact that on each water basin management agency there will be federal representation.
The federal representation will be coordinated as between the federal departments by the interdepartmental committee structure.
May 25, 1970	COMMONS
Again, the implementation of any plan in any water management basin will have to be approved by the federal cabinet, and the moneys made available to whatever degree the federal contribution is required. So here again, we will get an assurance of co-ordination, an assurance that there can be no competition in waste or in pollution.
I think hon. members, if they will consider the proposition, could not conceive that a federal agency, or a federal representation on an agency would permit one province dealing with a body of water to have lower standards than another province dealing with the same body of water. So, certainly the question of co-ordination is the essential question when one is concerned with the possible variation of standards across Canada, and I can see no more relevant element in that question of co-ordination, to assure that the fear of different standards does not become a reality, than the co-ordination provided by the federal representation.
There are those who allege that some simple panacea like standards set from Ottawa in advance, without knowing the mix of uses in a particular basin of water, without even consultation with local authorities who are concerned over management of the basin, would be the solution to all our problems. I do not believe that such would be the solution. I believe that the water basin approach which has been approved of and which is heartily supported by any authority to which I have referred, and which is accepted in the scientific world as an authoritative reference, is the proper one and the best one for Canada. We will achieve uniformity, which certainly is necessary if we are to have sound water management, through the presence of a federal representative or representatives, because in virtually all water basins in every area of management there will be more than one federal representative. There will be representatives from my department, and in any water basin where fisheries has a major input there will of course be a representative from the Department of Fisheries. There may be representatives also from other federal departments.
As I say, our liaison through the interdepartmental committee on water which is representative of 13 departments, the ultimate co-ordination by cabinet, and the process of voting funds for the implementation of management plans will assure that uniformity and will assure it on the sound and proper basis. It will assure that, in the first instance,
DEBATES	7285
Water Resources Programs the management of any area be on a water basin principle, and be permitted to have the input of the provinces, which is required by the constitution. It will also permit the maximum participation by the local levels of government that not only have a right but should properly be represented on water basin management authorities.
Quite often those people who are closest to the areas of the waters, and who have to live with them, have worked for years to manage the waters in the past, can put a more useful input into their effective management than a word from on high might do, as my hon. friend from Kootenay West would have us do, even though that ultimate decision from on high might be made by the very altruistic Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I think a local input might be even preferable to that source of authority and decision.
o (4:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Kootenay West referred to one item which I think should be cleared for the record because it leaves a very unfair connotation. He indicated that the committee, after a year's study, brought in a unanimous report a year ago with respect to a national water quality standard. However, my research into the matter indicates that there was hardly a year's study before the committee gave its first views on this matter. This is a new subject and there are many who have changed their original concepts, their original thoughts, after study. There are others who, having once made a decision which seemed to be good politics, never changed their minds, never bothered to read any of the authorities because they might get confused. They would sooner stick to that political decision, rightly or wrongly. I do not think that sticking to the same opinion, right or wrong, and after having sat through a myriad of committee meetings in which expert evidence was heard, then ignoring the experts by saying, "they must all be wrong because they do not agree with what I thought in the first place," is serious opposition of the kind that might be useful to the committee. Some of the people on the water committee did have an open mind, did listen to further evidence, and did have second thoughts when they heard it.


An hon. Member:: They got the message.


John James Greene: The hon. member for Kootenay West referred to the fact that the committee sat for a year before coming to a conclusion as to the so-called uniform standard. I
May 25. 1970

Water Resources Programs think if his representations in this regard are as accurate as the representations he made on other aspects of this amendment, then we had better not pay too much heed to them.
Here are the facts. A year ago when that committee arrived at its decision it had met 29 times. This included consideration of all the estimates for the Department of Public Works, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Dominion Coal Board, National Energy Board, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Atomic Energy Control Board. It also included two meetings on the Prince Edward Island causeway. When the committee expressed its first thoughts, having had the first look a year ago at questions of water quality management in general and pollution in particular, it can scarcely be said, as claimed by my hon. friend, that they came to this conclusion after a year's study. This is a most unfortunate allegation. Certainly, since then some of the members have had a year to study and have considered the proposition, finding the weight of scientific evidence leaning the other way. Most of the trained experts who have studied and written in this field find that the water basin approach is a model of sound management and the best thing for Canada. And some of the committee members have now come to the conclusion, having heard the evidence, that the water basin management is the proper approach. To me, that does not indicate any weakness but rather indicates that there is sufficient conscience of the importance of this subject matter that, having heard evidence which is valid and expert, they are willing to review and revise their opinions.
If my hon. friends have a weight of scientific opinion that says a single standard, a uniform standard, a standard made from on high here in Ottawa, is the thing for Canada, then I would be very pleased to be referred to the scientists who so advise because I would be-


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. minister would permit a question?


John James Greene: Maybe when I finish, Mr. Speaker, if I may. If hon. members-


An hon. Member:: You never finish.


John James Greene: -there may be some members-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister, since he has been talking about scientific evidence and quoting scientists, who are some of his authorities?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has indicated that he might entertain questions at the conclusion of his remarks.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is on the record and has been put on many times. I am not sure whether hon. members have taken the trouble to read it. The same speeches are being made now almost verbatim, that hon. members made months ago and they have not changed their ideas one iota. They were either endowed with all the wisdom to begin with or had done all the research to begin with, though I doubt if either of those propositions is accurate.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall put on the record once more some of the authorities who have studied this question and who are very certain that the water basin management approach is the only scientifically valid one. Maybe this late hour is not too late for repentance-even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might repent before it is too late.


An hon. Member:: How did he get involved in this?


John James Greene: I shall read some of these authorities, and see whether there is not some validity in the government's ideas.
I think it has been alleged by some hon. members that the minister has been led astray by officials. It may be that, from time to time, ministers are led astray by officials but I can assure you here that officials who came to this conclusion had very valid grounds for it, namely, the best scientific evidence that they could get. They studied this approach of water basin management in various countries. They not only read, but studied in various countries-


An hon. Member:: Everybody agrees with you, Joe. That is not the amendment.


John James Greene: -where possibly they move even more quickly than we do here.


An hon. Member:: We all agree with you. There is no argument.


John James Greene: Standards were not set by some super-authority from on high. They were set in each instance by the authority, by the board that had the particular water basin under its jurisdiction. Of course co-ordination in a federal country is more difficult than in a unitary state. We have to use the instruments as we find them. We cannot change the constitution by this momentous piece of legisla-
May 25, 1970
tion, but I do believe we will find uniformity and have the best of both worlds. We will achieve uniformity over similar basins of water, having the same quantum of water, the same mix of water and the same usage. We will achieve this uniformity through the co-ordination process, but we will have the advantage of an approach that comes within the ambit of our constitution-an approach that gives the maximum input to local management. In a variegated country like Canada, this is essential if we are to have the best kind of management.
I should like to put on the record some of the leading authorities. One hon. member has indicated he might be interested, and I hope he will take advantage of reading them. I can furnish him with a long list. There is no such thing as a universality of scientific opinion, but I think he will find the preponderance of scientific evidence on this subject is in accord with our approach. I would refer the hon. member, and other who might be interested in water management to the textbooks of Allan V. Kneese, Director of Environment Program, Resources for the Future Incorporated, and Irving K. Fox, Professor of Regional Planning of the Water Resource Centre, University of Wisconsin.
May I list for hon. members some of the people and organizations who approve of this system of water quality management by water basin rather than by uniform or single or what have you, standards across Canada. Some people have placed themselves on the record before the committee, publicly and otherwise, as being in favour of this approach. They are: the President of the Canadian Chemical Producers Association; Chairman of the Water Resources Section of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada; Pollution Probe, University of Toronto; President of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. May I also cite the President of the Canadian Institution on Pollution Control, the President of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the President of the Canadian Water Resources Association and Dr. Judy, whose evidence I would commend to anyone who is really interested in the pros and cons of this subject matter. It was ably presented before the committee and represents as good a documentation of the sound, scientific approach to water management as I have seen. Professor Judy is a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto.
Water Resources Programs (4:30 p.m.)
These amendments, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: At last.


John James Greene: I see that my hon. friends do not like what I am saying. That is a good sign that we are getting close to the truth.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We want to hear about the amendments.


John James Greene: The first part of the amendment assumes that water can be divided into classes. I am referring to motion No. 7. Looking at the minutiae of these amendments, we see that this one assumes that water can be divided into classes. There is no definition of the term "class" in the amendment. Presumably the author of this amendment meant industrial waters, fishing waters, boating waters, drinking waters, or some such division. We can only guess what he meant because, although his diatribe was hard and long, it was not too explicit as to what he meant.
I ask, just where do such unique classes exist, the classes of water that are only fishing waters, that are only boating waters or that are only waters for drinking. Where does one find this rare bird, a class of water which is used for one thing? Does the author intend to set aside some waters exclusively for each use by saying, "That water can be used only for drinking," and, "Don't put your boat into this water, because it is only for drinking," or, "This water is only for boating; use it for no other purpose. Do not even look at it. It is only for boating purposes and has no aesthetic merit." Is that what he intends to do? I suggest that it is impossible. You cannot set aside water and say, "This is a class of water for a particular purpose." That is the whole difficulty of this problem. It is easy to suggest simple answers when we do not have any responsibility for fulfilling them. The author talks of one standard for all of Canada, of uniform standards, of classes of water, of water for boating and water for drinking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
water on the brain.


John James Greene: If we could solve the difficulties that way and say, "The problem is solved; this is drinking water, and it must be of a certain class," we should be pleased. But I can assure the hon. member who dreamed

May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs up this amendment and who thought you could catalogue water in this nice, pleasant and easy way, that it is not possible to do so.
Even a recreational lake is used for boating, swimming, fishing, as a supply of water and as the outlet for the bath water for every cottage on the lake that is fortunate enough to have a bath. There is no public body of water that is used exclusively for one purpose, and that is why we have emphasized time and time again, ad nauseam, that optimum standards be established for whatever particular mix of uses exists in each body of water. That is why you cannot adopt a uniform standard.


Robert Jardine McCleave: So, there is boating water, fishing water, canoeing water-


John James Greene: My hon. friend will have his chance to speak.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Sure.


John James Greene: If the hon. member will be patient and listen, he may even learn something.


Robert Jardine McCleave: But not from the minister, I am afraid.


John James Greene: That is exactly why our approach to this bill is the only sound one; I say that because in each water basin and in each area of water there is particular mix of uses in certain percentages, and therefore in each water basin there will have to be a special set of standards for that particular water basin which take into consideration the many mixes of that particular basin. If it were easy to categorize waters as suggested, that is the solution that would have been used. In fairness to the author of the amendment, perhaps he may have been considering a level and quality most suitable for any particular water use. I am not sure; I could only try to read his mind if that is possible. I suggest to him that such a level is a scientific determination-if that is what he was getting at-and it is not a standard relating to a mix of uses, but a scientific criteria relating to the tolerance of uses, to the level of those uses, and to quality.
On May 20 I announced in Fredericton a major study by the National Research Council of Canada to upgrade our knowledge of scientific criteria of certain environmental matters. I am not sure if it was that to which the hon. member was referring. If it is, it is possible that the new Secretariat, a permanent and

continuing secretariat under the aegis of the National Research Council which will have available to it a permanent section in the National Research Council library for cataloguing its criteria on environmental information, may solve some of the problems to which the hon. member alluded. Perhaps this was the area of the hon. member's concern, although I could not be sure even after having read his speech carefully. I repeat. What we seek are optimal standards for each water body, based upon the mix of uses, and arrived at on the basis of the best scientific criteria available.
With regard to the second half of motion No. 7, may I ask what one is to do with the municipal wastes coming from the upstream part of a river that is polluted below the hon. member's proposed minimal standard? Does he really believe he could stop people living in the city downstream from washing dishes or taking baths? Does he think that this is a rational proposition, as it relates to this bill? We find that no simple solution such as this is practicable; nor would it lead to better results than those arising from optimum standards that we hope to achieve for our major water basins. I believe, if he had examined our proposal carefully, he would have seen that we are proposing effluent standards and the depositing of waste in a prescribed concentration, because we can enforce this city by city and industry by industry. But the simplistic way of banning the deposit of waste entirely is an archaic concept with a proven record of failure. It is singular that both Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the NDP are tying their hopes apparently to this archaic concept which has a proven record of failure and which is perhaps in keeping with the records of both these parties.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister did not mention the government of Ontario.


John James Greene: Finally, motion No. 7 completely ignores the fact that there are ten provinces in Canada. This may be something that hon. gentlemen opposite and their parties do not like and do not approve of, but it is a fact of our constitution. Despite their dislik-ings in this regard, and their apparent desire to ignore the provinces, which we do not intend to do, it is true to say that each of those governments has a great degree of responsibility for and jurisdiction over the waters within the respective provinces. We intend to work with the provinces co-opera-
May 25. 1970	COMMONS
tively in order to try to achieve optimum standards for each water basin of Canada.
Motion No. 14 was originally defeated in committee on those grounds which I mentioned in the first part of my remarks. We are not seeking a standardization of quality levels, but optimum levels for each water body. If the author of this amendment is seeking for uniformity in the approach to the setting of standards, I refer him to clause 16(l)(c) which prescribes the procedure to be followed by each agency in determining recommendations with respect to water quality standards. That is all I wish to say on these amendments at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: Hon. members opposite
pressed me sincerely to speak, and now that I have spoken they either do not approve of what I said or do not understand what I said.


William Arnold Peters: We want to be enlightened.


John James Greene: This question has been debated in this session and the previous session to the tune of thousands of words and I am beginning to wonder whether some hon. members, at least, really wish to understand this matter or really wish to see a statute that will specify the optimum quality of water in each of our water basins, or whether they merely want a debate.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to doing that, I must inform the House that the minister's time has expired. If there is consent to allow the minister extra time, and provided the minister will entertain questions, we will proceed in that way. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I rose on a point of order before the minister spoke to ask him to reply to a statement that was attributed to him in this morning's Globe and Mail. I ask the minister to tell the House whether he used those words. The minister is supposed to have said:
"We shall have to maintain some very strong federal inputs in the authorities to assure that standards for comparable bodies of water will be the same in all parts of Canada,"-
These words are in quotes. They are attributed to the minister by a reporter, 22375-43
DEBATES	7289
Water Resources Programs Thomas Claridge, who purports to have spoken to him. Are these words very close to what the minister said?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House and in committee, for a comparable body of water in one part of the country and another, we will have to have the same standard. I refer to where there is a comparable volume of water, comparable quality and the same mixes of uses of that water. It is not likely that there will be two identical bodies of water in different parts of Canada. That is why we cannot have these uniform standards that sound so simply delightful.
There are not two major basins of water in Canada that are exactly the same. By some magic formula, we cannot manage and control the quality of those waters. Of course, we are trying to achieve uniformity through the procedures, the act, federal presence, water basin authority, the co-ordination of 13 departments under the interdepartmental committee on water and through the cabinet determining whether funds will be available for the implementation of plans. Certainly, that kind of uniformity will be achieved. This is the only practical way under our constitution, as is envisaged by the bill itself.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has made an interesting speech. The spirit of J. G. Gardiner has been reincarnated in the House of Commons. During a debate on wheat, through a skilful process, Jimmy Gardiner could lead you right into a coal mine. The minister by his use, misuse or abuse of words, has led us on exactly the same sort of path. To put it succinctly and hammer it into the minister's head, he did not like it when I raised this question.
When the minister talks about standards, is he talking about canoeing standards, fishing standards, drinking standards, industrial standards or simply looking at a body of water in the moonlight and trying to write poetry as a result of that gaze? The speech the minister has made is open to that interpretation. The minister's speech can be summed up by simply saying that he does not want minimal water quality standards, the phrase used by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), or specific water quality standards and levels applicable to all bodies of water, the phrase used by the hon.
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). All the minister wants is the standard that somebody else imposes on him.
The minister makes a great parade or fetish of the situation. The minister says he has entered into negotiations with the ten provinces, but far be it from him to dicker and negotiate with them on standards or classes. He is going to do what he is told. Why in heaven's name have we had 769 pages of debate, plus a couple of pages of palaver which have been added by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if the federal authority is not going to take a role in dealing with the water problems of Canada? Why make the palaver if he is going to the lowest common denominator of doing what somebody else tells him must be done and not trying to assert authority in this field?
The minister has asked if we would like an important bill. The answer is yes, we do want an important bill. We also want answers to our questions and amendments to the bill before us. If the amendments to the bill before us are accepted, then and only then will we have an important bill. If not, we will have the weakest form of legislation that this Parliament can offer.
There is something nice about this minister. He has honestly earned the position of being an Abe Lincoln in this particular political business in which we are involved. This is not because he has had a press agent running in advance of him. The minister has a good home-spun quality. Unfortunately, Abe's more direct thinking has been replaced by the somewhat more circuitous device that Mr. Gardiner used to perpetrate on this House. None the less, this minister is our equivalent of Abe Lincoln. When it comes to splitting anything into parts, he can split with the best that Abe Lincoln ever did.
We have watched this minister. In Denver he was dynamite. Nationalism, government supreme, stand up for your rights. In Toronto he made the remark referred to by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I will read it again plus another paragraph:
"We shall have to maintain some very strong inputs in the authorities to assure that standards for comparable bodies of water will be the same in all parts of Canada," he said.
"In fact, the federal input on all agencies assures that-it negates the fears some have voiced that there will be competition with the dirtier the province the more attractive it will be to industry. It's the federal membership on each water quality agency that assures the continuity across Canada."
[Mr. MeCleave.l


John James Greene: Now, you have got it straight!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am glad that the minister also agrees with the second part of the statement. A few moments ago he agreed with the first part when it was quoted by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. The Denver dynamite has become the Toronto tiger! He was still speaking with that same strong, authoritative voice which indicated that he was going to do something about the natural resources.
In a 40 minute speech in this House of Commons the minister has misinterpreted, if I can use that mild word, what he did say and what is argued by the proposers of the two motions we are now considering. The minister says we cannot have standards all across Canada, the standards must be weighed by the water basin approach or dealt with on the constitutional basis. In other words, the Toronto Tiger has completely yanked out its own fangs; the Denver Dynamiter, the Toronto Tiger, becomes the Ottawa Ostrich on this important subject.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John James Greene: An ostrich does not put his head in water.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If the minister had his way, water quality or standards would evaporate to sand or silt.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did the hon. member take the pledge to be relevant and to the point, as did certain of his hon. friends, from this time on?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes. I am glad the hon. member asked that particular question. To judge by his contributions in the House, he needs guidance, perhaps strong guidance. I suggest he would not get it from the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this afternoon. Time and time again, the minister talked about single standards. As has been pointed out several times, the recommendation of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) did not use that phrase at all. In other words, the Toronto Tiger set up a paper target and proceeded to chew it all over the place. But he did not meet the point of the hon. member for South Western Nova head on.
In today's Routine Proceedings, on page five, hon. members who care to join me in glancing at the top two paragraphs will find exactly what we are asking here.
6A. (1) Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act, the Governor in Council, upon the rec-
May 25, 1970

ommendation of the Minister, shall establish water quality standards for all classes of water in Canada.
There is no mention of a single standard there.
(2) No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters in Canada that fall below the minimal water quality standard established for those waters under subsection (1); violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be an offence and punishable under section 22.
So, the hon. member who proposes this motion talks about something minimal, something with a degree of flexibility attached to it, depending upon which body or class of water one is dealing with. I suppose even the minister has to admit it is only common sense that there should be a minimal standard for water, even if it is so thick that you can walk on it. There has to be a minimum somewhere along the line. The hon. member from South Western Nova proposed the setting of a minimum standard which would have some aspect of reason behind it. But nobody has told the minister, if one can tell him anything, that there ought to be one single standard of water all across Canada. So he spent most of his lengthy, interesting and amusing speech inventing a paper tiger and shooting it up rather than dealing with the strong point of substance which was made by the hon. member for South Western Nova and by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).
Maybe the minister enjoys giving us a reincarnation of Jimmy Gardiner in the House, or perhaps it is a way of getting out of the awkward circumstances in which he has placed himself. Many of us have tried to make something out of this legislation, perhaps because it should be the most important piece of legislation passed by Parliament this session. But we find that when it comes to water pollution the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) or some other minister has stolen the whole pure water battle right away from our friend the genial Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is what we have been fighting for. I shall not belabour the point. I think I have shown up the basic fallacies in the minister's reasoning. I do not propose to repeat it, as an exercise in Abe Lincolnism, by splitting and re-splitting these rails. But we are trying to make something out of this legislation and that is why I support this amendment.
22375-43*
Canadian Copper Reserves Mr. Rowland: 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); Social Security-Inquiry as to tabling of white paper; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow); Education- Financial support for Frontier College; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie); Post Office-White paper on Crown corporations.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce the legislation necessary for the government to control, by the imposition of duties or otherwise, the export of scrap copper from Canada and take such other measures as will ensure, for the benefit of Canadian industry and labour force, a Canadian priority on the use of Canadian copper.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be unanimous consent to letting this motion stand. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Code) has been sick for quite some time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let it retain its position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let it stand and retain its position at the request of the government.

May 25, 1970
Treatment of Animals RESEARCH



STUDY BY STANDING COMMITTEE OF CARE, UTILIZATION AND TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

Harold Edward Winch: That, in the opinion of this House, the following matters should be referred to a standing committee, designated by the Prime Minister, with authority to call for persons and papers and report its deliberations with recommendations (a) the use of animals for medical research purposes, their care and utilization, and procedures for government licensing and inspection of, and control over, all premises using animals for laboratory research or medical training (b) the treatment of animals as pets and, as far as federal jurisdiction permits, recommendations regarding legislation providing penalties for those abusing animals, and any persons making a business of raising or catching animals for sale to research individuals or centres and not keeping same in a humane manner (c) the most humane method of trapping fur-bearing animals (d) consideration of the entire Canadian picture relative to the maintenance of fish, bird and animal wildlife and the regulations required for conservation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third consecutive year in which I have presented a motion the same in principle as the one now before the House. On the two former occasions, the motion was debated and then time was called. On December 20, 1968, and again on March 31, 1969, it was talked out. On both those occasions, every member who spoke was 100 per cent in support of the principle of the motion. Unfortunately, some government supporters found a small technicality upon the basis of which they felt justified in taking the position that the motion should be talked out. I hope a similar course will not be followed this afternoon.
If hon. members will read the motion they will note I have outlined the problems surrounding the use of animals for medical and scientific research, humane methods of trapping fur-bearing animals, and the conservation of the wildlife of our country. The motion outlines the very important problems. In no way whatsoever have I endeavoured to put forward either solutions or recommendations. It is, therefore, worthy of note that I am dealing wholly and solely with the principles which were supported unanimously by the speakers in 1968 and 1969. I am asking them to support this motion in principle today so that all these important matters can be referred to a standing committee of the House of Commons. I fully realize there is involved here a matter of constitutionality or split jurisdiction between the federal and provincial authorities. But while I am admitting

that, it is my sincere belief that the fields and phases outlined in the motion have been ignored by authorities, in the main, both provincially and federally. It is also my belief that someone must give direction to an initiation of studies so that recommendations can be made to the responsible authorities whether they be on the federal or provincial level.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Since in past years certain matters have been raised by other speakers may I state that I am fully aware of the work and interest of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. I am also fully aware of its report on the care of experimental animals, a guide for Canada. As a matter of fact I have it before me at the present time. I also have a very good knowledge of the submission by the Council for Laboratory Animals to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in December of 1969. I also have that document in front of me. I should like to quote from it at some length because it places this matter of the utilization in Canada of animals for scientific and medical research purposes in what 1 feel is its proper perspective. It places it in a most understanding manner. So I shall quote from the publication entitled "Animals in Research", a submission by the Council for Laboratory Animals to the Prime Minister of Canada in December, 1969:
A survey of Canadian research institutions carried out in 1966 by the National Research Council following expressions of public concern, revealed that 70 per cent of the animal facilities were inadequate, and that the personnel in charge of animals were largely untrained. As a result, the Canadian Council on Animal Care was established by the universities in 1967.
Early in 1969, the Council's inspection teams conducted a more detailed inspection of university facilities, in which some half million animals are used each year. The detailed findings of this survey have not been made public, but the Council reported:
"In general, it may be stated that no deliberate improper treatment of animals was observed. In some institutions, poor administrative practices, inadequate supervision and poorly trained animal care personnel resulted in poor management of experimental animals in the pre and post experimental periods-
The long term care of experimental animals on chronic studies at most institutions across Canada leaves a great deal to be desired-*
Reports in the medical journals indicate that a considerable number of experiments are carried out each year in Canada which involve pain, fear, stress, or prolonged discomfort for animals involved. Animals have been burned, poisoned, shocked, blinded, starved, scalded, frozen, paralyzed and subjected to every conceivable form of stress. They are subjected to painful stimuli and frustrating experiences by psychologists. They undergo nu-
May 25, 1970



merous types of experimental operations. In the majority of cases anaesthetics are no doubt used, but there are certain types of painful experiments where this is not possible or where the pain continues after the anaesthesia has worn off.
Some of these latter experiments may be justified in terms of their value to science, but we believe that, just as the private individual who inflicts suffering on an animal must defend his action in court, so the scientist should be required to justify the infliction of pain on an animal before a competent body of experts, before proceeding with a painful experiment. In particular, he should be called upon to establish that the information sought cannot be obtained by any other means, that fewer animals or lower forms of life cannot be used, and that the probable value of the results justify the suffering inflicted.
As I said, these words from the report made to the Prime Minister in December last year place the entire problem in its real perspective. It is unfortunate that in our country we have not had the interest we should in the use of animals for research. We have never had a proper inspection service composed of qualified people. By "qualified people" I mean scientific experts who know what they see and what it is all about. We have never had legislation to control the utilization of animals in medical and scientific research. From all my reading, it is also my belief that we are falling behind other countries in the world in that in other countries of which I have read they have discovered they can do their medical and scientific research to a great extent through the utilization of simulants, through utilization of tissue and through utilization of computers. I had the privilege of spending some three days last March at the research institute at Suffield. I was interested to note that on the chemical side the ratio there of simulants and tissue in laboratories was 20 to 1 compared to the use of live bodies. In bacteriological research, I was interested to note that 98 per cent of their laboratory work is through the use of simulants and tissue.
What information do we have about any progress being made in our universities and medical and scientific institutions along these lines? I cannot find any. What information do we have that they are trying to adapt to the use of simulants and tissue? What do we know about whether or not they are trying to develop or utilize in any way in Canada, as is being done in the United States, computers instead of animals, simulants or tissues? I was interested to read only the other day a report which appeared in the Pittsburgh PostGazette under date of October 2, 1969. The
Treatment of Animals title is "Computer used in drug tests". The report states:
Dogs and cats are gone from the teaching program at the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Pharmacology.
Pitt medical students, who until recently had to experiment on animals to learn to prescribe drugs wisely, have found a better approach.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
A new system, just getting started, promises to replace living creatures with wires and tubes that can simulate the symptoms of disease without feeling them.
Instead of trying a drug on an animal, students now try it on a computer.
The result, according to Dr. Gerhard Werner, the department's chairman: medical students are learning more about drugs in far less time.
I do not want to take up too much time on this matter, but I think what I have said is sufficient. I hope to bring about a concern in the minds of hon. members and I believe it is high time that a committee of the House looked into the situation, called in experts, interested individuals and associations, and after study made their recommendations for the consideration of the House and of the government.
I would now like to proceed to the matter of the conservation of wildlife, something which has been of great interest to me for many years. I must say that I am afraid that we, as parliamentarians, have been derelict in our responsibilities in that we have not yet paid the attention that we should to the conservation of our wildlife so as to give a guarantee that the generations that follow us will be able to enjoy wildlife as we and our predecessors have. I do not claim to be an expert, and the best thing I can do is to give a couple of quotations. First of all, I should like to refer to an article in the Montreal Gazette of Saturday, May 9 of this year under the heading "Man Against the Animals" and the subheading "Much Canadian Wildlife Facing Disaster". It is a most interesting article of which I should like to quote only the first paragraph which reads as follows:
The Canadian Wildlife Federation says 65 Canadian wildlife species are being endangered and face possible extinction.
My next quotation is from the Toronto Telegram of January 18, 1969. This is a very good article from New York which reads in part as follows:
This generation may witness the end of most of the world's wild animals.
Trapped, hunted, and crowded out of their natural habitats, hundreds of species are already

May 25, 1970
Treatment of Animals
losing the fight for survival. By the year 2,000, conservationists foresee a world whose polluted continents and oceans are the almost exclusive domain of men, livestock and rats ... In the name of sport, profit and progress, 550 species of mammals, birds, and reptiles have been pushed to the brink of extinction within the last century. And more names are being added to the list every year.
In the United States alone, 50 native American species have been wiped out in a period of 50 years.
On my desk and in my office on the sixth floor, I have the reports and the records regarding what is happening to our wildlife in Canada, how species after species are facing extinction unless we do something about it. It was difficult enough for wildlife to maintain its existence before the intensified inroads of pollution and the intensification of the activities of sportsmen. But now, in the last three years, we have seen so-called sportsmen using planes and helicopters to locate the animals which are hard to find. We find them locating them, running them down, landing, and shooting. I hope that every member saw that picture of the polar bear a few days ago, the first to be shot under the new regulations in the Northwest Territories. A Canadian sportsman from Winnipeg shot this bear after it was spotted from a plane. We know that according to conservationists there are not more than 12,000 polar bears left in the world. We see them being located by planes and run down by snowmobiles. Let hon. members speak to some of our federal civil servants as I have, and they will find out that this is done not only to wolves but to deer, moose and elk which are being run to death by snowmobiles. I have never shot an animal in my life but I have no objection to hunting and fishing as true sportsmanship.
However, I believe it is time that we paid attention to the conservation of our wildlife. Otherwise our grizzly bears, our polar bears, our Rocky Mountain big horn sheep, plus, I believe, another 41 species, will disappear. Eighteen months ago the United States passed legislation on a federal basis on this matter. Surely, this year we can at least make a start by referring this entire matter to a standing committee of the House and asking them to look into the situation and to call in expert witnesses, interested persons and organizations. Then, as a result of their accumulated wisdom, the committee could report to the House on a matter which should certainly affect us in mind and in heart.
If I have not said enough to convince hon. members, I hope they will read publications

such as "The Wildlife Review" and "Viewpoint" put out by the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping, and the publications of the Animal Defence League of Canada. I hope they will read and understand and accept in principle the various matters which I have named in my resolution. This being the third time this resolution has been before the House, I hope it will be accepted and not talked out.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the speech that the mover of the motion has just delivered. Not only did he speak with great eloquence, but also with great knowledge. I have much respect for his experience. I know that he has been sitting in this House for a number of years and that he has been a political figure for quite a long time. In spite of all that, I take the liberty of disagreeing with his opinion.
I approve the principle of his motion for several reasons. But, in practice, I think I must not support that motion, especially in view of what has been done and of what is being done now in this connection. The future seems to me still brighter than the past and the present time.
I am against that motion because, taking into account our set of values, I think that in Canada we are faced with problems to which it is more urgent to find solutions, and I shall quote some examples.
However, I can advise the government to continue to implement and to improve its policy, as it has done up to now, especially with regard to conservation.
Although the four points of this motion are important, I think that the most important is the fourth one which deals with wildlife conservation. It is even essential. This discussion is useful; it represents one of the many efforts which should be undertaken to protect animals.
In principle we are all in favour of this motion. But we can support it only in principle. Naturally, common sense requires it. In fact, according to natural law and simple common sense, we know that it is wrong to destroy animal or plant life because any form of life on earth is useful to man. It is there I think that the notion of respect for a scale of values comes in.
May 25, 1970

The four points of this motion are really important simply because we all recognize the principle of protection of any life. However, although we take into account the scale of values, we have to consider the problem with regard to the treatment of animals for laboratory research, pets, trapping methods, not as scatter brained people but as well balanced individuals with common sense. Of course, as I said before, we all recognize that conservation is the most significant aspect.
If we refer to subsection (a) of the motion, we see that the member for Vancouver-east (Mr. Winch) wants steps to be taken to protect the animals used for laboratory research. According to our information, if a health certificate is duly issued by the Department of Agriculture for animals imported for medical research, no other restrictions or regulations apply to their import.
In addition to the government, several associations, not only in Canada but in foreign countries, are interested in protecting those animals. For instance, an international union for the conservation of nature and natural resources is proposing that special steps be taken with regard to the import or export of species threatened with extinction.
It is unfair to insinuate that what steps have been taken in Canada to protect the animals used for research are inadequate, because in the last few years, some groups have made very serious and costly surveys in that field, with a view to ensuring humane treatment to those animals.
As early as 1963, the Medical Research Council proposed the establishment of a special committee to study the problem of animals used for research. Since, various associations in Canada, universities, veterinarians, doctors pharmaceutical laboratory researchers have worked in that field, financed by special associations. They visited several Canadian universities to investigate the situation. Surveys having been made in various university laboratories, they continued their surveys in other establishments such as pharmaceutical laboratories.
The ways in which those animals are bought, used and treated are looked into. According to the reports on those surveys, there is no question of cruelty. I would not even go so far as to say that no mention has been made of abuse.
I believe that in that field in this day and age, we should have more faith in our scien-
Treatment of Animals tists, who are the elite of our civilization and who must use laboratory animals to do research work.
Instead of proposing the establishment of a Standing Committee of the House, when we already have enough of them, I wonder whether those interested in such matters could not just as well ask questions on that subject when they attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In fact, that committee is interested in some of those question and has legislated in that field. When it comes to the trapping methods in the case of fur-bearing animals, or the protection of wild animals, I believe we should resort to the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Whenever I speak of a scale of values, I should like to remind hon. members of the results of such research in laboratories. All of us recognize that progress in medical science, which enabled men to extend the life span and relieve human suffering, was possible only because of experiments on animals. There have been very few cases of ill-used animals in laboratories. Most of those experiments were conducted with the greatest care for the animals involved. They have generally resulted in improvements. One might quote a lot of examples where anesthetics or other drugs have been used on men after having been first experimented on animals. The same is true about surgical methods.
It was last fall, I believe, that the province of Ontario passed a bill to protect small animals used for laboratory purposes.
As for the way men treat household pets, there are also in the act provisions dealing with animal care. This comes under the Criminal Code which has several sections providing penalties for those who mistreat animals.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Of course some people are responsible for seeing that the Criminal Code is respected in that respect. Our police forces are trying day by day to update their methods. We have also a great many humanitarian associations, such as the anti-vivisectionist groups whose purpose is to alleviate the suffering imposed on animals by surgery in laboratory experiments.
The powers conferred by the Criminal Code have been extended with the passing of Bill C-150, in 1969. Mammals and birds are protected against any ill-treatment by the relevant sections of the Criminal Code and the

May 25, 1S70
Treatment of Animals action of the Canadian council for the protections of animals. Ill treatment of animals is thus precluded. Appropriate steps will be taken so that they do not suffer from injuries or pain voluntarily caused by the public.
Should the revision of the Criminal Code and the activity of the Canadian council for the protection of animals not effectively prevent flagrant cases of ill-treatment of animals, I believe the Department of Agriculture would certainly be prepared to consider the possibility of adopting new regulations.
In addition, the officials of the Department of Agriculture are certainly very much interested in the problem of the protection of mammals and birds.
They are responsible for keeping informed of what goes on in that field and, more particularly, for seing that all animals, especially those used for food, for meat or for laboratory experiments should be handled without cruelty.
About the humane treatment of animals, the federal government passed in 1959 the Humane Slaughter of Food Animals Act. The Department of Agriculture enforces the provisions of this act through the Health of Animals Branch and, in my opinion, it succeeds in having all food animals slaughtered in premises operated under the Meat Inspection Act handled without cruelty when slaughtered.
As far as the humane trapping of animals is concerned, we have been told that many experiments have been made in that area. At present, the Conibear trap is very efficient. However, the Mohawk built in a Caugh-nawaga plant is even more so. But, on account of the price differential between the Mohawk and the Conibear, the government should give a grant to trappers who want to buy the Mohawk.
From a practical point of view, I think it would be most difficult to force thousands of trappers in Canada to buy traps at a higher price to spare animals suffering; so trappers use classic traps. In this area, progress is profitable. Later on, even without the passage of any legislation to this effect, methods of trapping fur-bearing animals will be improved.
In concluding my comments, I would refer again to my fourth argument which I consider as the most important one. With a view to preserving wildlife we are aiming at improving the human environment, which is becoming more and more important now because of the evolution of civilization.

The problem of conservation covers such a wide and complex field that it could be the object of a bill such as the omnibus bill. In Canada, wildlife conservation is under the jurisdiction of various departments at the federal as well as at the provincial level.
Presently, the Canadian Wildlife Service is playing an important role throughout Canada. It is getting better and better organized and is responsible, among other things, for the migratory birds and for the Convention signed in that respect by Canada and the United States. Furthermore this Service, which has become a branch, is participating in various ways in research on wildlife and on arrangements to meet the standards and requirements of various agencies.
A very important date in this field is April 6, 1966, when the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced to the House the new national wildlife policy and its terms of application. This program and this policy were prepared after various conferences had been held and after agreements had been reached with different parties among whom were competent provincial ministers, members of conservation associations and of sports associations, directors of wildlife agencies, other experts and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleion-Char-lotte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of expressing my complete approval of the aim; and objectives of the motion presented so ably to this House by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I am also impressed by the information and the study which has been made of the whole matter by the member who has just resumed his seat.
The matter embodied in the motion is not new to this House. In general terms I believe it has met with the approval of hon. members. In his motion the hon. member for Vancouver East expresses his opinion and asks that we express ours in regard to this very important matter, that is, the conservation, humane treatment and general care of animals who are unable to express their own opinions. We are asked to express an opinion relevant to the care that should be exercised with respect to animals, from every point of
May 25. 1970



view. I for one	am glad to	be	recorded	asbeing in favour	of concrete	action. It is	allright to say that we are in favour of this concept and that generally speaking we are sympathetic towards the aims and objectives of any motion such as this, yet I think we ought to put on record our opinion that something specific should be done. The hon. member for Vancouver East has presented his motion in such	a way that	the	governmentwill be able to	take action	and	indicate	its
interest in seeing progress made in this very important area.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am one who sees much of the humane treatment of animals. My wife spends much of her time in connection with animal welfare. I confess that when she started her work about ten years ago I thought she was doing something that was very difficult, although I gave her full marks for effort. As a result of her activities, however, and the educational programs she has sponsored, people all over the world are anxious to assist in every way possible in the sort of work she is doing. When you see that sort of work, you are bound to be influenced by it. I am the first to acknowledge that I have been so influenced and that it has been good for me. I am a better person for having been subjected to that influence.
It seems to me that there is little difference of opinion as to the merit of the motion. I therefore think we should say, perhaps by way of a recorded vote, that we are in favour of it. I think that is important. I know something about vivisection and the way animals are treated in medical research centres. Having spoken to several doctors about the subject, I am convinced-and I think doctors generally speaking share my views-that much of this work is repetitious. Much of it is carried on merely so that some student can say he performed a certain function. I think the whole question needs to be examined. I hope we all agree on this, and I therefore hope we adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East and support his motion.
I could talk about steel-jawed traps and implements like that which are extremely cruel in their effect on wild animals. I do not propose to talk about them because I wish the House to express its opinion on this matter before the time has expired. After all, we are only asking for an expression of opinion. The previous speaker talked of difficulties. No 22375-44
Treatment of Animals doubt there are difficulties in this area. But as I say, we are only seeking to express an opinion that something concrete ought to be done in this area. That is what the hon. member for Vancouver East is asking us to do.
We view with great alarm the elimination of certain species of birds and wildlife. I think we all consider this elimination to be very bad. In my province the forests are sprayed with chemicals which we are told are most detrimental to wildlife. I will not emphasize these evils; I only say that in my opinion the House should concur in the motion by saying that a study ought to be made of the matter. It will be up to the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to decide what is the best procedure for such study.
It seems to me, therefore, that there are no differences between us as to the advisability of voting in favour of the motion, because such vote may ultimately work to the benefit of our animals and other wildlife. Often you can go into a store and see all kinds of birds for sale. I have no great objection to this. So far as I am concerned, nothing is better for a child than a pet: they are wonderful for young people. When a man buys his boy a dog or any other pet he indicates that side of his nature which it is most desirable to display. But pets must be well treated.
I think we ought to express our gratitude to the hon. member for Vancouver East for presenting his motion. I express to him my personal approval and appreciation of what he has done. I think the motion is a step in the right direction and indicates that we have an interest in these matters. But we should be more specific than we have been in the past. We should inscribe on the record something that will be there for all time. I therefore hope that in the not too distant future the government will act upon the suggestion embodied in the motion.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words about the motion that has been introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I think it is an important matter, and it is well that this House should pay attention to motions of this kind. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) presented a private members' bill in the previous session, entitled The Research Animals Protection Act. It was designed to institute a system of licensing research institutions and individuals using animals, as a condition of qualification for

May 25, 1970
Treatment of Animals government grants, and drug companies selling their products to government agencies. This was another measure aimed at improving the treatment of animals in our care.
I do not entirely agree with the comments of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc). He suggested that improved treatment of animals is brought about by the gradual effusion of time and that automatically, as time goes on, we shall treat the wildlife of Canada in a better way. I do not believe that. The history of man shows that these things do not happen automatically. But I agree with him when he suggests that the more appropriate and practical way of handling this problem is to refer it directly to a committee of the House. That could be done if the hon. member for Vancouver East were to write a letter to the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and ask that this matter be put on the agenda for discussion. I would be happy to consider signing such a letter with the hon. member. That would be a practical way of bringing this problem to the attention of a committee of this House. There are already many committees sitting. Perhaps, though, it would not be amiss if a committee were to consider this important matter.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Man has followed a long process in working his way up from the swamp. It is time we have paid some attention to the poor, the helpless and the weak in our society. I am not referring only to animals, but to human beings. Not too many generations ago we regarded the young, the old, the sick and the poor as instruments that were of no great concern to society as a whole. That generation witnessed children working in mines and people languishing in prison for long periods without trial and often without food. The treatment of our animals was much worse.
In 1800 Richard Martin presented a bill in the British House of Commons to prohibit bull-baiting. In 1809 a bill was introduced to prevent wanton and malicious cruelty to animals. It passed the House of Lords, but was rejected by the Commons. The same action was repeated in 1810. Under our British democratic system people have been working for a long time to improve the welfare of animals in their care. In the process we have to think very carefully about how we will improve the welfare of animals.
When speaking of cruelty in the killing of animals it is well to realize that man is not

their only enemy. Animals eat other animals, and are eaten in their turn. This is only one element in the over-all balance of nature. If this were not true, the over-all animal population would double or triple. Many more animals would be born, and many more would die because of predators or from starvation. It is not certain that the total suffering would be less under these circumstances: there would be more long, drawn-out suffering than there is at the present time.
We know that many young animals die in their first year of life. They are killed and eaten by other animals; they die because they cannot find enough food; they die because of storms and ice conditions; they die because of the forces of nature, as they did long before man came to hunt or trap them. It is difficult to say that their natural enemies will bestow upon them a kinder or more humane death than that which man provides.
There are some very serious concerns about the way we trap and treat animals in the wilds. The hon. member for Rimouski mentioned some of the improved methods of trapping that are available. Some very painful methods are used at the present time. With the leg-hold system the animal is often suspended in the air by one leg, or held for hours or days by one member. Often the animal is left lying long enough until he chews off the leg that is caught in the trap. The animals freeze or starve to death if they are left in the trap long enough. Human beings should be able to find better methods of killing animals, which are a necessary part of maintaining the balance of nature and the commerce of our land.
It is true that we have not done as good a job as we should have done. This question should be referred to a committee of the House for study. As the hon. member for Rimouski mentioned, new types of traps have been used and others have been partially developed. This is an improvement in this area. Legislation has been passed in other countries. Anti-leg hold trap legislation has been passed in England, Scotland, Wales, Austria, Norway, Finland and Germany. In the United States its use is strictly limited in Massachusetts and South Carolina.
At the present time in Canada, trapping legislation is in the hands of the provinces and is confined to setting up limits and curbing poachers. Trapping in the Northwest Territories, of coruse, is in the hands of the federal government; it is controlled by the federal parks branch of the Department
May 25, 1970

of Northern Affairs. It is in this area that a committee of the House could make a great contribution. We could also take other steps. The hon. member for Vancouver East referred to a statement submitted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the use of animals for scientific research. This area of concern has been mentioned here today. That submission suggested four steps which could be taken by this House to improve the situation referred to in the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East. The suggestions are-
1)	to give the Canadian Council on Animal Care, or an equivalent body, a status independent, financially and administratively, of the university institutions it supervises, and to make it more representative of the public interest.
2)	to make the inspectorate responsible to the Minister of Agriculture and to extend its supervision to the premises of those government departments and industrial companies using animals for research or testing purposes.
3)	to restrict the purchase of laboratory animals by research and teaching institutions to sources of supply approved by the inspectorate.
I think that is a most important recommendation. Many animal lovers in Canada have been victimized by having their pets dog-napped by people in the business of providing animals for research.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, motion No. 7 (Mr. Comeau) and motion No. 14 (Mr. Harding).
Water Resources Programs
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker,
I heard this afternoon that the minister himself was to come into the House to give us the benefit of his wisdom on the subject of the amendments proposed to the Canada water bill by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) and the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). Therefore, as a new member, pristine pure, hardly having had a chance to put a shine on the seat of my pants through sitting on these comfortable chairs, I dashed down to the House-because to my mind the opposition of the government front benches to these amendments was inexplicable-and hoped the minister would explain why he and his colleagues in the government would not accept what seemed to me to be an entirely sensible approach.
After listening to the minister, I was totally confused. I felt as I did when reading T. S. Eliot for the first time as a young student- perhaps I did not understand the archetypes; perhaps I did not grasp the imagery and needed to do some more studying. Listening further, however, I was forced to the conclusion that rather than attempting to enlighten the members of this House as to the reasons for the government's opposition, the minister's primary purpose was to obfuscate and confuse.
In light of the minister's remarks I should like to say two things. First, the purpose of these amendments is to establish national standards for various classes of water. Neither of the amendments demands that the national standard should be the same for all bodies of water; rather, it is proposed there should be national standards which would apply to the various types of water and their uses. This point was made most effectively on Thursday by the hon. member for South Western Nova and others, and I shall not belabour it.
I have in mind one particular fear of the possible adverse effect of the lack of nationally established standards. I refer to the potential for the creation of pollution havens should the management of our water resources be too greatly decentralized. As the Canadian Water Resources Association has noted, there are now 10 departments, 9 agencies, 4 major commissions, 3 international boards, 30 sub-boards and 40 acts of Parliament having to do with water, plus the regulations of various provinces, plus the regulations laid down by municipalities. And to all this the legislation before us would add ten consultative committees.
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs
It would seem to me that in the absence of national standards, the smaller the groups involved in regulating the elimination of existing pollution and trying to prevent further pollution, the more difficult and complicated the lines of communication between these authorities, the greater the local autonomy in decision-making in respect of pollution control, the more susceptible water basin management boards will be to pressures to neglect their mandate to control pollution in order to facilitate the solution of more immediate, short-run and urgent problems.
I am thinking of the tremendous pressures which might well be brought to bear on water basin management groups, in the absence of national standards, to twist, prevent or relax their standards-especially in underdeveloped areas of the country-in order to attract industry. Let us face it. Pollution control costs money. In many cases it adds to initial capital construction costs. There is a strong temptation for people concerned about the provision of jobs and the economic growth of an underdeveloped area to attempt to compete for industry by slacking off pollution controls.
e (8:10 p.m.)
If members on the government side of the House are tempted to dismiss this as a possibility, it can only be because they do not come from one of the relatively poor regions of this country and have not experienced the sheer desperation of attempting to provide a decent living for people by promoting industrial growth. I come from such an area and have had the privilege of being associated with its government. I have experienced this kind of desperate concern. I have seen men whose judgment I trust really pushed to avoid making decisions that would have immediate or short-run beneficial effects, because in the long-run they might be damaging. All we need do is look at the record of governments in some of our less wealthy areas, in relation to their attempt to promote industrial growth. I intend to refer to these briefly as an example.
The record of the Premier of Newfoundland came under something of a cloud a year or so ago, and so continues, because of the deals he undertook with private corporations to foster industrial growth in Newfoundland, deals which a large body of opinion in Newfoundland consider to be to the ultimate detriment of that province. I am not prepared to comment on that matter in any detail, but

justification of the deals has been so difficult that they have become, to a degree, a political liability for Mr. Smallwood.
In Saskatchewan a large northern pulp and paper complex was permitted to be established by the provincial government. This project came under the same sort of attack. In Manitoba there is the now well-known case of the Churchill Forest Products Industry, which was a horrible deal for the province. None of these deals have anything in particular to do with pollution, but they are not serving the public weal as they should. These projects are evidence of the bad judgement that can result from the panic which develops when one sees the economic growth of one's province at standstill, or when one who is in a position of responsibility for economic growth is panicked into doing something which he otherwise might not have done. Each of the premiers whom I have mentioned is a man with whom I may have a difference of opinion- indeed, a violent difference of opinion-in respect of politics and political philosophy, but each is a man I can admire for the courage he has demonstrated and for courageous actions undertaken. But each felt obliged to make decisions which were questionable in terms of business judgment. They did so because of the sheer necessity to demonstrate to the people of their provinces that economic growth was taking place. They had to demonstrate this in spite of the possible long-term costs.
A similar situation could arise in respect of pollution unless national standards are set with which governments and the water basin management groups are forced to comply. Unless there are national standards, the same sort of panic situation could develop, with the result that long-run policies might be abandoned in order to present short-term evidence of growth. That is what worries me about this legislation. This is the reason I am adding my voice to those who are demanding national standards. There is cut-throat competition for industry among the poorer provinces in particular. There is a desperate fight to obtain industry. In their desperation, the boards in the poorer areas of the country may well sacrifice what this bill is attempting to accomplish in order to obtain industry which is needed.
In his remarks this afternoon the minister said that the hon. member for Kootenay West simply did not listen to expert opinion. In saying that the minister implied that the entire weight of expert opinion v/as on his side.
May 25. 1970

I should like to indicate to the House that provinces also employ experts, and to my knowledge at least six provinces have indicated they are in substantial agreement with the type of measures advocated by the hon. member for Kootenay West in his amendment and by the hon. member for South Western Nova. These provinces are calling for the same kind of national standards for which the two members are calling in the amendments presented.
I should like to quote briefly from the brief which the Manitoba government presented to the Federal-Provincial Conference in Ottawa on February 16 and 17, 1970. It is a position paper entitled "Government of Manitoba Position on Pollution." I should like to quote two or three sentences:
The province-
That is the province of Manitoba.
-is prepared to co-operate fully in any efforts to act upon the problem but wishes to emphasize that the federal government's full participation in co-ordinating and financing measures for the control of environmental pollution is urgently required.
It goes on to state:
-unless there is strong federal co-ordination provinces which apply adequate anti-pollution standards will be placed at a decided disadvantage in the competition for industrial development.
Further on the brief indicates the steps the province feels should be taken to control pollution. The province emphasizes that whatever steps are taken they should not lead to one area becoming favoured over another by industry. Spokesmen for this party have argued that the legislation before us is lacking in four respects if it is to be effective in cleaning up existing pollution and in preventing further pollution. The first is a lack of the sort of massive funds required to provide loans to municipalities, provincial governments and industries which will be required to construct pollution control devices which often are costly. This particular set of amendments was quite properly ruled out of order under the rules which govern the operation of this House and therefore we cannot talk about them.
This party has also argued that the polluting of our waters and environment should be a criminal offence. The government, however, is unwilling to accept that principle as an amendment. We also say that this legislation, in order to be effective, must provide a mechanism for co-ordinating federal, provincial and municipal efforts in respect of pollu-
Water Resources Programs tion control. To some extent this legislation does affect that, in that it provides a mechanism for the co-ordination of federal and provincial efforts, although it does not seem to provide for the incorporation of municipal efforts. To that extent, however, it represents some progress. Fourthly, we have argued that there must be national standards. It is because the other amendments have been partially taken care of or have been ruled out of order for one reason or another that we are concentrating our remarks in respect of this particular bill on the establishment of national standards for water management.
In conclusion may I say I can only hope, in light of the remarks made by hon. members on this side of the House, that the minister will reconsider his current position which to me would appear to be in opposition to the idea of national standards to govern measures designed to prevent the further pollution of our water and to clean up the pollution that already exists.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on motion No. 14. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
7302	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs
And more than five members have risen:


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. According to previous arrangements I will now put motion No. 8, in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and motion No. 9, in the name of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). Both motions will be debated simultaneously but they will be voted upon separately at the conclusion of the debate. I understand this was agreed earlier.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) moves:
That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out clause 8 on page 9 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"8. No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters".
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) moves:
That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by striking out clause 8 and substituting the following:
"8. Except in quantities and under conditions prescribed with respect to waste disposal in a water quality management area, no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste of any type in any waters or in any place under any conditions where such waste or any other waste that results from the deposit of such waste may enter any such waters."


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in the discussion of the last amendment, gave some statistics the purport of which was to suggest that this debate has lasted long enough and there was perhaps too much talk. I want to assure him that the purpose of the amendment that I bring here and which is now before the House is to make effective the legislation which the minister brought to the House. It is absolutely essential for its purpose, and the only reason we are taking up the time of the House is to make the legislation on this important subject workable and efficient.
The amendment I propose is simple and straightforward and, I venture to say, important. It prohibits the deposit of waste in any waters in substitution for the present clause 8. Perhaps I should make clear to the House that although this is simple, the word "waste"

DEBATES	May 25, 1970
which is referred to in the amendment is defined in clause 2 (k) of the draft act. I want to read what "waste" is which is prohibited by the amendment. Clause 2 (k) reads as follows:
"Waste" means any substance that, if added to any waters, would degrade or alter or from part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to man, and includes any water that contains a substance in such a quantity or concentration, or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state that it would, if added to any waters, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to man;
The amendment I propose accepts that definition of waste, and in simple and straightforward language prohibits the deposit of waste in any waters. It would create an offence under the criminal law punishable under clause 22 of the bill. I propose to support the amendment on its general merits, but I wish to support it for another reason which is even more important. As I drafted motion No. 8, it is clear that it would be constitutionally valid; it would be squarely within the criminal law which is within the competence of Parliament under the provisions of section 91 of the BNA Act. I will spare the House the sort of legal argument that would be more appropriate in the Supreme Court of Canada. To those who are interested I will refer to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the P.A.TA case, 1931 A.C., 310.
But clause 8 as it appears in the bill-I am referring to the bill, not to the amendment- is a horse of another colour. I seriously doubt whether it is constitutionally valid or whether it is within the power or competence of Parliament. I am not alone in my doubt. In a report tabled in the legislature of Ontario by the Attorney General of that province, clause 8 has been described as an invasion of the provincial legislature's authority in the guise of the criminal law. I say there is very much in clause 8, as presented, which justifies this conclusion. Let us look at it as it is drafted. The opening words of the clause read as follows:
Except in quantities and under conditions prescribed with respect to waste disposal in the water quality management area in question, including the payment of any effluent discharge fee prescribed therefor, no person shall deposit-
May 25, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
So it will be seen that to the operative part of the clause, "no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste of any type in any waters," is attached the unconditional, unrestricted right to impose conditions, including the payment of an effluent discharge fee. It is my view that this reference to an unqualified right to impose conditions, and the reference to a payment of an effluent discharge fee indicate that the real purpose of this clause is not to prohibit waste, as does the amendment I have introduced, but to permit it subject to regulations and the payment of fees. It is, therefore, legislation on a matter partly at least within provincial powers, and it is not criminal law.
It has been clearly laid down by the courts time and time again that there is a difference between regulation of a trade or other activity on the one side, and criminal law on the other. The attempt to regulate under the guise of prohibition is not within the power of Parliament, and it would be hard to imagine a clearer case of regulation than what we have in this bill. Professor Dale Gibson of the University of Manitoba gave expert evidence on the constitutional aspects of the bill before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. I heard him, and with most of his general review of the constitutional law applicable to the bill I am in agreement, but I must disagree with his conclusion on the specific point of clause 8 as drafted. He takes the view that clause 8 can be justified on two grounds, that it is a valid exercise of the federal Parliament's power with respect to criminal law and by virtue of the general power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada. He concedes, and I have a copy of his remarks here, that-
Some people might argue that the level of sophistication in the controls contemplated by the act constitute a "regulatory" system rather than a "prohibitory" system and therefore that the matter is not essentially criminal in its nature.
He says that some people take that view. I am one of those people. I am convinced it is clearly regulatory. It is not the question of the sophistication of it; it is the question of the substance-and the substance is that all sorts of conditions may be applied and that pollution is permitted, not prohibited. Professor Gibson then goes on to cite, as an indication of federal legislation which he thinks is parallel to this, the federal Lord's Day Act. That act clearly indicated that there is a right
DEBATES	7303
Water Resources Programs for criminal law to be applied on a local option basis and it shall not apply uniformly throughout Canada. I, of course, concede that. But the Lord's Day Act does not provide that you can carry on activities on Sunday on payment of a fee. It is a very different proposition.


John James Greene: It depends who you pay.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have no experience in that, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell
the minister what the wages of sin are.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Professor Gibson cites another example which he thinks is parallel, the Combines Act. He says its provisions give a very sophisticated method of determining whether there is an offence. Of course that is so, and we are not objecting to a sophisticated method being used to determine what is in fact waste, what is in fact pollution of waters, pollution to an intolerable degree. We are perfectly prepared to do that. But the Combines Act does not say: You may combine subject to any regulations that we as an authority wish to make. That is one of the difficulties in our combines legislation, that it cannot be used as a means of regulating the trades or businesses concerned. The Combines Act does not provide for fees to permit you to carry on a combine. It prohibits, and that is the essential feature of criminal legislation.
Another example was used. Here the reference was to the authority of the Food and Drugs Act of 1952-53. It is true that the definition of adulterated food which is prohibited under that act is a complicated process, but the Food and Drugs Act is very different from the legislation we have before us. It imposes a penalty on the sale of adulterated drugs or food, as defined in the act and in the regulations. The essence of criminal law, Mr. Speaker, is prohibition. The essence of regulation is permission, under fee and other conditions.
Unfortunately, although Professor Gibson says that some people take this view, the view I have advanced, he himself does not discuss it, and the analogies he gives with respect to the federal Lord's Day Act, to the Combines Act and to the Food and Drugs Act simply do not apply. Would we seriously think if this Parliament amended the Criminal Code dealing with the issue of rape, and provided that rape could be committed under regulation, on payment of a fee to some federal authority, this would be criminal law? Of
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs course it would not be criminal law. It would be an attempt to regulate a particular activity.


John James Greene: With or without consent?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not going to get into a discussion on that question. Professor Gibson then attempts to justify this legislation under the general powers of the federal government to regulate under the peace, order and good government provisions of section 91 of the BNA Act, but this peace, order and good government part of our constitution is a weak reed upon which to lean. The courts have always been leary of using these general powers to justify legislation which encroaches on what would normally be provincial fields, except in clear-cut cases of national emergency such as war. I want to point out that I am not saying that in these matters of constitutional law it is necessary that my view is right or wrong, although I do claim some experience in this field, or that the Attorney General of Ontario and his committee are necessarily right or wrong, but I do say that if we happen to be right then the efficacy of this legislation will be ruined by the constitutional doubt which exists here, and the litigation which will follow may eventually cause the legislation to be thrown on the scrap heap by the courts.
Why should we endanger the efficient enforcement of the law by having resort to dubious and probably unconstitutional measures? If there were no other reason for adopting this amendment than to avoid the constitutional pitfalls, then the amendment should be adopted. I urge upon the minister that he consult his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and reconsider the language of clause 8 in light of the constitutional limitations of this Parliament.
I do not pretend that the language I have put forward is necessarily perfect. Perhaps some amendment of it would be desirable. But I do say that the legislation proposed by the government is extremely dubious as to its constitutional validity and it is irresponsible for the government to ask Parliament to pass, on such a vitally important subject, legislation which is subject to these very serious doubts.
I would like to hear a reasoned speech from the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is himself a learned man and would be capable of performing this service himself, but he does not have that constitutional responsibili-

ty. I hope that before the debate ends the Minister of Justice will silence the doubts that have been put on the constitutionality of this legislation both by myself and by the legal authorities of the provinces because, I repeat, it would be tragic if this central-core provision of clause 8 were eventually to be set aside by the courts and we were to be told we had not the power to do this.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why the amendment I have proposed should be adopted. The key to dealing with pollution is adequate enforcement. The explanation of the terrible situation we are in with regard to pollution is not the lack of laws but that they have not been adequately enforced. A straight definition of what is prohibited, without opening it up to local conditions, without the application of licence fees, is simpler and more capable of enforcement. I believe the people of Canada as a whole are beginning to be aroused on the subject of pollution. They welcome the notion that pollution, as defined by reasonable standards, should be clearly prohibited, and not tolerated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: In effect, the present provisions of clause 8 tolerate the dumping of waste into waters that are a public heritage. There are levels of pollution that are completely unacceptable. These levels of pollution should not be allowed for the payment of any discharge fee. They should be banned clearly and unequivocally.
Mr. Speaker, because I know that the minister in charge of this legislation is an Anglican, I propose to read from an excellent article in the Canadian Churchman of May 8, 1970, dealing with the subject. I would recommend this article to the minister. The whole issue is devoted to pollution and page 8 describes the situation we have reached. I understand that nearly everybody who has spoken in this debate has referred to local waters in their own constituencies. I am going to refer to a local water which I think is the most notoriously polluted water in all Ontario, the Don River, which separates my riding and that of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) from the central part of the city of Toronto. The article referred to states:
In November a group of citizens held a "funeral" for Toronto's Don River, which is polluted five times beyond the safe level for swimming.
May 25/ 1970	COMMONS
Later the article goes on:
The problem of water pollution in Canada and the U.S. is so vast it's hardly comprehensible. And it's growing every day, hundreds of thousands of tons of detergents, solvents, bits of bark, raw or partially raw human waste, food and industrial wastes, organic and inorganic acids, cyanides, oil, arsenic, garbage, fertilizers, pesticides, bathing waste and unpronounceable chemicals are poured into rivers and lakes.
It's no wonder that somewhere during the last decade Lake Erie died. The largest freshwater lake in the world it is now turning slowly into a weed-choked swamp, and water within its shoreline cannot be used for cooking or drinking. Not even boiling or chlorination can remove the contamination.
And so I could go on, Mr. Speaker, as many illustrations are given. The lake which my constituency borders is Lake Ontario, and there we have some of the most beautiful beaches in Canada. They have become threatened with pollution to the point where it is almost impossible to use this natural area for swimming. I do not want to see Lake Ontario turn into another dead lake such as Lake Erie. This being the condition of affairs, we believe it must be dealt with by efficient, effective and clearly enforced legislation. That is the purpose of the amendment I have placed before the House and I commend it to the minister and to the House. I suggest that it is of the utmost importance, if we are sincere and mean what we say about this, that we do have the clear prohibition that my amendment suggests. It does not prevent sophisticated systems of analysis and scientific investigation. Without the proposed amendment the act will be weak if not unconstitutional. If that were so, it could turn out to be a cruel hoax on the people of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to my amendment to clause 8 of the bill. It is somewhat similar to that of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) but does recognize the central theme of the legislation, namely, that there are water management areas which must be considered.
The amendment that I am proposing would make penalties for pollution of waters Canadawide. First, I do not intend to go into the constitutionality of the clause as was done by the hon. member for Greenwood. He has made a case, and a strong case, for the fact that the clause as it now stands is beyond the power of the federal Parliament. This opinion has been concurred in by the Attorney General of Ontario who feels that not only this
DEBATES	7305
Water Resources Programs clause but several others are unconstitutional in that they invade the provincial field and do not enact criminal law as such.
I do not wish to pursue that question further, Mr. Speaker, because the whole concept of the bill has been challenged by the Attorney General of Ontario. This particular point has certainly been disallowed by the chairman of the committee and it has been ruled by Mr. Speaker that the constitutionality of a bill is not a point of order for Parliament to decide upon and that the Speaker does not have that power. Therefore, if the minister insists upon proceeding with the legislation he does so, of course, on the advice that he has received and at his own risk. I merely say that there are several parts of this Canada Water Act that have very doubtful constitutional validity. I will leave it at that and proceed to the meat of my amendment.
When the Canada Water Act was introduced to the public in August last year in the form of a public relations release by the department, it was immediately the general belief of the public that there was a $5,000 a day penalty for polluting waters anywhere in Canada. I cannot say that the department was guilty of misleading the public, because the literature did not say that this was the fact. Nevertheless, the great stress that the minister and his predecessor who introduced the legislation at that time put on this $5,000 a day penalty, and the implication that they were no longer going to let people get away with polluting the waters of Canada, left the impression that as soon as this bill was passed there would be a $5,000 a day penalty for polluters all across Canada. That is not a fact. No place in Canada will have a $5,000 a day penalty when this bill is passed. When this bill has passed this House and the Senate and receives royal assent, at that moment there will not be one place in Canada that will be subject to a $5,000 a day penalty-not one place in Canada that will be subject to clause 8.
I anticipate it will be not less than a year, and more likely two years, before there will be one area in Canada which will be subject to these penalties. Under the bill as drafted I anticipate that it might be 20 years before the whole country comes under the prohibition clause. This misunderstanding has gone on and on. I have read editorials in newspapers, letters to the editor and releases, all propagating the idea that under the bill there will be penalties for polluting. There will not be.
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs Under the bill there will only be penalties after the long procedure of setting up water quality management areas has been gone through in any one of a hundred areas in Canada.
9 (8:50 p.m.)
Apparently it will take not less than one year in which these water quality management areas can be set up. The process is complicated. A board must be established and the area decided upon as to where there is to be a program of water quality management. Once the area has been decided upon and once it is decided to go ahead with such a program, the scheme must have federal-provincial approval, and a very technical, difficult and detailed agreement must be drawn up with respect to the setting up of the board. Then, once the board is set up, legally constituted and given powers, it or the commission may conduct an inquiry as to what sort of standards should be involved in the water quality area under consideration and how best to carry out the intent of the board.
The inquiry must also determine how much the program will cost, how much money should be contributed by the various levels of government, how they will collect effluent fees, and so on. This involves a terribly complicated structure. If required, the board must hold public hearings. Notices must be published with respect to the setting up of a commission and there must be subsequent notices advising of the means by which the water management area will operate. After this has been done, the minister at the federal level and the minister at the provincial level must approve the plan. But even after they have approved the plan and it has been approved by Order in Council, the penalty section within that water quality management area will still not be in effect.
The act provides that even after all this has been done, the penalty section shall not come into effect except as a result of a separate Order in Council. So even though some people may have gone through all this procedure, the penalty section providing for a penalty of up to $5,000 a day will apply only in the water basin or river basin with respect to which the application has been made, and in no other basin of Canada. If that is a penalty section, I do not recognize it as such. If that is designed to make the people of Canada stop polluting, I think the provision will be a failure because it will not affect more than one person in 100 in this country.

We were told when the bill was originally brought down that one of its most important provisions would be the penalty section which would provide for a penalty of up to $5,000 a day. "Oh, boy, this is going to make people stop polluting," we were told. That is the approach the minister took at the beginning. Recently there has been a slight change in the minister's thinking. I do not know when or where it began, and I intend to go into that later. He is now saying that the penalty approach does not work anyway, that the purpose of this water bill is entirely different and that really the penalties do not matter.
I wish to read from an article that appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail. It was most enlightening for those of us who have been hammering away at the idea of water quality standards, at the idea that there should be a clear penalty section, and so on. If the minister is properly reported, and I specifically asked him this afternoon about it, it means he has reversed himself on three fundamental points. The minister is reported as saying, "The penalty approach has been tried and just doesn't work." He continued by saying, "These are the standards; if you don't do it we will punish you. We've had this in Ontario for 15 years and it just doesn't work."


An hon. Member:: No doubt the hon.
member is referring to the enforcement.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I doubt whether the minister is correct in this. I believe this has worked in Ontario and I think that the Ontario Water Resources Commission for 15 years has done a remarkable job.


An hon. Member:: In what way?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think that anyone who denies this is not aware of the facts. All sorts of bits and pieces of legislation have been adopted on the federal statute books over many years; they have contained penalty clauses which have not been enforced. If they had been enforced, we should not be in our present difficulties.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he indicate to the House the number of charges that have been laid by the Ontario Water Resources Commission over the last 15 years?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not have those figures with me, Mr. Speaker, but I can say to the hon. member that it is well accepted by all involved in pollution matters in North America that the Ontario Water Resources Commis-
May 25- 1970	COMMONS
sion has done a better job in pollution matters than any similar body under any jurisdiction in North America.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps the job has not been perfect; perhaps it can be improved on. But let us not say that Ontario does not know what it is doing. Every time the federal government in Ottawa wants to know something about pollution matters, it goes to the Ontario Water Resources Commission to find out what is going on in the pollution field. That commission uses the most sophisticated equipment for research and has available to it the best enforcement provisions to be found in any jurisdiction in Canada. I will not answer the hon. member's question directly; I merely tell him that that system has worked as well and even better than any similar system in Canada.
Without straying from the bill too far, I say that the water basin system the minister is proposing in this bill has worked in only one country in the world, Germany. They use it in Germany in the Ruhr valley, where industry is heavily concentrated. Conditions became so bad in the Ruhr that it was necessary for the Germans to set up a water authority. They turned one of their rivers, the Emscher, into an open sewer. All the effluent goes down one river. The banks are nicely cultivated; they look nice. The effluent is treated so that it does not smell too badly. But the river cannot be used. This is their answer to the problem. Fortunately, we do not yet have this problem. Our industrial development has not reached the proportions that it has in Germany and our population ratio is nowhere near that of Germany.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I say that this water basin approach will not work in Canada. I say that without fear of contradiction. It may work in one or two small basins in Canada which are heavily industrialized; however, as far as the rest of the country is concerned it is not a practical move. I know of only one area in the world where it has worked. It has not worked all over Germany or all over Europe, only in the Ruhr Valley where it is so heavily industrialized that it was necessary to do something drastic. I do not think it will work in the rural and semi-rural areas of Canada, only in the very highly populated and highly industrialized areas. Perhaps it will work in the same way as it has worked in the Ruhr Valley.
DEBATES	7307
Water Resources Programs
My amendment would change the clause which the minister has proposed. The minister proposes that only in water quality management areas shall these penalties for degrading the waters apply. I am trying to steer what might be called the middle course between that which the hon. member for Greenwood proposes and that which the minister proposes in the bill. I propose that the penalty should apply in those places where a water quality management area has been set up. It should apply in accordance with the standards set by the area. My amendment proposes that outside those areas where there are no regulations under this act, no person shall be permitted in any part of Canada to deposit waste in any waters which would have the effect of degrading those waters below their current standards. That is the intent of my amendment.
The idea is that we will have what most people think we have and need, that is, penalties for polluting and degrading the waters in this country, starting the moment the bill is passed. That would include all of Canada the moment the bill is passed. The only changes would be where the water quality areas are set up. I have made two changes in clause 8 by my amendment. I have removed the words which would limit the operation of the act to a water quality management area only. I have merely omitted those words. I have also omitted the words which would permit the discharge of effluents into any waters upon payment of a fee.
In another amendment which I have before the House, amendment No. 11-which I will not anticipate at this time-I have dealt with the second part to which I am now referring, that is, the effluent discharge fee. On this one I am also taking a middle course. The bill provides for an effluent discharge fee. The minister has said over and over again that it is necessary to clean up pollution. It is my opinion that permission should not be granted to discharge effluent after the act comes into force.
Amendment No. 11, which I will be moving later, will remove the possibility of any new company or plant setting up facilities, after this act comes into effect, which would cause pollution. This is what I might call the "factory fence" amendment. The intent is that after the bill comes into effect, no person shall be allowed to build a new facility which does not eliminate its effluent within the confines of its own property. I think that is reasonable.
May 25. 1970

tion will not work in Ontario." But within a lew hours the minister of the department, Hon. George Kerr, commented, "That may be true but we shall try to make it work, nevertheless, because we welcome the intervention of the federal government in this field and therefore we shall do our best to see that this system works."
There have been conferences here and there. The crunch will come sooner or later, probably when the bill is passed into law. But nobody seems to know how these provisions will work in any of the regions of Canada. As I say, I hope these difficulties can be ironed out because there needs to be a joint effort if anything at all is to be achieved.
Another thing which concerns me about the government's approach to this bill is the lack of planning and consultation with the provinces. This has led to the situation in which we now find ourselves-the difficulties in connection with constitutional authority. The Ontario people have said, "We do not intend to seek to wreck this act by testing it in court, although we have the opinion that it is unconstitutional; we intend to try to work it out." This is one province which is giving a lead in the effort to control pollution.
What about the other provinces? We have heard from British Columbia. A study has been made there of one project, and we hope it will come into effect. But the whole thing comes back time and again to the penalty clause, the legality of that clause and the fact that it is totally misunderstood in addition to being inoperative as it now stands. I wish all this had been cleared up long ago. At present there are grave doubts, as the hon. member for Greenwood has said, about the constitutionality of the measure. There are even greater doubts about the effectiveness of the clause even if it should be valid when viewed in the context of related provincial legislation.
In summary, I moved this amendment, first, to secure a penalty clause which would be effective throughout Canada, not just in the water quality management areas. Second, I am seeking an amendment which would make the penalty clause effective immediately, not just after water quality management areas have come into existence, which may be anything from two years to 20 years. Third, I am seeking a penalty clause which will have sounder legal validity. Finally, I am expressing a hope that if the amendment is carried it will be easier for co-operation to take place
Water Resources Programs with the provinces in connection with enforcement of the penalty provisions.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I hoped the minister would have replied to the movers of the two motions before the House because they put before the House the constitutional question of the validity of this clause. I think we have all been waiting to hear what the minister has to say in this connection. I am not a lawyer and it is not my intention to become involved in the constitutional aspects of this amendment.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) moved this amendment on behalf of our party because we would like the enforcement of pollution laws in this country to come under the Criminal Code. It seems to me there have been a number of presentations to this government and to the department urging that such a course be followed. I believe the people of Canada should have the democratic right to clean air and clean water, in other words, to a clean environment, and that if necessary-and I believe it is necessary-that this be enforced by an amendment to the bill which would make pollution a criminal offence.
This would not mean that everyone who was involved in polluting would be placed in jail. I think, however, the protection should be there. Guidelines should be laid down and time limits should be set, because in my opinion the pollution of our environment is one of the most serious offences any corporate or individual citizen could possibly perpetrate. I would point out what I think is an excellent comparison in this field. In doing so I must get away from the question of pollution for a moment. Not long ago we passed a law which prohibited a man from driving if he had more than .08 per cent of alcohol in his blood. This law is applicable in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, the Prairies and British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: It has been challenged.


Randolph Harding: Yes, I understand it has been challenged in the courts, but there is no doubt that eventually some amendments will be offered and I believe the law will be enforced from one end of Canada to another. This legislation was passed in order to protect the driving public against drinking drivers. I contend that it is a much greater crime to pollute the environment and to create a hazard to the
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs health of a very wide segment of our society than it is to be a drinking driver who threatens only those who happen to be driving on a narrow stretch of pavement. Both are grave offences, but I contend the damage to the environment is the greater of the two crimes. Therefore, in my opinion there is no reason why this question should not be brought under the criminal law.
I should like to refer to one of the presentations made to the Dominion-Provincial Conference last February. This was a presentation by the province of Alberta. Other provinces have pressed for a similar enactment. They asked this government to make certain that standards are made and maintained throughout the Dominion of Canada. They asked for broad national standards, and that the federal government enforce these standards on a national scale which, of course, would have to be done under the criminal law. The brief states that the question of how the national standards are made mandatory should be the responsibility of the province, but that the working relationship with the province should be similar to that which has long applied under criminal law. The brief states further:
The right to federal enforcement of national minimum standards is essential in the interest of preventing unfair industrial competition between provinces wherein there might be a temptation for a province to compromise on pollution standards. Not only would that approach place responsibility of pollution control directly on the offenders and hold the provinces responsible for primary enforcement, but it will also avoid the establishment of another expensive bureaucracy of the type envisaged under the proposed Canada Water Act.
A number of provinces have pointed this out to the government and the minister. They are worried unless national policies are enforced and set up all across this country. Last December the minister himself was thinking about bringing this legislation under the criminal law. A headline in the Globe and Mail for December, 1969, states, "Greene urges environment of Canada act to combat all pollution on a national scale." This is an excellent headline. If the minister is correctly quoted in the article, I would certainly congratulate him on the speech he made to the law students of Osgoode Hall on that date. He went on to point out as foUows:
The proposed water pollution legislation (Canada Water Act) is a step in the right direction, but it is not the end of the journey. I suggest it should be seriously considered whether the next step should not be an environment of Canada act.

The minister went on to point out that air and soil pollution is also part of the water pollution problem because of the fallout from the air and because of the drainoff from land and soil into the river systems of this nation. There is nothing wrong with that. I believe everyone here realizes this is one aspect of the pollution problem which affects this and every nation of the world. The article then states:
Mr. Greene suggested that polluting the environment be made a criminal offence under a new definition of Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: He went on to say:
I suggest to you that the pollution of our waterways to the detriment of man's health and wellbeing is essentially criminal in nature.
Here we have the minister himself only four months ago telling the students of Osgoode Hall that this should be a criminal offence. We are asking the minister to accept these amendments. We ask him why he does not move on this matter, especially when he told the law students what he thought about pollution problems generally. We are asking him now, in the name of common sense, in the chance that the legislation might be illegal in the way this clause is drafted, to make good his words to the law students when he spoke to them on December 4, 1969. We ask the minister to make this a criminal offence, to bring it under the criminal law of Canada and let the people of Canada know that we are not going to treat pollution with the rubber teeth which are in the act and which have to be changed.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The article goes on to say:
Criminal law, Mr. Greene said, was one of two constitutional pillars upon which the federal government could base anti-pollution legislation.
The other, he said, was the general power granted to the federal government under section 91 of the British North America Act to legislate for peace, order and good government.
I will not spend much1 more time on this clause. Some hon. members have spoken on it and others will speak on it. We are anxious to have the minister tell us why his department is unwilling to take this step and to put real teeth into the act. As I said earlier, the people of Canada are expecting this House really to attack the pollution problems in Canada. We will not do it unless the minister puts teeth in the act. To accept this amendment is one way of doing that, and we urge him to accept it.
May 25. 1970


Mr. Thomas S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we have before us is very simple in its wording. It reads:
No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters.
I think that would make a good text for any sermon. Indeed, it is apparent from the remarks just made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) that in effect the minister himself used that text on an occasion not very long ago. I only wish, as other hon. members have indicated, that the minister were on his feet at this moment urging the House to adopt an act which contained a provision which would in effect clearly make it a criminal offence to engage in the pollution of waters or indeed of other aspects of our environment. In other words, it seems to me that if one regards the general picture of the federal jurisdiction in this area, the short, straightforward amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is in effect the keystone in a coherent effort by the House and by the government to create a pollution-free environment in Canada.
The reference to an environment of Canada act which was quoted by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, indicates just how far short the minister has fallen of the objectives he stated in his speech when bringing forward the bill which is before us. It seems to me that if the government had been willing to start with the simple proposition that is stated in the amendment, and had developed an approach to dealing with the whole question of maintaining a decent environment from this point of view, we might have been building on a solid foundation so far as the development of legislation in this area by the Parliament of Canada is concerned.
Unfortunately, the government has chosen by the introduction of this bill to start building the house in midair with nothing by way of a sure foundation underneath. I for one regret that this has been the course of action they have followed, perhaps all the more so because I came to the conclusion several years ago-I made reference to this in dealing with another amendment-that this was the consensus arrived at regarding the appropriate place at which the federal government should begin.
The essential idea in this amendment is not a new one in this Parliament. Indeed, not in this form but with essentially the same pur-
Water Resources Programs pose a bill was introduced in the House a number of years ago. It had to do primarily with the pollution situation in the North Saskatchewan Kiver. A bill was introduced in the House which provided for a direct amendment to the Criminal Code. It was introduced by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That bill and its successors were discussed, considered and debated in the House on a number of occasions. In saying this I am not suggesting that the be-all and end-all of dealing with pollution in the legislative sense is the exercise of the criminal law and the powers of the federal government that flow from our constitutional jurisdiction in this field. I am suggesting that unless this element is clearly present, the constitutional fabric, apart from anything else, is not very sound or solid.
I had hoped that the first piece of legislation in this area which the government would bring forward would be along the lines that the minister suggested in the speech he made at Osgoode Hall, an environment of Canada act which would have as its keystone our essential jurisdiction in the field of criminal law. Flowing from that I submit we could have much more logically and naturally an expansion of various working arrangements between the government of Canada and the other levels of government across the country. But because we started with something that is in midair, that is constitutionally questionable, already we begin to hear, as other speakers have mentioned, concern, grumbling and complaints from the provincial governments which have been studying this legislation and its consequences once it is enacted by Parliament.
I suggest that while this is not the complete answer to a proper federal approach, the substitution for the existing clause 8 in the bill of the proposal made by the hon. member for Greenwood would go a long way toward rectifying the fumbling and faulty start that has been made by the introduction of the Canada water bill in its present form. In other words, with this idea as the keystone, an environment of Canada act could set out within that framework the kind of quality standards that have been discussed in relation to another amendment, not only in the field of water pollution but in the field of air and soil pollution. With that as a framework, backed by suitable provisions for an expanding research program in order to keep those standards in line with the most advanced knowledge in science and technology, we could have begun
Hay 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs properly to consider the pros and cons of legislation which would provide for joint federal-provincial agreements in the management of the waters of a complete watershed. As it is, Mr. Speaker, we have neither fish nor fowl in this bill. Somebody asks: What about water? I would say it is a much watered-down piece of legislation that will not have very much impact when, and if, it is enacted.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I turn to another aspect of this matter which I think is ancillary to the question involved in the amendment, namely, the exercise of the clear authority in criminal law which, as I understand it from listening to people who are learned in such matters, is clearly within our constitutional jurisdiction. Flowing from that is the question that water management is our clear jurisdiction, under the BNA Act, in connection with fisheries. Mr. Speaker, I think that here is room for some of the regulatory authority that is suggested for clause 8 of the bill as it stands, because no one can quarrel with the fact that because the federal jurisdiction over fisheries is clearly set out in the BNA Act, we in this Parliament have the authority to enact forms of regulation concerned with the maintenance of water quality standards.
In part because of this knowledge, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this amendment should merit the support of the House because on the one hand, while the Fisheries Act does give quite clear jurisdictional authority in the field of water management regulation and control, no one who has studied the various aspects involved in the question of pure water and its uses can deny that fisheries jurisdiction is not complete jurisdiction over water. Indeed, the whole question of provincial jurisdiction over resources in one way or another enters into it, but in combination with that particular authority we have another field of water control. If we exercise the clear federal jurisdiction under the kind of law that is proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood, I think that so far as water purity and its maintenance is concerned we have a pretty fair ability to ensure that water quality standards are maintained in Canada from coast to coast and northward to the Arctic.
I know that the people who considered this bill in detail in committee went into the whole question of the merits and demerits of the charging of effluent discharge fees. Having listened to enough of the discussion
[Mr. Barnett.!
on this point I feel that this is a faulty concept which would be eliminated if this amendment were adopted. I can see that there is room for industrial plants to bear a fair share of the cost of the maintenance of water quality, but it seems to me there are better ways of levying this form of charge or tax than the proposed effluent discharge fee. In this connection I am quite prepared to support the other amendment we are considering, the one moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), because he makes clear that he would eliminate this particular feature from clause 8 of the bill.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should be prepared to accept at face value some of the statements that various ministers have been making in this area. If we could accept at face value-which is pretty difficult at the moment, in view of the minister's position on this bill-the kind of statements he made in his speech to the law students, this would be fine. I hope we can accept at face value the kind of statements that have been made recently, both publicly outside the House and before the Fisheries Committee, by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in which he stated categorically that pollution should stop at the plant fences. If pollution stops at the plant fences, there will not be any place for the levying of effluent discharge fees.
I believe we are on much sounder ground as far as maintenance of water quality is concerned if we accept that point of view and say that water that goes outside an industrial plant should be of such a quality that it will not have a deleterious effect on the waters into which it is being discharged, whether they are inland waters or waters on our sea coasts. For all of these reasons I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood warrants our support. If it fails to be accepted by the House, then so far as I am concerned I would be prepared to support the one moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka as a somewhat less acceptable alternative to the existing provisions of clause 8 of the bill.
I find it very difficult, unless the minister was completely misquoted in the report which was referred to by my colleague from Kootenay West, to understand how he can now sit in this House as a minister sponsoring a bill which has in it a clause like the one he is proposing. I would hope that even now, if not tonight then certainly after some consultation with his colleagues he might be prepared to
May 25, 1970	COMMONS
rise in the House and indicate that the government and its supporters are prepared to accept the amendment proposed by my colleague.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in joining the debate on the amendment to clause 8 I wish to say I am very much surprised that the government is not prepared to accept this amendment, particularly when one reads the press report in today's Globe and Mail, which was referred to a number of times this afternoon, which says that the Ontario government questions whether this clause will have any weight if it is passed in its present form. I was amazed that earlier this afternoon the minister suggested that possibly the Globe and Mail misquoted him when it reported him as saying:
We shall have to maintain some very strong federal inputs in the authorities to assure that standards for comparable bodies of water will be the same in all parts of Canada-
I realize that the amendment we have before us does not deal with standards, but surely if the minister questions the validity of the press report under date of May 25, there exists a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt at this moment-I think I should, and I believe I owe it to hon. members-to warn against repetition. The hon. member is embarking upon a repetition of a suggestion which was made this afternoon. He is going over arguments which were made previously. He is quoting an article which was quoted a number of times. He is referring to an amendment which was debated this afternoon. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that his contribution to the debate at this time should be limited to the particular amendment which is before the House.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, with due deference, if you will give me one moment, I have to set the stage for what I was about to say with regard to clause 8 and the amendment proposed by my colleague. As an analogy I have to refer to a situation which is occuring once again in my constituency, regarding oil refinery spillage and effluent deposit. This oil went under the ice last winter, but when it comes out in the spring the oil companies are absolved of any responsibility. I am sure the amendment that has been introduced, that "No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters," is a clear indication
DEBATES	7313
Water Resources Programs of what has gone on in many areas of Canada today-not yesterday or tomorrow but it is happening today.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I refer to this analogy, Mr. Speaker, because the amendment was accepted by the government that no person, corporation, or you name it, could deposit waste in any waters at any time of the year. I am certain that there is one industry which deliberately uses nature as a cover-up for depositing waste in our waters. If they knew of a law in the statute books of Canada that would make them liable under the Criminal Code, they would not be so likely to use mother nature to cover up their sins at any time of the year. In this particular case, about six miles below Moose Jaw there is an indication of what the oil company in that area did this past winter. You just have to walk through the bushes and weeds and you will find a clear indication that spillage and oil deposits were dumped under the ice during the winter. Of course, when it comes spring this is not supposed to be seen by the authorities.
Even with your reprimand, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we have to look at the situation as it exists all over the nation, and I am sure the situation in my area can be duplicated in areas all across Canada. I believe the amendment introduced by my colleague indicates that if we accept some really stringent measures and bring this matter under the Criminal Code there will not be the abuse and the type of pollution that we have seen in this case and in many others.
We know that any industry damaging our environment and wildlife is just as responsible as the individuals who damage our manmade facilities. As an analogy to this I should like to refer to the incident at Sir George Williams University where people damaged man-made facilities. What is the difference between that and individuals or corporations who deliberately damage our natural resources but who are not brought before the courts of the land as were those involved in the Sir George Williams incident? I see no difference. Why should people doing damage to wildlife and human beings not be considered in the same light and be charged under the Criminal Code?
In the same situation, and again using the analogy of my own area, there are indications that the oil company I am referring to-and this is an estimate I have been given to understand is correct-spent $14 million in
May 25, 1970

Water Resources Programs changing its name within the past two years. Over the last ten years they have spent $2 million on pollution control, and it is suggested that in the next five years they will spend another $3 million on pollution control. Compare the large amount of money that a corporate oil company is willing to spend to change a name on a sign, with the small amount of money it is willing to spend on pollution control. I am sure all of us in this House feel that if they knew that pollution control meant more than just changing the name on the sign or more than just paying a fee to pollute, they would be more likely to spend that money on pollution control instead.
I would also refer to the situation wherein we use pesticides, herbicides and chemicals of all types that are known pollutants. We have the situation where in this House this afternoon questions were asked about 2-4-5T and 2-4D inquiring whether they were dangerous to human and animal life. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the law as we refer to it here, that "No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste in any waters," were adhered to and recognized, those ministers who allow that type of chemical to be used in this country would be subject to prosecution the same as any individual or corporation.


An hon. Member:: You mean, arrest them?


John Leroy Skoberg: I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will be held suspect if these chemicals contribute to the death or injury of humans or wildlife. If our federal people deliberately allow this type of chemical to be used, they cannot say they were experimenting to find out. Why did they not take it off the market, Mr. Speaker? But if they knew they were liable to prosecution, possibly they would take it off the market. In all sincerity I say that a government minister should be charged if he knows that this type of chemical is liable to cause damage to human and animal life. I say, drunk driving is an offence so why isn't pollution an offence? I am sure the amendment introduced by my colleague would make it an offence under the Criminal Code, and as such those responsible would be duly charged.
I suggest that this amendment will eliminate effluent and outlaw the deposit of any waste, as defined in this act, in any waters. Surely the people of this nation would not disagree with this. Without this amendment,

Mr. Speaker, the act is completely useless and I am sure the minister is well aware of that. If there are no teeth in the act, what is its purpose?
We talk about each water quality management area setting up its own fees. I know areas in Canada that would love to set the fees, making them so low and the quality of the regulations so low-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 16, I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) which is recorded at page 5933 of Hansard in these words:
In view of the fact that action in so many fields, including old age pensions and veterans' pensions and allowances, depends upon the appearance of the government's white paper on social security, can the minister say whether the writing of this paper has yet been completed?
The answer of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was "No, Mr. Speaker." I tried a supplementary in these words:
Will the minister use his good offices to expedite this work so that we can soon have this paper, which was promised last October in the Throne Speech?
The reply of the minister was as follows:
I can only advise the hon. member that the government's position has not changed. As formerly stated, we expect to have the white paper before Parliament prior to the end of this session.
Up to that time, Mr. Speaker, most of us thought that the promise to have the white paper in our hands before the end of this session meant before we rose for the summer recess. A few days ago, however, it was made clear that this is not now the situation. All we now have is the promise that it will be tabled before the session legally ends, which may be some time in September or October. This is a far cry from the promise of a year ago that we might see the Willard Report, and if not we would see a white paper fairly soon.
May 25, 1970

I may remind the House also that in the Speech from the Throne last October this was one of the highlights, the tabling of a white paper on social security. But, Mr. Speaker, it gets put off and off and off and it has been made very clear that nothing will be done for *our old age pensioners until we have this white paper. It has also been made clear that nothing will be done about the rate of pensions for veterans under the Pensions Act or the rate of war veterans allowances until after we have had this white paper. Therefore the tabling of this white paper becomes extremely important, and I regard it as most unfair to the pensioners of this country and to our veterans that the publishing of this white paper has been delayed, delayed and delayed.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Haidasz) knows my style in these "late shows". I return the compliment; I know his. He will stand up and tell us about all the things which have been done in the pension field by this government. He will tell us of the close and intensive study going on, of the great concern and of the bleeding hearts there are on the other side, but that our old age pensioners will have to wait. This comes very strangely from a government that, when it went to the country in 1968, promised action. We had to speed things up, to streamline the procedures of Parliament. But for something important like pension increases, we must wait.
On Wednesday, May 6, 1970, a newspaper published in the city of my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, carried an editorial on what this government is doing about pensioners. The paper is strongly Liberal; certainly, at election time it always supports the Liberal cause. I want to read two or three quotations from the editorial. It begins by saying:
In some primitive societies it was the custom during times of famine to throttle babies and set the old out to die, the idea being that the weak must be sacrificed to ensure the survival of the many. It was a cruel and ugly practice, but it had one thing on its side. It was biologically sound.
It's not so easy to excuse the old custom when it re-emerges, only slightly modified, during times of economic difficulty in a rich modern society such as ours. Pushing the weak aside in favor of the strong has lost its biological justification. It is cruel and ugly and nothing else.
After making the assertion that we no longer throttle babies, except that in some
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion districts of Toronto they die off much faster than in other districts, and after saying that instead of setting the old out to die we set them out to languish with pensions that grow more inadequate with each passing day, the editorial concludes with its final paragraph. I emphasize that these are not my words; this is not my impatience, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) described it the other day: these are the words of the Toronto Daily Star:
It's not much of an Improvement over the primitive custom when you come right down to it. And it's a crying shame. Someone should kick that government of ours in the pants over its indifference to the victims of inflation and keep on kicking until it promises to help them.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the least this government can do is bring down the white paper on social security and get moving. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not give us another of his implausible excuses tonight.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I should like to assure the House that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is most concerned about the needy people in our country. He has already devoted considerable time and effort to the study of this problem. The preparation of any thorough review of social security involves a great deal of research, comparison and evaluation of existing programs in Canada and elsewhere. Such a study also involves the investigation of regional disparities and the economy as a whole.
We know the urgency of the problem, the inadequacies of some programs, and that there is personal distress. However, compassion and sympathy will not solve the difficulties unless supported by a good and workable program of social security. When social legislation is enacted, it must be the best we can possibly devise. I can assure the hon. member that this matter is receiving the greatest attention and the highest priority and that the white paper on social security will be tabled with all the speed compatible with a good, useful and workable program. I reiterate the minister's statement. It is the government's intention to table in this House a white paper on social security prior to the end of the present session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
not in time for action during this session.
May 25, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion EDUCATION-FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR FRONTIER COLLEGE


David Orlikow: 
Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), I wish to say I agree with the hon. member as to the value of the work done. Frontier College does excellent work in educating people in outlying areas. For this reason the Department of Manpower and Immigration will make a grant of $5,000 available to the college for the fiscal year 1970-71. This matches a grant of $5,000 by the federal Department of Labour and brings the total federal grants to $10,000. Beginning in 1971-72 Manpower and Immigration will assume sole responsibility for the grant to Frontier College.
Unfortunately, the government could not meet the request by Frontier College for a grant of $50,000 in 1970-71. However, Manpower officials are exploring with provincial and territorial authorities the possibility of purchasing training services from Frontier College in outlying areas. As hon. members may know, the enabling legislation for the Canada manpower training scheme requires
May 25, 1970

that the department buy its manpower training scheme either from the provinces or, with provincial approval, from private institutions like Frontier College. It is hoped that this approach will enable the department to utilize the services of Frontier College and to pay for them.
I am advised by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that he is examining at the moment any additional actions his department could take to be of assistance to Frontier College.



POST OFFICE-WHITE PAPER ON CROWN CORPORATIONS

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, like the first participant in these adjournment proceedings I wish to inquire about a white paper. This time it is in reference to the desire-the intention, apparently-of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) to have the Post Office Department transformed into a Crown corporation. This, of late, has become a new diversion for the minister, a diversion by means of which we would all be led to forget the current fiascos and the debacles of the last 23 months. He views the glories of a Crown corporation and looks upon such a corporation as an immediate and irrefutable answer to a multitude of problems.
I was interested in the procedures vis-a-vis the minister's cabinet colleagues-interested because we have heard reports of rifts and inquiries about who was speaking to whom within the sacred precincts of the Privy Council. This became a particularly acute question among the pundits after the snafu regarding the Lapalme contract, the aftermath of its termination and the fluid and costly phase which followed.
Today an answer to a written question made known some interesting facts about the cost of the Lapalme situation, including the cost which has already been chalked up to the people of Canada. In connection with this particular feature of the hon. gentleman's administration a bill of well over a million dollars was incurred with regard to extra trucks and security guards, and there is a reference to the purchase of 439 trucks by a minister who had set out to slim down the cost of this particular operation, a minister who talks about economy mindedness. Yesterday, on the "Encounter" program the minis-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ter, when questioned about this white paper said:
If you take the white paper now, the unions know far more about the white paper. They have been consulted; they had their input into it; I've discussed it with them. They know far more about it than any member of the cabinet.
These are references not to peripheral studies but to the white paper. The minister was then asked whether he had the possibility of a Crown corporation in mind and he replied:
Yes. The cabinet doesn't even know about it yet.
They know that I'm working on it. They know I'm favourable to it, but they haven't seen it.
They should have read the Globe and Mail of Tuesday wherein the hon. gentleman expatiated a good deal and inferred that in a couple of weeks' time he will be letting his cabinet colleagues know something about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
will probably send it by mail.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If he sends it by mail it will not be ready in two weeks. This is the currently favoured brainchild, the interesting feature of this new era to which the minister points as he sinks deeper and deeper into the bog of his own administrative incompetence. While it may be a way out for a minister who cannot make a go of his own department, despite his modest suggestion over the weekend that this nation has been waiting, lo, 100 years for his arrival in this portfolio, it may not be so joyous a solution for the Canadian public. I should like to quote from two documents. One is the famous document "A Blueprint for Change". It has one or two most interesting and challenging changes. The price of a stamp is to go up to 26 cents for first-class mail. This is a costly innovation if ever there was one. If that were not enough to frighten the unsuspecting public, I shall read what the Toronto Star of May 23 had to say:
And, with Kierans, the young executives are actively attempting to persuade the government to make the post office a Crown corporation, something like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, removed from the political arena and influence, but answerable to Parliament through a Minister of Communications.
What an example when one wants to talk about efficiency, administrative competence and having one's way and keeping always in the black and never in the red-the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation! What has puzzled me these last few months is that the incredible utterances of the minister from time to
May 25, 1970
7318	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion time are matched only by the occasional gullibility of some members of the press who actually take as serious input that which I am sure he himself puts forward as a joke. Perhaps it is not surprising that there are some strange paths being taken in communicating his favourite ideas to the public and perhaps to his colleagues.
While the minister might draw comfort from the solace and relief which a Crown corporation might provide him in his troubled cabinet career, and while he may strut gloriously as an advocate of change, any change, neither the minister nor the unfortunate victims of his maladroit administration will really benefit until the one great and essential change is accomplished, namely, a change in the Postmaster Generalship of this country.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, this has become almost a weekly event in which I stand sprinkled with the, I suppose, sweet ambrosia of the irony and satire of the man least likely to be the next Postmaster General of Canada.
A Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker, has at his disposal human, physical and financial resources which daily are being used up in the service of the people of Canada. It is his responsibility to ensure that the most effective use is made of these resources. First, in

respect of financial, that they are spent wisely; second, in respect of physical, that the facilities are constantly modernized; and third, in respect of human, that the working conditions improve and that exciting opportunities for advancement and personal development multiply.
Accordingly we have been examining the concept of a Crown corporation-this is not new-for 18 months to determine if it would provide a better method of organizing our resources, human, physical and financial, so that the employees in the Post Office would be better off and that the people of Canada would enjoy finer postal services. So before presenting this proposal to the government and to this House we are studying all aspects of the Crown corporation with the departments and agencies which presently work with us, and with the unions that represent our employees.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Mr. Martin, or any future adjudicator, will not be able to criticize us for Victorian attitudes this time. Perhaps that is what really bothers the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who can be repetitious but never constructive.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, May 26, 1970