1970-06-09

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise on a question of privilege. It concerns the improper and incorrect remarks made by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), the President of the Privy Council, concerning myself as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the members of that committee. These remarks were made in my absence and I therefore raise the matter at the earliest opportunity available to me. I might say, Your Honour, that I was attending to a very pleasant duty, that of our son's graduation.
The question is whether these remarks constitute a breach of privilege and contempt of the House by the hon. member for Rosedale. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to be Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the third report of that committee is presently on the order paper awaiting concurrence. The House may either concur in the report or reject it.
The hon. member for Rosedale spoke of that report during the debate on the opposition motion yesterday and of myself as chairman of that committee. In part he said, as recorded on page 7864 of Hansard for June 8, 1970:
The chairman of that committee is a member of the opposition. If the member for Dartmouth-Hali-fax East is going to censure someone in this regard, he should censure the presiding officer of that committee. I do not intend to do so.
If the minister had stopped there and had said no more I would not have risen on a question of privilege. But he went on to say, and this is what gives rise to the question of privilege:
I hope other committees of the House will not indulge in the same practice which was condoned by the hon. member for Wellington in allowing an attack on individual public servants.
Your Honour, I did not condone that any more than any other member of that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: It was a unanimous report presented to the House, and the minister has no right to point his finger at me and say that I condoned that practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: I believe this is a reflection on the committee and on myself as chairman of that committee. As such it is a breach of the privileges of the House and, specifically, a breach of Standing Order 35.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The precedents are clear and therefore I do not propose to do more than refer Your Honour to pages 123, 124 and 125 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition. Among the precedents found to constitute contempt and breaches of privilege are reflections on the character of the Speaker and accusations of partiality in the discharge of his duty, reflections upon the conduct of the chairman of committees, reflections upon the impartiality of the chairman of ways and means, reflection upon the conduct of the chairman of a standing committee. I do not propose to take the time to read all of Standing Order 35 but simply to quote this very important part:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of...nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
The hon. member for Rosedale, by his words reflected upon the vote of every member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Upon Your Honour ruling that there is a prima facie breach of privilege I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid):
That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Wellington for having given me

June 9, 1970
Post Office Service
notice of his intention to raise this question of privilege. As I pointed out to him, I said quite specifically, last night that I did not intend to reflect upon him in his capacity as chairman of the committee. I am pleased to repeat that in the House. I regret if this matter has caused him any embarrassment. Therefore I make it quite clear that I agree that one should not comment on the conduct of the chairman of a committee. I hope the House will remember that for future circumstances.
I might say, however, that it is entirely within the right of the House and any member of the House to criticize the collective decision of the committee and, whatever the hon. member may say about the decision of the committee generally, I do not think that is a question of privilege. I certainly apologize to him for any reflection upon him personally.


Mr. Baldwin:: We will make something of you yet, Don.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the hon.
member for Wellington who raised the matter as a question of privilege and the comments made by the President of the Privy Council, I would think that there might not be too much purpose served by sending this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The hon. member has raised a very good point and the references he has made are quite in order. As the President of the Privy Council has himself pointed out, it is not competent on a member to cast reflections upon the chairman of a standing committee of the House in the performance of his duties. The minister has indicated that that was not his intention, and by his words I think he has satisfied the hon. member for Wellington. I do think that in the circumstances we would not be assisting the House very much in the pursuit of its work if we referred this matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Sir, I accept the apology of the President of the Privy Council.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE CONTINUING DISRUPTION OF SERVICE

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 26 I ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose 
of discussing a specific and important matter involving the administrative responsibility of the government and one which requires urgent consideration. The matter is the continuing disruption of the postal service, a situation which is seriously affecting the national economy and the Canadian people.


Mr. MacEwan:: And admitted by the Postmaster General.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough has filed with the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. The subject proposed for discussion by the hon. member is "the continuing disruption of the postal service". Obviously, in the hon. member's own words the problem posed by him for an emergency debate has been in existence for some time and is a continuing one.
It is hardly necessary to remind hon. members that the postal situation has been the subject of interventions in the House over a prolonged period of time. On February 18 last a motion in the name of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie was allowed for the purpose of discussing the postal dispute in Montreal. This debate ranged far and wide and provided an opportunity for the discussion of difficulties in postal services quite beyond the limits of the dispute in Montreal. Since then the hon. member for Hillsborough has initiated a number of adjournment debates on the subject of the postal services. In that sense it would be hard to rule that we have before us a problem that is of the nature of a new and sudden emergency.
Hon. members will realize that this kind of decision is somewhat difficult to make. We have here a situation which has been continuing for a time. I think I must bring to the attention of hon. members that under the provisions of Standing Order 26 there can be only one debate on the subject. I am not, of course, suggesting that the debate we had in February was on this subject. I agree that it was not. But we must take into account the circumstances as they exist today when the motion is proposed.
My understanding of the situation is that there is to be a resumption of negotiations, and it seems to me that this might not be the ideal day to have the debate which perhaps we will have some day on this difficulty if it continues. As I say, there can be only one debate under Standing Order 26 and if we have one today, as hon. members realize, it would be the last one that we would have on this subject. It is incumbent on the Chair to
June 9, 1970

choose the most appropriate day for such a debate. The time and day on which we have such a debate must be the most conducive to the submission of constructive suggestions on the part of hon. members in respect of the matter on which the debate would be held.
In the circumstances as they exist today, taking into account all the conditions and taking into account the requirements of the Standing Order and precedents, I would not think that this would be the ideal time to put to the House the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
INFLATION-IMPOSITION OF WAGE AND/OR

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is actively considering the imposition of wage and/or price controls at the present time? I direct this question to the Prime Minister because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is reported to have said in Montreal yesterday that this matter is actually being studied and that an announcement is to be expected within a few days.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my office has been in communication with the minister, who I see is in the House now, but this is not government policy, nor did the minister announce it in the terms which are quoted by the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Minister of Finance, who I suppose is the expert on the existing guideline policy of the government, whether the guideline policy of the federal government limiting wage increases to 6 per cent applies to the wages and salaries of the Post Office employees which are now under negotiation?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government, having accepted these guidelines, will have to take cognizance of them in its settlements with its own employees.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that there is no guideline policy in
effect?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the opposite of what I said. I said that the government, having accepted these guidelines, will have to take cognizance of them in dealing with its own employees.


An hon. Member:: And what does that mean?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether this does not mean that in fact there is no collective bargaining, nor room for collective bargaining? Also, does the government intend to proceed directly and impose a limit, in accordance with these guidelines, upon the Post Office employees who are negotiating? In other words, does the government intend to end the pretence that there is actually collective bargaining going on?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a pretence that there is collective bargaining. There is bargaining going on at this very moment, or there will be very shortly, in respect of a number of issues as well as the one of the so-called pay package. I think the government recognizes and I am sure the Council of Postal Unions will recognize that there is greater freedom to bargain in certain areas than in others. In the matter of the pay package there is very little freedom.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to clarify the statement he made a moment ago in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, according to this morning's Montreal Gazette, made two statements. First, he said that an announcement will be forthcoming in a few days. Second, when asked whether the government was preparing price and wage controls the minister said:
I believe this is what they are working on in Ottawa at the moment.
The Prime Minister said that the minister was not correctly quoted. Are both statements incorrect? I ask the Prime Minister specifically whether the government is working on mandatory wage and price controls, and will an announcement be made in the course of a few days, as suggested by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that it was not government policy and that we were not working on mandatory wage and price controls. I indicated that communications which my office had with the minister disclosed that he

June 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry was not properly quoted in the context of what he said. The minister may want to explain to the House that he did not say it in those terms.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to allow the minister to accept the invitation of the Prime Minister. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell the House what he did say? In view of the confusing statements made by ministers in recent days, could we have this statement clarified?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to allow the minister to make a statement on a statement that was made outside the House, except on a point of order or alleged question of privilege. It has been a long-standing practice in the House that questions can only be directed to the Prime Minister on whether a statement made outside the House represents government policy. I suggest this rule should be enforced even today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister tell the House whether the government is making a study of mandatory price and wage controls, and does he expect an announcement to be made in the course of the next few days?


Mr. Speaker:: The question can be asked of the minister only to the extent that it is within his own administrative responsibility. I agree this can be embarrassing, but I do not think the question can be asked in those terms.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The confusion is only normal. Now that the President of the Treasury Board has indicated that the guideline on the postal negotiations in terms of salaries is 6 per cent, is this guideline also going to be applied to other collective bargaining negotiations in which the government of Canada may be involved in the course of the next few months?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the President of the Treasury Board is supplementary to an earlier question. In view of the urgent public appeal made by the Postmaster General for an early settlement of the postal dispute, will the government make a reasonable offer to the postal employees, one that might be counted on to bring about an early settlement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We shall be reiterating what I think is a very reasonable offer again this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister make not just the same old offer but a reasonable one?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Now that the government has established wage guidelines applicable to the postal employees, does the President of the Treasury Board, in the hope that a settlement of the postal dispute will be reached, intend to impose any communications guidelines on the Minister of Communications, or will that minister continue to make spontaneous speeches and discourses on the negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INFLATION-SIX PER CENT WAGE INCREASE GUIDELINE-INCREASE IN DIVIDEND PAYMENTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Edgar John Benson: The figures published recently also show that profits were down by 3.8 per cent in the first quarter. With regard to the figures of banks and other commercial institutions which have made an agreement with respect to guidelines, I would expect that Dr. Young would see that they are living up to their undertakings in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In light of the statement the minister made yesterday, as reported at page 7839, to the effect that the banks have made an agreement with respect to restricting their

June 9, 1970

profits, may I ask the minister it it is not correct that the only restriction is that they should keep the spread between deposit interest rates and lending interest rates at a constant ratio, and that there is no restriction in the agreement with respect to bank profits?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.



INFLATION-IMPOSITION OF MANDATORY PRICE CONTROLS ON INDUSTRIES

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Axe the officials of his department working on plans for the imposition of mandatory price controls on the industries of this country?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The answer given by the Prime Minister applied to the whole government. With reference to what I said in Montreal, this is a clear case of amplification without justification.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was referring to the discussion which had gone on in Winnipeg. It may be that by a slip of the tongue I said "Ottawa" instead of Winnipeg, but it is amazing that this was the only reporter who placed that interpretation on what I said.



FINANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Have the banks brought pressure to bear on the government for Canada's return to a fixed exchange rate as soon as possible?


Edgar John Benson: There was a question raised yesterday as to whether the Bank for International Settlements had brought pressure to bear on Canada with regard to a fixed exchange rate. I was in contact with the governor of the Bank of Canada whose representative was at those meetings, and such is not the case.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Since the government professes to believe that the
Inquiries of the Ministry action it has taken will curtail inflation, what steps is the government taking to eliminate at least that portion of increased interest rates which is caused by anticipated inflationary pressure generally?


Edgar John Benson: believe interest rates have gone down. As a matter of fact, one of the chartered banks announced a reduction in its prime rate yesterday. There are also indications that our anti-inflation policy is having some effect. Figures published as of now will show a decline in the cost of living in the last month.



INFLATION-INDEPENDENCE OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ROLL BACK PRICES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. It refers to the minister's statement yesterday that the Prices and Incomes Commission is independent of the government. Can the minister reconcile that statement with the claims of his colleague that action by the government has resulted in the Prices and Incomes Commission effecting some price rollbacks in certain products and services?


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot accept the question because it is asked in the form of an argument and I do not believe it is acceptable from the standpoint of procedure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I put
it this way, then? Is it possible to ask the minister to reconcile a position he took with another fact?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that when a minister is asked to reconcile one statement with another it becomes a debate or an argument.



HOUSING


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising from a question I asked in the House on May 27 which was responded to at the time by the Parliamentary Secretary in the absence of the minister. On that occasion I asked whether the minister would investigate what appeared to be a scandalous situation at Hay River in the Northwest Territories resulting from an increase in rent charged old aged pensioners in public housing
7888	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry projects from $69 to $109 a month. Could the minister indicate to the House whether an investigation of this matter has been made, and can he announce the results to the House?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the problem does not come directly under my jurisdiction, but rather under that of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I passed the hon. member's question on to him, and he indicated that he would reply personally in the House. I believe he is not in Ottawa today.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Now that the western supporters of the government have decided to support the proposals of this party for greater freedom of action and participation in voting in the House and less of the mailed first treatment, would the Government House Leader not support the terms of reference to the Committee on Procedure and Organization that we suggested, and bring them forward so that they will be in effect by next session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the principles of his party to which the hon. member refers relate to the question of whether the hon. member for Halifax or the right hon. member for Prince Albert is leader of that party, and I think that is a question they should solve themselves.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question that I will address to the Prime Minister since the contrite mood of the President of the Privy Council has not carried forward to the question period. Would the Prime Minister make a statement in connection with the alleged resignation of seven ministerial assistants because of the autocratic rule of the Prime Minister? If that is not correct, would the Prime Minister deny the first part of the question? The second part, of course, is undeniable.

DEBATES	June 9, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly look into the matter. Could I have the reference that the hon. member was reading from?


Gerald William Baldwin: I wrote it myself.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thought it was a product of your research staff.



POLLUTION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to pollution in the north. Would the minister investigate the destruction caused in the area of Fort McMurray by an oil pipeline burst spilling a large quantity of oil into the Athabasca River, which leads to Lake Athabasca and hence into the Mackenzie delta?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are investigating this matter and I will be glad to report to the hon. member as soon as I have a report from my department and the National Energy Board.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the minister is
having this situation investigated, would he be prepared to send government experts into the area to examine this problem with the idea of using the experience that may result from this destructive leakage in the pipeline and its effect on the ecology in the north?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider that suggestion.



TAXATION


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister still hold to the timetable that the implementation of the tax changes proposed in the white paper must be completed by January 1, 1971?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have said from the beginning that although that was the target date we were completely flexible about it. We wanted everybody to have the opportunity of being heard and to have ample time to draw good legislation when people have been heard.
June 9, 1970



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. In view of the minister's expressed interest in the development of a Canadian controlled computer and communications industry, would the minister inform the House whether he was consulted by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion prior to his announcement of a $6 million grant to International Business Machines Corporation to build an electronic component manufacturing plant in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is not in order. It might be in order for the Order Paper; perhaps the hon. member would consider putting the question in writing on the Order Paper.



POLLUTION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Nov/ that Parliament has passed the Canada Water Act, which gives the government all the power it needs to deal with pollution, would the minister take the next opportunity on motions to outline what steps he and his department plan to take to clear up the massive pollution that one can see simply by looking at the Ottawa River from the back of the Parliament Buildings, pollution that is caused by industry dumping pollutants into that once clear body of water?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider that suggestion, but for the hon. member's information there is another part to Parliament, the Senate, which has not yet passed the bill.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have I the assurance of the minister that as soon as that august body passes the bill his department will get on with the job?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is
hypothetical.
Inquiries of the Ministry MIRAMICHI RIVER-PRESENCE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES-PAYMENT FOR DAMAGE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry on June 4 in the House that the department has already spent $500,000 to control toxicity from plant waste of Heath Steel Mines spilled into the Miramichi River, would the minister give the most recent figures on the amounts spent by the government in this area and inform the House whether the efforts of his department to clean up this pollution are having any effect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since the first question seeks detailed information I think it is the kind of question that should normally be placed on the Order Paper; I think the hon. member will agree with that.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I might put as my first question. Since the spillage of acids into the Miramichi was due to a construction fault in the piping of a private firm, is this firm going to pay for all the damage caused to the ecology and fisheries resources as well as for cleaning up the area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the large-scale protestations from the local residents concerned in regard to the hearings on June 24 with reference to the future development of Cape Breton Highlands National Park, would the minister give consideration not only to holding hearings at Sydney but also at Ingo-nish in Victoria county, where the local residents would be most affected by any proposed changes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will see if it is possible. It has been decided that the hearings would be held in Sydney, and I think it is easy enough for people to get to that city. However, if it is

June 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry absolutely impossible for them to do so, perhaps we can arrange for a hearing on the site. Nevertheless, I would prefer the hearings to be held on neutral grounds such as the city of Sydney.



SHIPPING


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Since there has apparently been agreement between the parties involved regarding new proposals for manning and safety in the British Columbia towboat industry, is the minister planning to make these proposals public, as he indicated earlier?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I expect to do that tomorrow.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Having stated yesterday that the government supported the move of the Prices and Incomes Commission to set a limit of 6 per cent per year on wage increases and that the provinces have recognized the merits of that principle, can the minister tell us how the federal government intends to enforce that wage freeze if the provincial governments refuse to deal severely with those who will grant higher wage increases, as the Ontario government is doing at the present time?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any of the provincial governments have refused to cooperate with the wage guidelines policy put forward by Dr. Young.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister

of Agriculture. Would he make a statement on motions some time before the House recesses on June 26 indicating what progress the government has made with respect to the implementation of the various recommendations of the Barber Commission report in connection with high farm machinery costs and the escalating prices of farm machinery repairs?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the final report of the Barber Commission has not yet been submitted, and part of it will include an inquiry into the costs of both repair parts and services. Inasmuch as we have not received it yet-and I am not sure we will receive it by the end of this session-it would be difficult for me to give an undertaking that I would make a statement on the matter.



FINANCE


Mr. Robert  Mc@: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the 40 per cent decline in the construction industry this year, an industry which could provide many jobs, is the government considering the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Mr. Speaker:: This question was asked yesterday. Unless there is a change since yesterday, I would not think the question would be in order today.


Mr. Robert  Mc@: Perhaps I could phrase my question in this way: has the Minister of Finance carried out any studies weighing the benefits of having people earning salaries subject to income tax against the disadvantages of having an industry in a slump and not able to pay the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question in its new form seems to be rather argumentative, but the minister might be allowed to reply.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we continuously look at what is happening in the economy. I should like to indicate, as I did yesterday, that if the government makes a change in its fiscal policy with respect to tax rates this would be announced in the House.
June 9, 1970	COMMONS



AIRPORTS


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister indicate, in light of his announcement of greatly reduced technical stopover charges on flights in and out of Goose Bay, Gander and Ottawa, whether or not similar surveys are being conducted at the Edmonton and Halifax international airports?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the study is comprehensive in its nature. These were the ones in which the airlines indicated they had their greatest interest. But I may also inform the hon. member that arrangements were completed today to spend about $1 million on the Halifax airport for additional baggage checking facilities and for paving the second runway so it will be ready for this kind of thing if it comes.


Mr. Sleven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is being very eloquent with regard to what he is doing in Halifax, would he also see to it that Air Canada comes up with a few extra flights for Edmonton?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one each for myself and the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTENSION OF GANDER RUNWAYS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingafe):: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether there are any immediate plans to extend the runways at Gander beyond the present 8,900 feet which does not permit the handling of large international traffic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this is a question which would normally appear on the Order Paper.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that St. Scholastique and Toronto are perhaps of greater importance in the international sphere, but certainly this question deserves an answer. It is an urgent matter for the east coast of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no doubt that it is urgent and in view of the hon. member's 22478-91
DEBATES	7391
Inquiries of the Ministry comments it could be considered at the time of adjournment. That is the purpose of the Standing Order.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: In view of the anticipated 25 per cent increase in property taxes in the Municipality of Gloucester, I wonder whether the minister along with Dr. Young will attend the meeting there tonight to explain to those people the 6 per cent guideline for restraint?


Edgar John Benson: There is nothing I would rather do than be there but it is physically impossible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
We have heard that 2,700 Canadair workers in Montreal will soon be laid off. If the minister is aware of this situation, could he tell us if he has taken the necessary measures to provide jobs for these 2,700 people, or if he and his colleagues will make representations to foreign countries in order to negotiate aircraft construction contracts so as to neutralize the effects of this massive lay off?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question was asked a few days ago, roughly in the same terms.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister say if he answered the question that was asked a few days ago?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe an answer was given. Of course, I am not sure whether, in his mind, the hon. member was satisfied with the answer, but indeed the question has been asked.



HARBOURS


Mr. Waller C. Carter (Si. John's West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Trans-
78S2

June 9. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry port. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a recent statement by an official of his department to the effect that the federal government agreement to build a $16 million wharf to serve the planned refinery at Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland, is contingent on certain additional benefits guaranteeing more revenue for the province of Newfoundland and, if so, what are the additional benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that this question could be placed on the Order Paper. Again, if there is urgency I will not fail to ensure that it receives priority if the hon. member wants to have it considered at the time of adjournment.


Walter C. Carter: The question is of very great importance to the province of Newfoundland because this refinery plays a very great part in the future economic prospects of that province and the future sources of employment. I think the minister was prepared to answer the question with your permission, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to withdraw from the position I adopted a moment ago, but perhaps with agreement the minister might be allowed to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would call the hon. member's attention to your own ruling that a minister can only answer within the competence of his own department. I suggest that the question be directed to the Minister of Public Works when he is next in the House.



POST OFFICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of a report that has been made public, since we were asking questions about the postal situation 10 or 15 minutes ago, to the effect that the negotiating team for the postal workers intends to stay in the bargaining room until a settlement is reached, will the government reconsider its position and make the kind of offer that might get this matter settled?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government side is also prepared to stay.



FINANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question relating to the increase in equalization payments to the provinces of approximately $50 million during the current year which he announced over the weekend and to which he referred in the House yesterday. Does that include equalization payments to the province of Quebec?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it covers all provinces receiving equalization payments. I do not have the breakdown in front of me. I believe my officials are in touch with the various provinces to indicate their calculations at present, and it is hoped that a final figure will be worked out very soon. As my hon. friend knows, statistics are continuously coming in with respect to equalization.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance seems to have this matter somewhat on his conscience. Would he make available to us the statistical calculations upon which his figure is based?


Edgar John Benson: I will take this up with officials in my department. As my hon. friend knows, having formerly been a premier, it is a very complicated calculation but I will provide him with information as soon as the final figures are calculated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister not agree that when he gives a figure to the House it should be one that he is able to support with existing statistical information?


Edgar John Benson: Based on our present estimates the figure is correct and we think it will be in the area I indicated to the provinces. The additional money that is going to the provinces is not on my conscience. I think they really need it.



TAXATION


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance to the one asked earlier by the member for Dauphin about the timetable for implementation of the white paper on tax reform. Regardless of any basic objections to
June 9, 1970



the white paper that come from this side of the House or from other Canadians, is it not a fact that the unpegging of the dollar, the shaky stock market and provincial objections are going to be used as reasons for the federal government to withdraw in total or revise in part the proposals in the white paper before the committee reports?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, since the white paper was issued I have continuously said that we want submissions from all interested parties. Submissions are coming in, and of course they will receive consideration.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That really was not my question. You have got all the submissions you can handle, in fact more than the committee can handle because it has imposed a time limit. My question was, are the factors of the unpegging of the dollar, the shaky stock market, and the recent provincial objections on top of all the other objections going to be used by the government as reasons to withdraw in toto or revise in part the proposals before the committee reports?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the proposals are before the committee. I have said that there will be revisions. I will be appearing before the committee before it finishes its work, and I will be indicating our feelings with respect to various matters to the committee, to aid its members in coming to a conclusion. I do not think any of the factors the hon. member mentioned should argue against developing a tax system which is fair and equitable in Canada.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since a number of members of the Quebec Assembly have hesitated a long time to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen and since the premier of Quebec has stated that the matter of changing this tradition would be discussed during this session, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has discussed this matter with the premier of Quebec or if the federal government has any objections to changing this tradition?


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see in what way this question comes under the administrative jurisdiction of this government or even that
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Prime Minister, but he may wish to answer the hon. member's question.



ELECTIONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. Are steps being taken to constitute the special committee to study reform of the election expenses system as recommended by the Barbeau committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had put forward for comment and suggestion a draft order of reference to be made by the House, and I must confess I have not had an opportunity to consult back on it. I understand there were some objections to it, but I hope to consult within the next day or two so that notice can be given of it and it can be placed on the Order Paper.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could he indicate what progress is being made and when he expects an agreement to be signed between the province of Newfoundland and his department with the regard to the estabalish-ment of the Bonne Bay park in western Newfoundland?
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's position is still the same, and we are prepared to sign an agreement with the government of Newfoundland for the development of a second national park. On the other hand, we must wait until that province has set the boundaries of the land to be used for that purpose before we may enter into the agreement.
We hope that the agreement will be finalized within a few months.
June 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question was to have been directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but since he is not in the House may I direct this timely question to the Prime Minister. Would he please state to the House whether his government plans to reinstate the sugar rebate to the Caribbean?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To reinstate what?


Steve Eugene Paproski: To reinstate the rebate on sugar to the Caribbean.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the Prime Minister please see if he can sweeten up the pot a little?



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldi-mand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has his department received representations regarding the allocation and policing of shortwave radio bands used for intercommunication by police, industry and Great Lakes ships?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will have to make some inquiries, Mr. Speaker. I do not know of my own personal knowledge.


William David Knowles: While the minister is looking into this, would he also ascertain what steps are being taken to rectify the considerable problem of interference and overlapping on these radio bands?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether or not the 6 per cent guideline as imposed or as applied in connection with negotiations in

the Post Office includes a calculation of what are normally considered to be fringe benefits? In other words, does the 6 per cent increase include a calculation of the monetary value of fringe benefits in addition to any wage increase, or is it simply the wage or salary increase?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion mady by Dr. Young was that the 6 per cent figure should include all wage and monetary fringe benefits.



AIR TRANSPORT


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On April 14 he indicated he had received three appeals concerning the granting of a franchise to Transair for routes from Toronto to Winnipeg via Sault Ste. Marie. What action has he taken with regard to these appeals, has he reached any decision, and if there are documents available would he be prepared to table them?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a judgment was issued last week in the normal course. I understand it is not normal to table such documents in the House although I would he glad to do that. The gist of them was an instruction to the CTC to review the matter and hold public hearings by September or certainly prior to the start of the fall schedule of the airlines concerned.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and is a follow-up to a question asked him on May 22 with reference to the publication of the first report of the federal-provincial committee on transportation in the Maritimes. Has the minister had a chance to consult his provincial counterparts? If so, has he had their clearance and when may we expect publication of this report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries of the provinces. I am not sure whether all of
June 9, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	7895
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
the answers are back, but I think the gist of the report has already been made public. I held meetings with the trucking association in the Atlantic provinces last week and they made some proposals to us relating to the recommendations in this report and they are being examined. 1 will look into the matter still further and if there is any impediment to releasing the report I will be glad to look into that so that my hon. friend can have it.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Is the committee still meeting and, if so, has the minister been in consultation with reference to further recommendations coming from them?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The committee is still meeting with regard to the proposals they have already advanced to us. They are discussing those with us. It is my intention to invite the provinces and incidentally, to add the province of Quebec, to maintain this as an ongoing committee. I hope they will accept.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to orders of the day, I think that the hon. member for Charlevoix is rising on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As you said a moment ago, my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning Cana-dair has actually been directed to the Minister of Labour who referred it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, as reported at page 7680 of Hansard.
I asked that question in order to determine what the minister and the government intend to do in order to prevent the forthcoming lay-off of many workers at Canadair, as a result of a lack of work.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I would want to tell him my officers have been in touch with this situation for some time. They have made available for services of the department to the workers to be affected. If there are any further details I will be happy to look at the record and advise the hon. member later.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister be prepared to ask his officials to check whether the province will enforce his legislation so that every employer who wishes to make mass lay-offs has to give a 90-day notice? In other words, will the officials of his department check whether that notice has been given to the province by Canadair?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to inquire and advise the hon. member of the notice that has been given about these proposed lay-offs.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, moved first reading yesterday of a bill to amend terms and conditions of the Criminal Code as it relates to bail, and he has given quite a news release on it. We have not yet received the bill. It would seem to me, when the minister gives out these public statements, that surely the opposition and all Members of Parliament-it is really a question of privilege-should at least have the bill to be able to examine the terms and conditions to see if what the minister had to say was pure windowdressing or represented real amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look into the matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. I have no information on whether the bill is available for distribution. Obviously it should be. The proper steps will be taken to give effect to the hon. member's suggestion.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-202, to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic, be now read the third time and do pass.
June 9, 1970

Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to make some comments now, and later to move an amendment which has already been moved at the report stage but which Your Honour felt would be better moved at third reading. I make these comments because of the unavoidable absence of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who has done such a notable and yeoman service to this House and the country by his contributions on this subject both in the House and in committee.
It is not my intention to delay this bill since it is designed to prevent pollution of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and the islands of the Canadian Arctic. We unanimously recorded our vote in support of this bill in April. I should like to think that was a great day for Canada, a day when Canadians stood together and in effect said to the rest of the world, "We are not satisfied that international law can safeguard the delicate ecology of the north, and until it can and does we have to take affairs into our own hands".
In recent times in this House and outside we have heard the Post Office described as a sleeping giant, though possibly the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) may not wish to make that comment at the present time. We have heard the Arctic described as a sleeping giant, and I might as well go on record as saying that the world is a sleeping giant when it comes to the question of pollution. But when even this government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can rub the sleep out of their eyes, then perhaps in the refreshing dawn of enlightenment the world can take encouragement that people everywhere will be sufficiently roused so that in the future countries like Canada will not be forced to take the law into their own hands to deal with pollution. This is what Canada is doing now in this bill.
It is unfortunate that we have been forced into this action. I hope that our concern will act as an example to the rest of the world, and that man may soon cry for a halt in his race to self-destruction through pollution and environmental breakdown. I believe, as do other members of our party, that our legislation respecting pollution is a patchwork and crazy quilt effort. Because of this it is desirable, indeed imperative, to bring all efforts and measures to combat pollution under the coordination of one department or agency which, in keeping with the governmental language of the 1970's could be called Environment Canada.

This piece of legislation, Bill C-202, originated with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have other legislation involving the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the Department of Transport as well as other departments that wish to get into the act. There are too many holes in Canada's antipollution net and I, for one, do not wish to be shunted from one minister to another minister, from one department to another department and from one bureaucrat to another bureaucrat, to find out who is doing what, when and how to control and combat the pollution menace. I wish to see one minister responsible, one department involved. I wish to know that our questions may be directed to him and that the concern of the people of Canada may be made known to that minister and his department or agency.
The world has reached a stage when scientists question our very future and predict possible environmental breakdown. This stage has been reached because there has been no global vision; even now it may be too late, but I believe we must project ourselves into the future if only to build our defences against any possible catastrophe that may eventually overtake all of us.
We have discussed at length the sovereignty issue. The history of events in this House, and statements made by the Prime Minister and others outside the House, indicate beyond the shadow of a doubt that the government has been and is reluctant to make any clear, unequivocal statement regarding Canada's traditional claims to possession of the lands, waters and ice of the Arctic. I do not understand why there needs to be or why there should be such a mental block. I do not understand why even the Prime Minister, in announcing this piece of legislation, found it necessary to say, and I quote:
This is the first bit of legislation-it is not an assertion of sovereignty, it is an exercise of our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution and by defining 100 miles as the zone within which we are determined to act, we are indicating that our assertion there is not one aimed toward sovereignty but aimed toward one of the very Important aspects of our action in the Arctic.
My hope is that the government will make a strong statement on the Arctic sovereignty issue. Perhaps it has that in mind and that was the reason the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) made his statement in this House on April 16. I shall refer to this later when I put my amendment
June 9, 1970
before the House. We did have this alternative, Mr. Speaker. Leading statesmen of this country, prime ministers and ministers charged with departmental responsibility have, over a period of 80 years or more, made statements which indicate beyond any possible doubt that this country does have sovereignty, within the meaning of the word, over the islands, the waters and the ice of the Arctic.
I should like to think, Mr. Speaker, that far more good could have come about, not from legislation in this form with its complexities, its hesitations, and its refusal to make clearly and certainly the claims which have been asserted, but from the simple reassertion of our claim. It was more than a year ago that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), myself and hon. members from the New Democratic Party began to press the government and the Prime Minister to make this clear, simple reassertion, that we continue to claim what we have always claimed in the past.
I should like to think that if the government had brought a joint resolution reasserting that fact into this House and the other place over a year ago, it would have had the unanimous support of this House and the other place as well as the citizens of Canada. At that time, when it was so very important, the government would have been able to present to the United States and other countries involved, the fact that Canadians stood together in reasserting their claim to uninhibited an unlimited sovereignty over the islands of the Arctic, the waters between the islands and the waters between the mainland and the islands.
I think that simple declaration, passed as it would have been without hindrance or objection in this House, would have been a most impressive document so far as the world is concerned instead of this miserable, puling attitude which the government has taken. We supported the legislation because we had no other choice, and because we had no other opportunity to assert in legislative form what we thought ought to have been brought forward. But I venture to say that if our ideas had been accepted, this country would have had a much more potent weapon with which to approach international negotiations.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Despite what has been said, and I will not traverse ground that has been gone over 22478-10
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act before because these matters have been debated in the House and in committee as well as throughout the country, we do not know what the government's position is with regard to certain of the waters between and around the Archipelago in the Arctic. Does it have a claim with regard to territorial sovereignty? Does it assert that claim because these waters are part of the maritime belt and constitute the territorial waters of Canada? Does the legislation claim that these are the internal waters of Canada or must we assume, from a certain vagueness of attitude, that there is a considerable vacuum with regard to certain of these waters.
Let me make it plain that more is involved than the mere question of waters, important though the question of waters is. The 1958 convention at Geneva, a convention to which this country is not a signatory, involved very important issues. If these are territorial waters, there is one position to be taken; if they are internal waters, there is another position to be taken. What about the passage of nuclear submarines, whether on the surface or under the waters of the Arctic? If these are internal waters, no foreign submarine may go through the waters because the sovereignty of Canada over these internal waters will clearly permit Canada to prevent passage of such submarines. If they are territorial waters, then there is a limited right on the part of Canada, as there is on the part of any coastal state, to say that there may be innocent passage only. Innocent passage has been defined as relating not to the character of the vessel but to the character of the passage. The same thing applies to the air above the waters. If they are territorial waters, there are certain rights which the coastal state may exercise.
It is all very well, for example, for the United States to make allegations, as it did recently in this controversy, about the high seas and the rights of nations. I am not being overly critical of the United States, but I can recall that when the United States felt its territorial security was threatened by the establishment of missile bases in Cuba, it did not hesitate for one moment to lay down a rule of quarantine that prohibited the passage of vessels of a country with which the United States was not at war through certain waters which can only be characterized as being part of the high seas. I do not criticize the United States. It felt its security was threatened. But I think it is somewhat hypocritical of the United States now to challenge not only the very limited nature of this bill but all that

7898	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act has been done to establish the unchallengeable supremacy of our sovereignty in the area. This is very important. Consequently, the bill leaves more questions unanswered than are answered.
The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, an all party committee, brought down one of the finest reports that the House has seen during the present session. It went north to study the situation, heard witnesses and heard legal opinions. It established beyond doubt something that all Canadians know: that Canada now has and always has had sovereignty in the area, a sovereignty established by every possible test of occupation and usage. We have provided services for the people. Also, since that area is contiguous to and part of the continental shelf of North America, it belongs to that part of North America which constitutes the closest national state. I submit that international law says that our sovereignty cannot be challenged. Former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, an expert in his own right in international affairs, made this categorical assertion in Edmonton a few months ago.
The purport of our amendment is clear. I think the government would have been much more successful if it had not attempted to be so devious. I think the present course was forced on the Prime Minister and the government because they waited too long. They were too timorous. Only when they were finally goaded into acting did they come forward with this legislation. If the government had brought forward a resolution one year ago asserting our claim to sovereignty in the area, we could have avoided the problems that I envisage will haunt us.
I like to think that this country will gain and hold the respect of others; that it will become a leader of nations by setting an example that the use of force is not necess-sary, and in this way more and more people in the world will live in peace and in harmony with one another. I think the ultimate settlement of this problem must be through an international conference, a conference of the nations which are involved in the Arctic particularly, but which would not exclude other nations. Because of what has happened and is happening in the Arctic, special and unique problems have arisen.
I know that discussions are going on with regard to meetings, but I do not know how far they have progressed. I think that the Soviet Union, the United States, the Scandinavian countries, including Iceland, and this

DEBATES	June 9, 1970
country must necessarily be parties to such conference. I do not think we ought to exclude other parties, because the future promises great things as a result of a co-operative method of developing and using the north. I should like to bring something to the minister's attention. Perhaps he could comment on it when he participates in the debate. Beginning on June 28, there is to be a conference in Malta under the chairmanship of Mrs. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the daughter of the famous novelist Thomas Mann, entitled "Pa-cem in Maribus". It is not a conference which, as I understand it, is being sponsored by nations; it is being sponsored by individuals, which I think will be very useful. It will clarify certain complex matters relating to the oceans. If ever there was an important matter to which the public's attention ought to be directed, I submit that this is it. The conference hopes to establish some kind of continuing body which may feed information to the United Nations committee on peaceful uses of the seabed.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I wish to quote from an interesting article which appeared in the June 3 issue of The Christian Science Monitor:
It is not practical, says Mrs. Borgese, to think of handling these questions separately-for example, to start out with a single problem, such as pollution.
"A group of nations, of course, could go together on a specific pollution issue," she says, "and every move in this direction is welcome. But if you take the pollution issue as a whole, on a global basis, it divides the developed from the developing nations."
(The role of the third world, or underdeveloped nations, is the biggest political issue confronting the United Nations seabed committee.)
"In fact," says Mrs. Borgese, "we don't have a strong East-West ideological division here. The Soviet Union and the United States see eye to eye on the problem. It's really between the developed and the developing nations."
I presume that this country will be represented. If there are no plans for representation now, I hope that steps will be taken to see that we are represented. I do not know whether there is an intention to send a parliamentary delegation. A small group from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development could participate in this meeting. Such participation might have some useful purpose and aid the deliberations of this House.
I do not know what tomorrow holds. Your Honour does not know what tomorrow holds.
June 9, 1970	COMMONS
In this fast moving world, no one can predict the future. Of course, with this government we know we are going to have inflation in this country for a long time. Forty years ago we did not know that man would be blasting off to the moon in our time, that man would have devastated cities and Pacific islands with nuclear explositions, that man would be communicating via space satellite, that man would be threatening to pollute himself out of existence, that man would be transplanting human hearts, and a hundred and one other marvels and evils we have seen in our time.
How can anyone stand up today and say what will happen in the future? The only certainty, it seems, is that the population of the world will double in approximately 30 years. We know that the problems of today, if not checked or overcome, will be compounded. Beyond that, we cannot even guess. If we look at the vast uncharted space of the Arctic, can we deny with certainty that it will not be used for all the evil intentions of man? Is it too far removed from reality to suggest that it will become the next nuclear testing ground? Will it become the garbage dump for nerve gases and other toxic materials that cannot be allowed within a thousand miles of our cities? Will it be the no man's land of the next war to end all wars?
Will there be a population shift to the Arctic just as there was from Europe and Asia to North America and Australasia? If it is not feasible to bring the resources from the Arctic to the present centres of population, is it not better to move the people north to be near those resources? I am not talking about today, but about the future and no one can say today that these things will not happen. Will the Arctic become ringed with great domed cities where man will survive in a controlled environment? Of course we cannot say what is to happen. But I like to look to Canada as being a country that is to lead the world into the 21st century.
In order that this country may attend international conferences armed with the strongest possible weapons, I propose to move this amendment. It may not conform to all the requirements and rigidities of our present procedures. I propose to quote statements made in this House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I hope, in light of these statements, that the government will be willing to accept this amendment. When referring to this bill on April 16, 1970, 22478-101
DEBATES	7899
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
This bill aims at meeting a real and imminent problem and provides lor the exercise of a limited form of jurisdiction. This exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of pollution control can in no way be construed to be inconsistent with a claim of sovereignty over the waters between the islands or otherwise. Similarly, the exercise of sovereignty over an area of the sea extending 12 miles from shore in accordance with the provision embodied in another bill that will shortly be under discussion cannot be said to be inconsistent with a claim to sovereignty beyond 12 miles.
We fear that close and detailed study of this bill has suggested ambiguities and invited doubts. We fear that the principles of the bill might well be inconsistent with the principle that unequivocal and specific sovereignty exists. I do not always agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is one of the few occasions when I have accepted his words. I, therefore, move:
That all the words after "now" be left out and there be substituted therefor the words "re-committed to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development with an instruction to amend the bill by adding thereto, immediately after clause 27 thereof, page 23, the following:
"Savings
28. Nothing in this act shall in any way be construed to be inconsistent with Canada's rightful claim of sovereignty in and over water, ice and land areas of the Arctic regions between the degrees of longitude 60 and longitude 141." and by renumbering clause 28 of the bill, page 23. as clause 29.
I like to think that long after we have gone there will be those who will remember this Parliament for having assumed responsibility over the Canadian Arctic, not only for the sake of Canadians but for the world, in the name of responsible development of the north and of humanity everywhere.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the President of the Privy Council rising with reference to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River? The Chair has reservations about the acceptability of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. If this is the purpose of the minister, I wish to hear him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is on the
question of order only, not the question of substance. The point of order was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Forest), and in a moment he will be referring to the authorities in more detail. The basic point is that the bill does not deal with the question of sovereignty in any sense,
June 9, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not propose at this stage to go into all the technical aspects of the amendment. I simply appeal to the minister, and to the minister piloting the bill through the House, to take into consideration the fact that this amendment does not purport to assert any claim to sovereignty over and above that which Canada already asserts. It is simply a saving clause. If I may use an expression common in the legal profession, it is one which makes it clear that the bill is without prejudice to the maintenance of those claims which Canada has, in the past, asserted. It is advanced in the honest belief that if you have a valid and reasonable claim and you fail to re-assert that claim in any docu-

ment or deed relating to it, you might be held to have repudiated what you had claimed in the past. All the amendment purports to do is to say that no language or proposals in the bill shall be deemed to constitute by Canada an abandonment of claims which have been made in the past. If the government cannot accept this simple amendment, I have no great hope for what they intend to do in our north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the acceptability of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and which is very much similar to the one which the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) introduced Wednesday last, at the report stage. The Chair then expressed some reservations on the acceptability of the amendment.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Peace River said a while ago, I do not believe that the amendment is more in order on third reading than at the report stage. The hon. member for Oxford appreciated it, I believe, when he withdrew his amendment. However, another attempt is now being made on third reading.
Wednesday last, that is on June 3, some hon. members started building up procedural arguments and I simply wish to complete the list of the recognized authorities on amendments, particularly those introduced on third reading. I should like, for instance, to refer the Chair to pages 571 and 572 of May's Parliamentary Practice, and I quote:
tEnglish]
The procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to the second reading, but the debate is more restricted at the later stage, being limited to the matters contained in the bill.

I skip a few sentences to come to the end of the citation. I quote:

As the debate on third reading should be confined to the contents of the bill reasoned amendments which raise matters not included, in the provisions of the bill are not permissible.
[ Translation]
I shall not read the summary of that question in full but only two paragraphs of Beau-
June 9, 1970	COMMONS
chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th edition. I should like to quote paragraphs 1 and 3 of citation 203 which read as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
And I now quote paragraph 3:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
I shall quote now citation 406 which sums up the rules regarding amendments to public bills:
Amendments are out of order if they are (a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope, governed by or dependant upon amendments already negatived;
I shall quote now citation 418:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
I do not want to extend my remarks any longer. I think that the Chair is well aware of the rules of procedure about amendments to bills on third reading. Now, it seems obvious to me that the amendment, as introduced, brings in a new element. It raises the issue of sovereignty in a bill dealing with pollution and the means which the government may use, under this legislation, in order to prevent pollution in Arctic waters. Therefore, it is not consistent with the aims of the bill now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has proposed to the House by way of amendment to the motion for third reading of Bill C-202, now before the House, the following motion:
That all the words after "now" be left out and there be substituted therefor the words "re-committed to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development with an instruction to amend the bill by adding thereto, immediately after clause 27 thereof, page 23, the following:
28. Nothing in this act shall in any way be construed to be inconsistent with Canada's rightful claim to sovereignty in and over water, ice and land areas of the Arctic regions between the degrees of longitude 60 and longitude 141. and by renumbering clause 28 of the bill, page 23, as clause 29."
DEBATES	7901
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
The arguments put forward by the hon. member in support of the acceptability of his motion are interesting, but I have some doubt as to whether it would be in order for the Chair to accept them. According to my understanding, the hon. member has proposed by way of amendment a motion instructing the committee to insert a declaration of principle asserting Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic. He indicates this is being done in a negative way as a saving clause, but even if it is done in this way it seems to me the hon. member is going beyond the terms of the bill.
There has been protracted discussion on this point ever since the bill was introduced for second reading-questions as to whether this was an antipollution bill or a sovereignty bill-and the hon. member for Peace River, together with a number of his hon. friends, proposed that it should be changed in such a way as to go beyond the terms of the proposed legislation before the House. As the hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, this amendment was proposed originally by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) in practically the same terms as are used in the one which is now under discussion, and the Chair expressed reservations at the time. I doubt very much whether the amendment should be accepted in those terms. It does seem, if only indirectly, to seek to bring within the four corners of the bill a declaration of a principle which, to my way of thinking, is not there at the present time.
I have been referred to citation 418 of Beauchesne's fourth edition as follows:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the Bill.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I fail to see how I could ignore this long standing precedent and say that the hon. member's amendment, which does seek to introduce a new declaration of principle, is acceptable.
I would also refer hon. members to the very cogent and learned ruling of the Deputy Speaker reported in Votes and Proceedings for June 4, page 937, when a similar amendment was proposed for the consideration of the House. The learned and respected Deputy Speaker referred the House to Beauchesne's fourth edition, particularly citation 418, and also to May's seventeenth edition, page 572. I suspect that this is where the hon. members who have participated in the debate got their
7902	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act wisdom and knowledge. I would find it difficult to disagree with a ruling so clearly expressed by the learned Deputy Speaker, and I am honoured to have the opportunity to confirm the ruling that he made at that time and to say that it applies on all fours to the situation we now have.
I regret, in the circumstances, that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River cannot be put to the House.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which I have risen in the House and felt a little fear and trepidation. Having just learned of the sterling qualities of the Deputy Speaker, I am rather abashed at having to speak in his presence. I wanted to indicate the wholehearted support of the New Democratic Party for the subject matter incorporated in this bill, as we have indicated on other occasions. I also wanted to take a moment to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and I will not attempt to duplicate his eloquence in expressing his aspirations for the development of northern Canada, aspirations which I am sure all of us share.
There seem to be some matters related to this bill which should be drawn to the attention of hon. members before it receives third reading and passage through this House. It would seem to those of us in the New Democratic Party that a logical companion piece to legislation establishing a 100-mile pollution control zone in the Arctic would be legislation establishing a similar zone for the east and west coasts of this country. I also submit that the establishment of these zones represents and even more immediate need on the part of Canada, in terms of protecting our maritime environment, than do parallel provisions for the Arctic waters.
There exists at the present time off our east and west coasts a clear and present danger from the devastating effects of pollution, as the wreck of the Arrow off Cape Breton Island amply illustrates. In this regard I should like to cite the statement made to the Commons by the Minister of Transport (Mr, Jamieson) during the debate on the committee report on Arctic sovereignty. In opening his speech, the minister said that the "totality" of the pollution problem in the world today was a more serious and immediate problem than the potentiality of pollution in Canada's northern areas, since given even the greatest possible technological advances, and even if the decision were made to employ ships for the transportation of oil through

DEBATES	June 9, 1970
northern waters, it appeared that it would be some time

according to the minister, perhaps years-before such voyages could be accomplished.
Nevertheless, and somewhat inexplicably, the minister has supported the wholly commendable action of establishing a 100-mile pollution control zone in the Arctic. At the same time he describes, to use his own words, the "strongly emotional and appealing" approach of taking unilateral action on the matter with respect to our east and west coasts as being in many ways futile in the face of overwhelming opposition by other countries. I suspect that the main thrust of the government's reluctance to incorporate provisions in this bill to establish a 100-mile pollution control zone along our east and west coasts is based on just the sort of argument that was mustered by the Minister of Transport in his speech during the debate on Arctic sovereignty. That is to say, the government believes that because of overwhelming international opposition any such attempt would be futile.
I should like to submit two sets of counter arguments to the approach taken by the government. The first set of counter arguments is based on international law as it stands today; the second set is based on the practicalities of the situation. First, I should like to examine this idea of pollution control zones off our east and west coasts in the light of existing international law. The existing body of international law is composed largely of custom, multi-national accords, agreements, conventions and treaties. But a very strong case has been made on numerous occasions for the use of unilateral national action as a spur to the development of international law.
In this regard, I should like to quote two or three passages from a statement made by three professors of international law from the faculty of law of the University of Toronto, Dean R. St. J. MacDonald, Professor Gerald L. Morris and Professor Douglas M. Johnson. These professors described Canada's action in establishing a pollution control zone in the Arctic as an "initiative of striking importance and relevance in the context of dynamic, creative development of international law". They went on to say:
It exemplifies the unavoidable resort to unilateral action by a national government faced by the inability of the international community to remedy a critical situation affecting its essential interests.
Let me take a moment or two to provide hon. members with some background to the
June 9, 1970

subject of international action in respect to pollution by oil from ships, since it has relevance to what I am saying. International concern with the problem can probably be traced to the Washington conference of 1926, but the main progress in establishing international standards in this area has taken place since the second world war. The main responsibility has rested with the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, although other agencies of the United Nations have been concerned in a peripheral way.
In 1954 an Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization convention laid down penalties for pollution of coastal waters through the discharge of oil by international shipping within a 50-mile maritime zone. A 1962 IMCO convention extended this zone to 100 miles. The shortcoming in both conventions, which this legislation we are now debating takes into consideration, was that they permitted the state affected to take action only after the release of the oil. There was no provision in the conventions for a state to take preventative action. Moreover, only a minority of nations have ratified these two IMCO agreements.
At the Brussels conference of IMCO in November 1969, the Canadian delegation, to its eternal credit, argued very forcefully for the establishment of a convention offering an effective method of environmental protection for coastal states. The delegation, however, was unable to persuade a significant number of states involved in the conference to support its position. It was within this context that I believe the Canadian government finally decided, and in my opinion entirely justifiably, to take unilateral action in respect to pollution control in Arctic waters.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In the document by the three Toronto law professors to which I referred earlier, Canada's action in preparing the legislation on Arctic waters which is before the House was explained in the following words:
Finally, the Canadian government decided to take unilateral action in the expectation that its proposed legislation would meet critical national needs in the Arctic and at the same time galvanize the international community into a realistic study of the dangers and problems involved. It was believed that these dangers and problems had developed with a speed that international law has been unable to match.
It continues:
The Canadian initiative should be seen, we believe, as the result of two kinds of failures in the
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act international community: the failure of international law to develop first order principles to govern the protection of maritime environments, and the failure of shipping, industrial and other user states to negotiate agreements for the establishment of institutions, procedures and administrative rules to deal with the problems of risk bearing and distribution of loss in the light of greatly magnified pollution hazards.
I should like to cite one other highly relevant passage from the statement by the three Toronto professors of international law. Their statement presents the following argument:
Although the international law of the sea provides no exact precedent for the unilateral action of the Canadian government, it is easy to discover highly relevant principles underlying widely accepted practices, claims and decisions. The 1958 Geneva conference on the law of the sea confirmed the general acceptance of the concept of a contiguous zone, within which the coastal state may exercise exclusive authority for limited, designated purposes in a zone within modest limits and contiguous to a narrowly conceived territorial sea. The concept was accepted, no doubt, not only because the limits of the contiguous zone were modest, but more specifically because they were appropriate to the problems and functions envisaged. It may therefore be argued that a pollution zone is not less acceptable because of spatially less modest limits if these limits are wholly appropriate to the problems of pollution and the function of environment control.
It was undoubtedly with arguments of this kind in mind that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made the following statement, which was quoted in a recent issue of "International Canada". He said:
We are ready for the opening of the Canadian Arctic for development, and that development is one of our great national objectives. It is with this in mind that we have stressed the desirability of keeping the Arctic waters open for innocent passage. We will do what is necessary for this purpose.
We do not believe that the passage of ships which threaten the destruction or deterioration of the coastal environment can be considered innocent under any interpretation of international law. We have made clear to the world that while Canada welcomes the use of the Arctic waters as a transportation route for the vessels of all flags, the Canadian government will ensure that these waters are used for peaceful purposes and by ships complying with required safety standards.
In short, it can be argued with a good deal of force that the action Canada proposed to take in establishing a pollution control zone in the Arctic, far from representing an unacceptable infringement of the principles of international law, represents a welcome and invaluable initiative in that field. The government obviously accepts this position. If that is true of the Arctic waters where commercial traffic is non-existent, except on an experimental basis at this moment, how much more

June 9, 1970
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act true is it of the waters off the east and west coasts of our country?
There is in existence now off our east and west coasts a clear and present danger of great damage being done to Canada's marine environment and coastline from pollution by oil from ships. The danger far exceeds that in the north, despite the special ecological conditions which apply in the north, and despite the additional navigational hazards represented in the north by Arctic ice, because of the immense volume of traffic in the waters off Canada's east and west coasts. The danger confronting us has been emphasized by the director of the Science Council of Canada, Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan, who is heading the task force charged with the responsibility of cleaning up the oil spill from the tanker Arrow in Chedabucto Bay. Dr. McTaggart-Cowan said, in somewhat unparliamentary language but very expressively:
This flags of convenience business is one of the sloppiest damn things I ever saw. If the commercial airlines ran their business like the tankers do, you'd be crashing a DC8 every week and the world would say "stop it".
The dangers confronting us have also been emphasized by such maritime disasters as the wreck of the Torrey Canyon off the coast of the United Kingdom and the wreck of the Arrow off Cape Breton Island. Therefore, the practical situation confronting us, the obvious dangers inherent in the operation of large numbers of inadequately constructed and equipped tankers off our east and west coasts, demands that Canada, for her own protection, take the same action off the east and west coasts as she is contemplating for her Arctic waters in the legislation now before the House. Indeed, the danger to her marine environment off her east and west coasts is greater and more immediate.
Moreover, it can be argued that because of the greater and more immediate dangers constituted by the shipping traffic off our east and west coasts, failure to establish claims to a pollution control zone extending one hundred miles off each of these coasts may very well weaken our claim to the establishment of such a zone in our Arctic waters. Those opposed to our action in the Arctic may very well say to us, should we not act in a similar manner off the east and west coasts: "If you were really serious about the danger to your environment represented by the operation of shipping in your Arctic waters, why have you not taken some similar action in Canada's coastal areas where shipping now operates?" I submit to the government that that is a very

real danger should this legislation ever be disputed, and I would commend to their attention the desirability of establishing pollution control zones off our other coasts similar to that contemplated by this legislation for our Arctic waters.
In conclusion, I should like to express once again on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP our wholehearted approbation of the legislation as it now stands, even though we would have liked to have seen some of its provisions extended to other areas of this nation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In
rising to speak on third reading of Bill C-202, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this legislation. Since the introduction of this bill, the official opposition has carried on a vigorous campaign in the House of Commons urging the government to make a clear, unqualified declaration of Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic. The campaign was mounted when it became clear that the government itself had sown the seeds of doubt in Canada and the international community by procrastinating and by refusing to take a stand on this issue. The Arctic region, so long regarded as Canadian, is in our view about to be lost through default by this government.
We expressed our concern over Canadian rights in the Arctic at the time of the experimental voyage through the Northwest Passage by the giant Humble oil tanker, the Manhattan. This concern came to a head when the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, comprised of Members of Parliament who had made a close study of the issue, recommended that the government claim sovereignty over northern land and waters which traditionally had been considered as belonging to Canada. The government resisted efforts to have the committee report brought before the House for discussion, and although the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) eventually won the fight on a motion that the House concur in the committee report, it is a matter of record that the motion was talked into adjournment by the government.
Some Liberal members have asked why the official opposition takes such a strong stand on the question of Canadian sovereignty. I might say it is because of a threefold concern we have which cannot be brushed aside by the government's arrogance. We believe, first of all, that the Canadian citizens of the north must be protected from exploitation, that development of the Canadian north must
June 9, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	7905
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act
remain in the hands of the Canadian people, and that it is Canada's responsibility to prevent an ecological disaster that could affect the people of this country and indeed the people of the world.
e (4:00 p.m.)
I spoke on this bill when it was first introduced in this chamber. I attended the joint committee sittings. The bill purports to deal with pollution control on the one hand and with Canadian sovereignty on the other. We are now aware from studies of other bills, for example Bill C-203 and Bill C-204, that the government is not asking Parliament to assert sovereignty over any waters beyond 12 miles in our Arctic. However, these are waters over which most Canadians thought we had claimed sovereignty for many years.
I ask the government, why have we now changed position? I ask, what waters are we now claiming as our own? What waters will be classified as high seas? Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we on this side are not critical that the government has gone too far with this legislation; we are critical that the government has not gone far enough. How will these proposals, as spelled out in the bill, be enforced without declaring sovereignty? For example, under this bill will we be prohibiting tanker voyages in the Arctic? The bill calls for a line measuring seaward from the nearest Canadian land a distance of 100 miles. I wonder why the government selected 100 miles? Why didn't it take 50 miles or 150 miles? In spite of all the questions that were raised in committee about this 100 miles, I submit we have never received an adequate answer. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), or the minister guiding the bill through the House today, will give us some explanation.
This bill, like the amendments to the Fisheries Act, gives permission to pollute. That is right, Mr. Speaker. It gives permission to pollute since its terms do not apply to any water quality area designated under the Canada Water Act. By fragmenting authority between this bill and the Canada Water Act, by amending the Fisheries Act plus the Canada Shipping Act, I submit we so divide authority that we make effective pollution control in Canada next to impossible. At the same time, we place a bureaucratic nightmare on the shoulders of our hard-pressed industries who find themselves unhappy partners with the federal government in pollution control, with the industries paying the bill.
When it comes to declaring sovereignty, I cannot help but wonder what happened to change the views of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on this matter. The Globe and Mail, in September, 1969, carried an article headed "Ice Pack Defined as Land in Canadian Bid for Rule." It began with these words:
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said yesterday Canada will seek to persuade other nations to accept the ice pack of the Northwest Passage as land for the purpose of establishing Canadian sovereignty in the area.
The Prime Minister told students at a high school forum that the proposal, first advanced by External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp, was one of several Canada would advance in seeking to establish its sovereignty in the Arctic.
Later, on his return from that trip, the Globe and Mail carried another article which read in part:
In a press conference, after a three hour cabinet meeting, Mr. Trudeau declared that his government was giving "a high priority" to the sovereignty statement, which is expected some time this fall.
Those are our views, Mr. Speaker. We believe sovereignty should be declared over the islands in the Arctic. We believe sovereignty should be declared over the water between those islands. Obviously, the Prime Minister shares our views, although he referred in his statement to this water as the ice pack; but whether it be ice pack or water the logic is the same. It is this vast area of ice and water and land which we claim should be established without any doubt in the minds of all Canadians as Canadian territory.
We must be mindful of our responsibility to the native people of the north, the Indians and the Eskimos, who stand the risk of being exploited by commercial plunderers before they can be said to have even benefited from today's enlightened society. Their living conditions, if we are to listen to the proposals and representations they are making to us from time to time, are wretched. They have the highest mortality rate among Canada's native people. Infant mortality in the north is four times the Canadian average, and the death rate of Eskimo children up to the age of four is 13 times the national average. Even in 1964, the average age at death of the Eskimo was 32.3 years.
If Canada does not assert its claims to sovereignty, then these people are exposed to the risk of being bulldozed out of existence, or left with the scars of exploitation that already disfigure the permafrost of their land and threaten to eliminate the northern wildlife upon which they depend for existence. I ask
7906	COMMONS
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act you, Sir, can we ignore the rights of these people so that a more affluent society should benefit? The answer of course is no. But they can be protected only by a clear declaration of Canadian sovereignty.
In the view of the Official Opposition, northern development must remain in Canadian hands. While a good many people are today greedily eyeing Canadian resources, we do not for one minute intend to be a party to any give-away of these resources without a true inventory of Canadian needs for the future. There are many who say that the north is Canada's future life blood. Therefore, it is for Canada to discover and develop the north. If there are vast resources of oil, as exploration indicates, it is for Canada to regulate the growth of its development. Without Canadian sovereignty being asserted we will have every Tom, Dick, and Harry eager to stake a claim to the north and to engage in unregulated off-shore drilling in Canadian waters. I submit Canada alone must exercise pollution control over the Canadian Arctic. It cannot be left to the United Nations; it cannot be left to shipowners; it cannot be left to oil companies or any other body. It is, I submit, Canada's responsibility alone.
Already Canada has been exposed to needless danger by a government that, at the least, has been extremely haphazard in its approach to the pollution menace. It was the Official Opposition that pointed out to the government that the Manhattan, on its first voyage, carried twice as much oil for fueling purposes as that carried as cargo by the ill-fated Arrow which broke up in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia, earlier this year. Those of us who live in that province, and certainly many who live outside it, are well aware of the tremendous damage that was done to the fisheries and the entire ecology of the area by that mishap. Scientists have been warning us of the dangers of pollution, pollution of the land, of the air and of our water. Doubts have been raised as to the very future of mankind unless we show some respect for nature and the environment in which we have been given the privilege of life.
The risk of a Torrey Canyon disaster hangs over all of our heads. The best insurance policy in the world would not and could not possibly compensate for the damage to our environment if a disaster of the Torrey Canyon magnitude happened in the north. A disaster of that proportion would upset the delicate balance of nature in the Arctic and

DEBATES	June 9, 1970
might lead to a complete ecological breakdown. It could reach out to every man, woman and child on this earth. These are some of the threats posed by new scientific and technological advances. However, I believe if a technological society is to continue, technology itself must be put to work to clean up its messes. On the land and in the water, a Canadian presence has been established in the Arctic by Canadian explorers, Canadian police, Canadian courts and Canadian commerce.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Those who object to Canadian sovereignty of the Arctic waters argue that the Northwest passage should be regarded as an international waterway because it connects two sections of the high seas. However, international law has established that a passage between high seas is international only if it has been used, frequently and without serious challenge, by international shipping. This is not the case with the Northwest passage.
Sovereign control of the Arctic does not imply interference with innocent and peaceful passage throughout the waters of the north. But it is for Canada to determine and ultimately decide what constitutes innocent passage, and Canada must retain the right to make and enforce regulations which protect our national interests. In my view, a vote against Canadian claims of sovereignty is a vote against Canada, its people and against humanity itself.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in moving third reading of this bill, I do not have much to add except to thank hon. members who, on second reading, voted unanimously for this bill to set up a hundred-mile area for the control of pollution in the Arctic.
That unanimous gesture on the part of the House of Commons has done much to help Canada on the international level, towards the humanitarian purpose proposed by this bill. Because of the special problems in the North and also for the benefit of the native peoples of the North, it was imperative for our country to act immediately instead of waiting for a catastrophe, for ships have always started navigating in that area and the North will soon be open to shipping.
During a trip to Washington where I discussed problems pertaining to the North and
June 9, 1970

other related questions. I found that American politicians were particularly impressed by that unanimity.
I should like also to make a few comments on what was said by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). On several occasions, he suggested that our Canadian sovereignty was not established over the Arctic islands, the continental shelf or the waters surrounding the Arctic islands. On several occasions in the House it has been clearly proven that our sovereignty had been established for a long time in that respect.
The hon. member mentioned explorations for oil on the Arctic islands and the continental shelf. I would just like to point out to him that at the present time, in our Canadian North, anyone who wishes to carry out explorations for oil on the Arctic islands and the continental shelf, must ask the Department of Indian Affairs and Nortnern Development for a permit for that purpose. Such permits are now held by American, French, German and Japanese firms.
The only question that remained to be solved had to do with the limits on our territorial waters and my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) brought forward a bill that leaves no doubt about that. It provides that Canadian territorial waters extend 12 miles off from shore. That bill had a very clear objective: the prevention of pollution on the high seas, because we knew it was impossible to come quickly to an agreement at the international conference level, after the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) had met the Secretary General of United Nations in September, to know if we could make rapid progress in that field in international circles. Following the international conference on the law of the sea that was held in Brussels in November, it became quite obvious that Canada could not expect an early conclusion of any international agreement on pollution control on the high seas. We took unilateral action by asserting our jurisdiction in matters pertaining to the policy concerning water pollution up to a 100 mile limit off our coasts. We are still willing to find an international solution to this problem. The first international conference on pollution on the high seas will be held as early as 1970 and Canada, thanks to the unanimous consensus of the members of the House, has taken a very important step towards the development of international law in this field.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank-
Canada Elections Act

I should like to thank all members who participated in the debate for the unanimous vote on second reading and quite obviously they will do the same on third reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 28, 1970, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, you will be happy to know that my remarks will be very short and, I hope, very significant this afternoon. When I spoke on this bill about ten days ago I mentioned that it dealt with the franchise of electors who choose the members of the House of Commons, and I said that there should be a companion bill dealing with that other august body, the Senate. We in the New Democratic Party have been on record for a long time as saying that the Senate should be abolished. If it is not abolished in the near future I think it should be an elected body. Reform of the Senate as it is presently constituted, is beyond question. No amount of young blood or joint committees of the House of Commons and the Senate to deal with questions of poverty and guaranteed annual income will rid it of the stain of political patronage. I think the Senate has to become significant, and publicly and politically acceptable. New qualifications should be required for it and it must adopt a new image. Having said that, I hope my friends on the other side will note my remarks and the government will act accordingly in the near future.
I should like to remind the House that in my last speech on this particular bill I gave credit to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) for bringing forth changes in proxy voting. Now prospectors, students, fishermen and mariners will be permitted to vote. I hope in his wisdom and liberality the minister will include railway construction workers, loggers and longshoremen. These men should not be deprived of their right to vote, even though they do have the opportunity to vote at the advanced polls. I think it

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
is even more important that the President of the Privy Council should include the inmates of our penal institutions. In the past, so many people have considered such inmates as a breed apart from other Canadians. By incarcerating a man, not only do we strip him of his personal freedom but we strip him of his civil rights as well. If we are to make these men dignified, responsible and integrate them into society, the least we can do is allow them to vote so that they can take their rightful place in society.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Last week I had the privilege of travelling across parts of Canada and visiting penal institutions. The indelible impression left on my mind is that there is a need to create a proper relationship and understanding between the inmates of our penal institutions and the general public. It is necessary to make those inmates feel they are part of the community. I think that giving them the right to vote would be a step in the right direction.
My third point relates to reducing the voting age from 21 to 18 years. My party has been on record for some time as approving of this principle. I expect the government hopes to gain some advantage from the one million new voters. The leaders of the different political parties will face a challenging time in bringing to the new voters of this nation their political platforms. This will be one of the great challenges of the next general election. Today, our young people are much better educated than in the past about political matters, and the question that arises in my mind is this. Have those young people accepted their responsibilities and are they sufficiently socially mature to vote? In other words, have they graduated from childhood to adult status? At present, a person acquires adult status automatically when he reaches the age of 21. He is then allowed to vote, to enter into contracts, to hold real property, to undertake jury duty, to marry without parental consent, to drink beer and to establish a separate domicile. These are his rights.
By lowering the voting age to 18 years, will we also lower the age at which our young people can assume these other rights? Will an 18-year old be allowed to serve on a jury, to enter into contracts and so on? In other words, will these rights be given to 18-year olds automatically in future? I entertain serious doubts about this matter. It seems to me that they should earn their adult status. Perhaps I could draw an analogy between young

people and those who wish to become Canadian citizens. A person becomes a Canadian citizen only after he has learned one of our two main languages. He must have some knowledge of the history and geography of our country and possess evidence of good behaviour. In other words, he must have no criminal record, must appear in Citizenship Court and, after submitting evidence of his fitness to be a citizen, he takes the oath of allegiance and becomes a Canadian. Why should we not require something similar of our 18-year olds? They should prove that they are worthy of adult status, that they are of good behaviour, that they are willing to accept responsibility and are socially mature.
What criteria would govern the granting of adult status? These young people I submit, ought to contribute their time and talents to the public service. Thousands of choices are open to them. Of course, we must provide jobs and opportunities for them; but this should not be difficult because there are 700,000 young students who want summer employment. Instead of being a burden on the government, we could provide these young people with the opportunity to be useful. For instance, if a young man is an artist, he could contribute his time and talent by decorating public and private institutions. If he is an athlete, he could teach youngsters to play hockey, baseball and skiing in the winter. If he is the cultured type, he ought to play in a youth orchestra or participate in some drama group. Other young people could serve by conducting tours, by helping to clean up our pollution problem, by helping crippled children or elderly adults, by baby sitting for young married couples and so on. They could perform services like these and, after a time, they would earn their adult status.
Of course, they would have to show evidence of a record of public service and good behaviour. Perhaps they could appear before a court similar to the citizenship court and bring forward two or three witnesses who would testify to the truth of statements concerning their public service. At that time they could be given their social security card, which would be an indication that they had graduated from childhood and assumed adult status and responsibilities. Then, such young people ought to have the right to vote. A young man could then perform jury service, enter into contracts, hold real property, marry without parental consent and so on. This is my own view, Mr. Speaker, and is not
June 9, 1970

a view which is totally acceptable to the members of my party.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Gilbert: Nevertheless, it is a view that I think should be put forward because, when you reduce the voting age from 21 to 18 years, you are imposing on young people a social responsibility. We must make sure that they are ready to assume that responsibility and are mature enough to vote and participate in the affairs of the community.
My last point relates to election expenses. My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has set forth the position of my party on election expenses and on the necessity of implementing the recommendations of the Barbeau Commission. I submit the time has come for us to take active steps to implement the recommendations of the Barbeau Commission concerning election expenses. I submit that the bill relating to that subject ought to have preceded the bill we are discussing.
I read "The Shape of Scandal" by Richard Gwyn. It deals with the trying time the government faced as a result of scandals during the early and middle 1960's. In the epilogue are two paragraphs bearing on the subject of election expenses which I should like to read to hon. members. The author writes on page 242:
Only one element of the content of the scandals deserves lasting concern and that is what Pearson, after the publication of the Dorion Report, called, "the sinister and growing involvement of crime in politics." The connecting link appeared to be the election fund. The traditional system of fund raising and fund spending by both the major parties has in the past been based upon an obsessive and impenetrable secrecy. Rarely has this secrecy hidden anything more ominous than the understandable wish of business firms to conceal their political affiliations from their customers, some of whom are bound to be supporters of the unfavoured political party. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by the winter scandals, secrecy is an invitation to misuse and, to the public, it invites the assumption that misuse is commonplace.
The importance of money in elections has been consistently over-rated, particularly by the professional organizers who approach the subject with the reverence of acolytes. Under-financed parties, such as Real Caouette's in 1962 and John Diefen-baker's in 1963, have been able to rise above empty war chests, while over-financed parties, such as Pearson's in 1963, run the risk of arousing public resentment. Nevertheless, as the realistic Israel Tarte said of Laurier's victory in 1896, "Elections are not won by prayers alone." At election times money is a useful adjunct to virtue, but the present system of collecting has outrun its usefulness.
Canada Elections Act
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The solution is relatively obvious and has already been effected by the Government in Quebec. A proportion of the election expenses of all the national parties should be paid out of the public treasury and all election expenses should be subjected to rigorous control and scrutiny. As the Toronto Daily Star commented, "Having the taxpayers pay the bill of political candidates may seem a strange and unpleasant idea at first sight. But it is surely preferable to having the tab picked up by people like Lucien Rivard."
I hope that the President of the Privy Council will be very active in setting up the committee to consider election expenses. I hope he will do this forthwith. On that note, I end my comments on this particular bill. I will have more to say at the committee stage.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to take part in this debate on Bill C-215, whose purpose is to modernize the Canada Elections Act and to pronote democracy in this country.
Democracy is a form of government which originated after monarchy, that is after the period when kings and queens inherited the throne through succession. In democracy as we know it, the people become their own king and appoint their representatives through elections.
All citizens are equal in a democratic election. Each citizen has only one vote to cast in the ballot box and the majority decides which members are elected. It is the principle of one man, one vote. In an election, this principle of the citizen's equality and quality constitutes the basis of democracy and it must be respected by everybody.
Why should a member of Parliament have to make his backers known? Why does this obligation not apply also to political parties with considerable campaign funds? Why are privileges granted to the powerful and refused to the little, the weak, the members of small political parties or still to independent candidates who are always free to express themselves during an electoral campaign? Why not require of the large political parties that they reveal the sources of their campaign financing? We ask the question as bluntly as possible in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
Why are the small political parties compelled to disclose the names of the contributors to their compaign funds, while the two large ones do not have to do so? Why is it possible for the large parties to conceal the

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
names of their backers? We are asking that question merely to know why the principle of equality among citizens is not enforced as far as the obligation to disclose the sources of eompaign funds is concerned?
This is not the first time that the question is raised and remains unanswered. Indeed, the same unacceptable excuses are given and the people who are always asking the same questions are far from satisfied. They know how to get information and are quite aware that as far as the excise tax is concerned, there are some injustices.
We do remember that at a certain time the Canadian government passed a legislation to levy new taxes. All taxpayers were supposed to pay to the federal government the tax provided in the new legislation. But through amendments and withdrawals of some customs tariff items, we managed to establish a favoured list. The best example of this is to be found in Bill C-198, that was passed on June 23, 1966. I take the liberty to quote some excerpts of that bill according to which would be exempted from the federal 12 per cent sales tax:
(f) tractors.. .for use exclusively in the operation of logging, such operation to include the removal of the log from stump to skidway, log dump, or common or other carrier.
Nothing was forgotten. In fact, the article even added this, that can be read in the text, and I quote:
(h) machinery, logging cars, cranes.. .blocks and tackle and wire rope-
All these articles were also deleted from the famous taxable machinery list. While loggers still pay the federal sales tax on powersaws, special iron-capped shoes, and iron helmets, the wearing of which is compulsory, the lumber company which buys equipment is only required to sign a form and forward to the government to get back the 12 per cent excise tax. All mining and oil companies which develop Canadian resources enjoy the benefits provided for in the item which appears on page 6076 of Hansard for June 7, 1966, and I quote:
(e) gasoline-powered and diesel powered self-propelled trucks...for off-highway use exclusively at mines and quarries.
The following were also exempt from the famous tax:
(j) machinery and apparatus, including drilling bits...for use in exploration for or discovery or development of petroleum, natural gas or minerals.
While those companies are exempt from the famous 12 per cent tax, the worker who uses

the tools essential to the maintenance of his machines always has to pay it. Once again, we have a double standard. And oil companies, forestry development companies and mining companies are just the ones we suspect of contributing to the old parties' campaign funds.
As regards income tax, the situation is the same: one rate for the worker and a different rate for the companies. As far as I am concerned, most of the injustices that Canadians have to suffer at the present time have their origin in campaign funds. Because they contribute to the latter, exploiters of all kinds successfully press for the passing of the legislation of their choice and in the manner that is most profitable to them. The present scarcity of money, which is an invention of the banks that wish to increase their interest rates, is a further example.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Recently I gave a copy of the Canadian Constitution to a young man of 19. He was quite surprised to learn that, according to the Constitution, the central government has the right and the duty to fix interest rates. However, he did not see why banks are now increasing their rate of interest. Proofs in hand, I explained to him that conditions had changed since the Canadian government gave up its rights in this regard by passing on March 21, 1967, Bill C-222 respecting banks and banking.
In passing this bill containing a very precise section in that connection, the government was simply giving up its rights and privileges regarding the establishment of interest rates.
Though this bill was sponsored by the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), under the Liberal government of Mr. Pearson, I shall never forget that on March 21, 1967, 60 Progressive Conservative members preferred to abstain from voting and did not take part in the division. Therefore, for all these reasons and many more, I suspect also that banks contribute important amounts of money to the campaign funds of the old parties.
On the occasion of the reform of the Canada Elections Act, I think it is necessary not to request an explanation but to call for the final suppression of this unjustified practice whereby the big political parties are free to collect funds for their campaign treasury without having to disclose the identity of the contributors. This is clear! We demand that the big political parties be
June 9, 1970

compelled to give the names of all the firms that contribute to their campaign funds as well as the total amount of their campaign expenses, as it is the case for political parties that are financed almost exclusively through public subscriptions, by passing the hat at public meetings or coffee klatches.
Equality in this respect between small and large political parties would be a sign that hon. members really want to respect the equality of citizens in all of their acts during a democratic election in view of electing new members.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to answer us. He will find a way to make all political parties produce the names of the contributors to their campaign chests. Under a democratic system of government the election of members of Parliament by the people perhaps reflects the best the image of the people, because they choose their members amongst the very people who make up the nation.
In a democracy, the people choose their representatives from among themselves. Those elected automatically become the official representatives of authority. That is why all citizens should be better acquainted with their real power to choose their own representatives. That is also why electoral laws should give citizens every possibility to make the best possible choice of their future representatives. The Canada Elections Act should therefore do away with all practices that make it possible to exercise undue influence on the voters' will and that is why it is necessary to reveal the names of all those who contribute to elections funds covering advertising, canvassers and other election workers. There is no way of getting this information now as far as the major political parties are concerned, perhaps because our present legislation does not demand that it be revealed.
However, when one sees now the ministers behave towards some privileged groups, one is lead to believe that these groups are involved in some way in election funds.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help noting the utter flexibility of our ministers in connection with their activities in the legislative field.
For instance, during the same week, allegedly to fight inflation, the government has proclaimed that no wages shall be increased by more than 6 per cent yearly and has decided to raise the minimum wage from $1.25 to $1.65 per hour, i.e. an increase of
Canada Elections Act
about 33 per cent. Those are inconsistent measures.
In the past, the lists of Canadian Forces electors were always kept secret. Now, under the provisions of item 61, one may have a furtive glance at them. When you read item 62, however, you discover that this privilege is hereby cancelled.
It may seem odd, when all the lists of electors are made public, that every conceivable effort should be made to conceal the names of our gallant soldiers, ready to shed their blood for their fellow-countrymen.
Since the Valcartier base is located in the Portneuf riding-which I have the honour to represent-there are more than 500 military personnel entitled to cast their vote in Portneuf. Under the previous act, the lists of Canadian Forces electors were unavailable, even to the members of the House. And the election officer of the riding, who is one of my friends, made no bones about telling me: "I have the lists in a file but I am not entitled to let you see them."
It is quite all right to keep secret a list of 50 names, but questions should be asked when 500 names are concealed.
As a matter of fact, the ballot papers on which members of the armed forces are to vote change size, pattern and colour in the process. And the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) was a witness to the fact while attending a judiciary recount.
I do not know if that should be called a transcription or a transposition, but anyhow this method has already resulted in changing electoral results. I have in mind the case of the Sherbrooke riding during the June 1969 election. On election night, the Creditiste candidate was first elected but following the results of the military vote, he was beaten. When time came to recount the votes, the judge phoned Ottawa to obtain the list of Canadian Forces electors who were entitled to vote in Sherbrooke. But he was simply told: Your Honour, this is impossible, the list is confidential. The judge was being asked to pass judgment on a list of names he had not seen, and on ballots of a doubtful origin. I do not know whether this was done for honour or dishonour but, in any event, I doubt that this procedure was regular; I would even go so far as to say the Creditiste member for Sherbrooke may have been defeated by strangers.
Indeed a childhood friend of mine, still in the army and who lived in Portneuf at one

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
time but who has now been living in Montreal with his family for some 25 years, is still entitled to vote in Portneuf.
Worse still, in the last election, he was being treated in an Ontario hospital and was approached by another soldier who went to his bedside to make him vote for a Portneuf candidate. There was no witness in the patient's room. It was the month of June. It is recalled that the weather was beautiful, which explains why the witnesses waited out in the street. You have there as many opportunities for manipulation. Even in a hospital bed, one could already "play" with those famous ballots.
Now, as ridiculous as it may seem, the most deserving citizens are beyond the reach of publicity in national elec.ions. The ordinary citizen assumes his responsibilities of full citizen through his franchise, by participating in public affairs, the economic activity of his country, but soldiers are not entitled to see their name on the list of electors.
In the summary of the main amendments published on page 7419 of Hansard for May 27, we read the following in i.em 61:
A candidate or his accredited representative will be authorized to inspect, in the office of the returning officer, the list of Canadian Forces and Public Service electors, entitled to vote under the Special Voting Rules...and make extracts therefrom-
Yet, item 62, at page 7420 of Hansard for the same day, reads as follows:
The list of Canadian Forces electors prepared by each commanding officer is no longer open for inspection by candidates or their representatives- [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
So those lists are prepared by commanding officers. From now on, they will not be open for inspection.
Under items 61 and 62, of the Summary of the main amendments, should I, at the time of the next election, ask the returning officer for my constituency to examine that secret or semi-secret list of electors, and make extracts therefrom that could eventually prove me right, the returning officer could refuse my request by resorting to item 62 and deny me a privilege granted under item 61, to know the electors in my constituency.
Is it not legitimate for an out-going member to know the electors of his constituency, even before the election, especially in the case of those who have enough courage to expatriate themselves in order to defend their fellow-citizens, their member of Parliament and their minister? If so, why not say it exactly, without hiding anything?

Mr. Speaker, I call for the deletion of item 62, in which the broader provision included in item 61 is cancelled concerning the list of Canadian Forces electors.
I also request that the list of Canadian Forces electors be given the same publicity as those of residing electors in a constituency where a general or by-election is held.
I leave the drafting of the motion to that effect to the efficient staff of the House of Commons.
I hope that the government members also consider the possibility of introducing an amendment to Bill C-215, in order to make the carrying of the identification card compulsory. Other countries have such a card. We would just have to imitate them. Unfortunately, we choose to imitate others even when they do wrong. The time has come now I think to imitate them when they do something right.
In short here are my suggestion. First, I do agree with the reduction of the voting age to 18. Whether we admit it or not, a lot has been asked in the past of our young people. It is the young people in general who have cleared our land. In fact, they cleared the Abitibi area for instance. Some years ago young people went abroad to defend Canada and today again young people are expecting a lot from us who have nothing now to offer them. We offer them to clear the land and to build Canada. We ask them to defend their country in times of war but in times of peace we have nothing to offer them.
I know the young people and I know that they lack patience. If, being older, we tolerate a policy of trial and error on the part of governments, I know that those under 20 will not accept it for very long. By extending to them the right to vote, we are simply giving them the opportunity to make known their wishes and to compel the government to act.
Furthermore, as I said before, contributions to electoral funds should be made known to the public.
The list of electors in the armed forces should also be revealed to the public and finally a compulsory identification card should be carried at all times. If we want to increase the confidence of the Canadian people in our parliamentary institutions, we will have to do everything possible to avoid fraud with regard to the exercise of the franchise. Studies have already been carried out in that respect. Time has come to discuss them and to effect the required changes since honest elections are the basis for a just society.
June 9, 1970


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, by the time someone of my distinct lack of seniority rises to speak in a debate such as this, the minister who is piloting the bill must worder why in heaven's name we do not all sit down. Since he has had the courtesy to come into the House, I thought I would let him in on a little opposition strategy. Debate is initially an attempt to impress upon the government through rational and cogent argument the virtues of the opposition's case. If the government does not then immediately accept the rationality of those arguments and make the necessary amendments that will incorporate our thinking in their bills, we adopt the tactic of the Chinese water torture, that is of repeating our arguments incessantly until hopefully the minister, out of sheer horror at the prospect of having to hear them again, decides to adopt our suggestions. It is in the noble cause of reducing the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to a quivering mass of jelly that I dedicate these few remarks.
This is the first appropriate opportunity I have had publicly to thank the chief electoral officer, Mr. Duhamel, for the extremely competent and eminently fair way in which he conducted the Selkirk by-election. Though it is not particularly relevant to the bill, I should like to put that on the record. He did a wonderful job under sometimes difficult conditions. I should also like to draw the attention of this House to the exemplary conduct of the returning officer for the Selkirk constituency, Mr. Grant del Bigio, whose impartiality was unquestionable and whose accessibility to the candidates and their agents left absolutely nothing to be desired. In all of this, I might add, he was most ably assisted by his wife, who is both charming and competent.
At the risk of sounding unctuous, I wish to say that the legislation before us is not really an appropriate vehicle for partisan speeches. All hon. members must be equally concerned to ensure that the electoral laws of this nation provide the greatest possible opportunity for electors to exercise their franchise with the minimum possible opportunity for the abuse of that privilege and right. I mention these truisms only because the bulk of the remainder of my remarks will, in the interest of brevity, be devoted mainly to a discussion of what I consider to be shortcomings in this legislation which, on the whole, represents a considerable improvement. In short, my remarks are offered in the spirit of construc-
Canada Elections Act
five criticism. I hope that hon. members will accept them in that light, and that when we come to the Committee of the Whole House debate we will give consideration to at least incorporating the principles of the suggestions I am about to make into the legislation.
One of the major considerations in any electoral law should be that of ensuring that it eliminates to the fullest extent possible any artificial inequities between individual candidates and between the various political parties contesting an election. It is in the interest of the proper functioning of the democratic system that members be elected, in so far as is possible, by the exercise of a rational choice by the electorate on the basis of such considerations as the candidate's ability, training, experience, the merits of the program which he and his party espouse, and the quality of leadership that his party displays. We should, for example, seek to eliminate the effect that the amount of money available to a candidate can have upon his fortunes at the polls.
I would reiterate the point made by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that there is a need for a companion piece of legislation to this reform of the electoral law which will regulate election expenses. This need still exists, despite the fact that the Barbeau committee report on election expenses is now so old it is growing whiskers. I understand that the President of the Privy Council contemplates taking action on this question shortly, and I welcome the undertaking. However, I think it would have been more appropriate to introduce that legislation prior to the bill we have before us.
However, there remain means that we can employ within the context of this bill to reduce the effect of financial disparities upon the outcome of an election. This can be done by reducing the length of time allotted to campaigns when an election is called. I understand that the standing committee examined this problem at some length and reached the conclusion that the type of machinery-such as permanent voters' lists-which would be necessary for a reduction in the length of campaign time would be prohibitively costly. However, I do not feel like giving up on the idea yet, and I hope that the committee stage of this bill will provide an opportunity to seek means of achieving the highly desirable goal of reducing the length of time devoted to campaigning.
Another principle that should govern the drafting of electoral law-
June 9, 1970

Navigable Waters Protection Act The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order; it being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration oi private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Shipping- Safety standards of foreign-registered ships operating in Canadian waters; the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin)-National parks-Request for development of facility in light of pollution of Lake Erie; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Mc-Cleave)-Violent disturbances-Montreal'- Bomb explosions-Co-operation by Royal Canadian Mounted Police with other forces.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: that Bill C-39, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (prevention of water pollution), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe a minor error has arisen, although perhaps we should deal with it later, when we find out whether there are more speakers on the bill than there is time available. I do not think that the committee on Health and Welfare is the right committee to which to send the bill. It should more properly be sent to the transport Committee, but perhaps we could rectify this error later. In any event, my Bill C-39 would amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act and insert after clause 15, a provision which would make it possible for the minister to order the owner of a vessel

which has gone aground and is causing pollution to remove the wreck or to have it destroyed, and to order that the owner of the vessel or cargo pay the full costs of such actions. Section 16 of the act as it now reads permits this to be done only in the case where the wreck in question is obstructing navigation. The purpose of this amendment is to enlarge the minister's scope so that the same powers will be granted to him to permit the removal of wrecks or other vessels when they become a danger from the point of view of pollution.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This matter has a fairly lengthy history. It first came to my attention when a vessel of the Holland American line, sailing out of Rotterdam, grounded and eventually sank off the west coast of Vancouver Island on January 3
1968.	This vessel was the MS Schiedyk. It had on board 150 tons of heavy diesel fuel, 120 tons of light diesel oil, and a certain amount of lubricating oil. The payment of the cost of cleaning up the pollution damage that resulted from this wreck was by the government of Canada; in other words, the taxpayers of Canada. The purpose of the amendment to the act I am proposing would be to shift that burden of cost from the government and taxpayer to the people who should be responsible, namely the vessel owners as well as the people who own the cargo of that vessel.
Hon. members will recall that in the Canada Shipping Act amendments, which were considered a little over a year ago, the government attempted to introduce a provision similar to this. Those amendments were in Bill S-23, which came before the Senate in
1969.	The particular clause in that government measure which would have had the effect of my amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act was clause 24, which was unfortunately struck out by the Senate committee on transport and subsequently by the Senate itself. The Senate did this after hearing representations from shipping interests, the International Chamber of Shipping and other such bodies and their Canadian equivalents. The debates, which are most interesting and which I recommend to hon. members, are in the Senate proceedings of the committee on transport and communications Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of February 27, March 6 and March 13 of 1969.
It was decided by the Senators that as the provisions of clause 24 of Bill S-23 would cause Canadian law to be somewhat out of line with the legislation of other states, it
June 9, 1970

should not be passed until the international organization which concerns itself with such matters, namely, the International Maritime Consultative Organization, dealt with the matter at their meeting in Brussels in November of 1969. The meeting was held, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) represented Canada. He made a statement at this meeting in which he put forward Canada's view, and the line of argument which is behind both my amendment today as well as clause 24 of Bill S-23 of last year.
Unfortunately, at the meeting of the International Maritime Consultative Organisation in Brussels there were many states represented, some of which have no coastline but large oil interests, and some of which have coastlines but also have extensive shipping interests. Naturally, these states are less concerned about oil pollution at sea than we are. The results of pollution coming from a tanker was absolutely liable, regardless of fault, for the Canadian position that the vessel owners as well as the cargo owners should be made not accepted by the majority of states there. Some progress was made at that conference, but I think it is clear that the Canadian view did not get very far at the meeting. Let me discuss for a moment why we did not succeed. The arguments put forward, which are contained, by the way, in the Senate references which I have given the House, suggested that the nature of marine insurance would make it impossible to apply unlimited liability upon a shipping company. This argument was put forward at length. It is one that I have considered and that I reject. I would be very surprised indeed if the insurance business, which is a flexible business-we have all heard that Lloyds will insure anything- cannot find some way of insuring vessels at sea for the ultimate consequences of any shipwreck or disaster at sea. I am quite sure that if the industry put its mind to it, there is a way of insuring vessels regardless of the limit of liability. Certainly, in the case of commercial aircraft the liability of the insurer is almost unlimited. One instance which I was given showed that $80 million was paid by Insurance Companies for one airline disaster. If they can find it possible to insure a single aircraft for up to $80 million, I think it is incredible that they should argue they can only insure a ship up to a total upper limit of $10 million to $15 million.
So, I reject their argument because I think if we insist upon the idea first of a limitation and second of liability only in case of fault, we will make it quite impossible for the inno-

Navigable Waters Protection Act cent people who may have marinas, fishing camps, or who may be commercial fishermen, all those people who live along the shore and gain their livelihood from the sea, to collect from these large oil interests. Thus they will suffer from the disasters rather than the people who I think should be responsible for the costs, namely the shipping and oil companies.
It was suggested that perhaps a voluntary organization of shipping interests might be the best way to deal with the problem. It was mentioned to the committee and elsewhere that the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement Concerning Liability for Oil Pollution would satisfactorily take care of this particular matter. I think that the existence of such an organization does not make such legislation as I propose unnecessary. In my opinion, it is quite essential for us to have absolute liability, and to have it without necessarily requiring proof of fault on the major oil carriers.
The argument was put forward that ultimately the consumer will have to pay for any increase in cost, if the cost of shipping oil is increased and that this is bad. I submit that the consumer of oil is precisely the one who should pay, not the taxpayer, not the general public, not the people who happen to live along waterways which are frequented by these enormous vessels, but the people who use the oil. If the insurance is going to be expensive for such carriage of oil, well, that is tough; and if it increases the cost of oil, that is tough, too. However, why should the people who use that oil not bear that cost and risk? I say the people who use that oil, but naturally the company will pay in the first instance, and then will pass on the cost to the consumer. But why should the general public be responsible for the clean up, and why should little people be subjected to disaster simply because of this legal difficulty which oil companies and shipping interests see?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is a second point which is most important here, and which is especially important to Canada's northland. If we continue with our present way of placing the risks on others than the oil companies and others than the consumer, we distort the costs of shipping by sea as opposed to shipping by pipe line. I think hon. members can appreciate the point, that if we allow the taxpayer to bear the cost of cleaning up oil pollution and do not put the cost where it should be, on the shipper or oil company, then we have created
June 9, 1970

Navigable Waters Protection Act a subsidy, a sort of hidden extra benefit for the oil company that intends to ship by sea. The pipeline, which perhaps might be an alternate and better method of transporting oil is not given this, subsidy and so the cost comparison, which may involve hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars, is severely distorted.
I think we should reject the arguments put forward by the shipping interests, although I must say they were most interesting and ingenious, and go back to the position of Canada prior to the Brussels meeting at which, as I have stated, we unfortunately failed to have our views accepted. It is, therefore, my purpose in moving this particular amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to do precisely what should have been done last year with Bill S-23, clause 24.
As it happens, my Bill C-39 was written in 1968 before I had any knowledge of last year's government bill. Nevertheless, the way things have turned out, perhaps my bill is as valid as ever. Had Bill S-23 been passed in its entirety and not been amended by the Senate, then perhaps my bill would have become redundant. However, there are two events which have occurred since then. One was the rejection by the Senate of the clause I mentioned. The second was the failure of Canada to succeed at the International Maritime Consultative Organization meeting. Therefore, this particular amendment once more becomes one of considerable validity.
I cannot in all fairness see why we should except oil and shipping interests from the cost of pollution, an exception which makes pollution something to be borne by the public, just as the results of an act of God must be borne by the public. Pollution such as I have described results from some human action, such as somebody putting oil on a ship and somebody else having that ship go from A to B. The suggestion that if the ship is cut in two by another ship, or hits a rock through no fault of the owner, the captain or the company, then that is an act of God, the costs of which should be borne by others, is obviously absurd. Human direction has been given to put that ship where it may get into difficulty. It is only logical to assume that the people who initiate such action, the person who puts oil on board, and the shipping company should bear the cost of any subsequent cleanup. We are not dealing with small sums of money. We are dealing with enormous figures. I understand the sinking of the Torrey Canyon led to cleaning up costs of something in the neighbourhood of $12 million to $20

million. The Santa Barbara disaster off the California coast, which was not caused by a ship but by oil seepage from the seabed, led to property damages estimated at $1 billion. We are in an area in which there is tremendous cost.
I think that only by forcing all shipping lines and oil companies which transport oil by sea to take out the appropriate and necessary insurance are we ever going to make sure that we really do get around the difficulty posed by these disasters. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this particular bill will not be talked out, and that it will be possible to amend the motion so as to send it either to the committee on environmental pollution or the committee on transport, rather than to the one on health and welfare as the motion now reads.
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself in the peculiar position of rising to address myself to a motion moved by the hon. member and being in agreement with the principle but having a few questions at the back of my mind about the practical realities of the bill itself. I appreciate the hon. member's remarks about what seems to be the intent of government. I think the intention of the government is clear, and I think it is a step that we can not only support, but upon which we can urge the government to move more swiftly. If the hon. member's bill has that effect, then he has done a good service indeed. However, Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the bill that surprise me because the hon. member is a seafaring man.
I do not know whether his yacht is still in our delightful province, or whether he has it en route to British Columbia. However, I am tempted by the lack of his awareness, at least as indicated by what is in the bill, to say that while the hon. gentleman does have some knowledge of bathtub races and concrete boats,-he is somewhat of an expert in the latter thing-he has not addressed himself in his bill to the practical reality of ownership of a vessel or its cargo at the time of an accident to the vessel.
It must be borne in mind that accidents with vessels on the high seas, in coastal waters or in our ports are not deliberate things. They are indeed acts of God and the owners of these vessels have taken-perhaps what is no longer valid in terms of the dangers from pollution-reasonable precautions to insure and protect themselves against loss. I think all of us are aware that this has
June 9, 1970

presented the very difficult problem, in terms of pollution particularly, in the first few days of an accident of determining just exactly who does own a vessel, just exactly when a vessel is abandoned, just exactly when ownership changes from one party to another party or from first parties to second or indeed even third parties in connection with the insurance of cargo.
Many ships sailing around these days carry cargo which is worth a lot more than the ships themselves. This is one of the points the hon. gentleman was trying to make, and I agree with him. In some cases the insurance on these vessels is relatively low, and in terms of the total value of the vessel and the cargo, the greater amount is on the cargo.
This question is there, and I believe all of us on this side would have wished that the hon. member might have attempted to address himself to the problem of ownership by perhaps changing the emphasis of what he is seeking to achieve. I suggest he might have done that by seeking enabling legislation authorizing, and indeed directing, the Department of Transport or other agencies to take what action is required to immediately remove the effect of the pollution or whatever the difficulty happened to be. He could then come along and hit them, as he has quite properly done, with a provision for financial responsibility. There may be other practical reasons why such an approach cannot be made, Mr. Speaker, but it suggests what we can do within hours of the occurrence of an accident.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The explanatory notes to this bill refer to a shipping accident. They indicate that four months passed between the time of the accident and when it was finally cleaned up. In Nova Scotia, we have just experienced a disastrous accident and all Nova Scotians are aware of the sorry and dreadful state of affairs which obtains when such a disaster is not swiftly and effectively dealt with, particularly when it involves oil. The emergency should be dealt with within hours, not days or weeks. It is to this point that I think comment should be and hopefully will be directed by those who are working diligently on the preparation of a report on the Arrow disaster in Chedabucto Bay in Nova Scotia.
Speaking personally and not for my party, I believe that in cases such as the Arrow and the Torrey Canyon, where we are talking in terms of massive bulk carriers of 250,000 or

Navigable Waters Protection Act 500,000 tons-I understand that Lloyds of London in the last year or two have introduced insurance provisions for a one million ton tanker-our action immediately following an accident is vitally important. No amount of organization, laws, regulations and up to date equipment are going to prevent an accident. The accident curve is real and those who believe accidents can be prevented are whistling in the dark.
It is my belief that stretching from the tip of Vancouver Island north, crossing into the Arctic, across the Arctic and down the eastern coast, we should have a series of "fire stations" if you will. These should be staffed by highly trained, skilled personnel headed by a scientist or a man highly trained in the techniques of combating oil pollution. The crew should be trained in the effective use of the latest and most adequate equipment available to deal with pollution. Such crews should be stationed along our coasts at convenient intervals, but not more than 150 miles apart. Perhaps the stations should be under the jurisdiction of the armed forces with the crews on duty 24 hours a day, even if they stayed there for months and months without, we hope, ever being called upon.
The cost of maintaining these stations, compared with the losses resulting from an accident of a supertanker the size of the Manhattan is infinitesimal. These tankers are no longer dreams but are realities on the high seas. I think it is regrettable that the hon. member did not address himself in the bill to more practical considerations of this nature because that is something we support.
It is regrettable that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) was not able to persuade other countries of the advantages of this proposal and the absolute necessity for it. I hope there is no member who would wish to talk this bill out, because we would take some pleasure in supporting it although, as I have mentioned, it is deficient in that it avoids one or two practical realities.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this particular measure I think it must be said that, as a result of the Arrow catastrophe, we all recognize this is a very important bill in principle. It is also important for the reason expressed in the explanatory notes to the bill itself.
First of all, I should like to state that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is presently being considered and will be amended to cover such situations in the future. In making this statement, it is only fair that I make
June 9, 1970

Navigable Waters Protection Act reference to many other items that have been taken up in this House and which concern over-all anti-pollution measures in Canada.
One such important measure considered in this session is Bill C-203, an act to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. This deals with extending the fisheries limit from three to 12 miles. Another is Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act which enables the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) to act on a continuing basis on water research in order to prevent pollution. The Minister of Fisheries can now act before the fish die instead of waiting until dead fish are found. A good example of this occurred in Newfoundland a short time ago when the Minister of Fisheries caused a company to close down its operations until such time as the water pollution was cleaned up. This measure prevented the further death of fish in that particular area.
Another important piece of legislation in this session is Bill C-202, an act to prevent pollution of areas of the Arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian Arctic. This bill will have far-reaching effects in an anti-pollution program.
One thing that has come out of the Arrow disaster, Mr. Speaker, is that by and large the international community, not just Canada, is lacking in research and in practical procedures for the cleaning up of oil pollution in water. This is probably one of the most important reasons why we should prevent oil pollution instead of facing the situation after the spill has occurred.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think it is only fair to point out that Canada is one of the countries leading the world in the study of oceanography. When the members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works about a month ago visited the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, we learned that the institute had begun studying oil pollution in offshore waters. The hon. member sponsoring Bill C-39 will probably be interested to learn that Victoria will be the site of one of the major research centres in Canada. Its activities will cover the western provinces of Canada, embrace much of the Yukon and Northwest Territories and cover all of British Columbia and its offshore waters. He is one member who will probably derive a great deal of satisfaction from the establishment by the federal government of this research institute in Victoria, British Columbia.

I commend the hon. member for his interest in protecting the offshore fisheries of British Columbia. In the past he has displayed an interest in protecting the inland waters of British Columbia. We in this House recognize that British Columbia is a very beautiful province, but no matter whether we live in central, eastern or western Canada, we are Canadians first. We must work together in the common interest of protecting the beauty of our country.
The Institute of Oceanography at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, sponsors vessels which undertake research in the ocean. In this regard a great deal of co-ordination and cooperation is going on among federal departments such as the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. These departments co-operate with the provincial agencies concerned. The importance of checking off spills was brought home to the members of this House by the oil spill on the east coast of Canada. What happened demonstrated that this country and other countries in the world lack the necessary technology to deal with such spills. I submit that it is important for the government of Canada to put more money into research devoted to solving this problem. If we want to continue playing a leading role in the field of oceanography and research of the seas, we must be willing to safeguard the sea. We can only do that by using all our scientific knowledge and by giving the scientists the necessary tools with which to do their work.
In this country, as well as in other countries, scientific programs involving research into fields such as these and into atomic energy have been most expensive to carry on. When governments spend large amounts of money on certain projects, the people naturally look for results. Often the results of this research are not immediately apparent. I think the people of Canada must learn to be patient and not expect something to happen on the spur of the moment. They must be willing to accept the necessity of long range programs which will enable us to handle problems like these.
I am delighted to learn that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will seek to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act and to do that which Bill C-39 seeks to do. We have been talking about the west coast; I see that the explanatory note to the bill refers to Vancouver Island. I think it is also important for us to consider Bill C-187 in this context, the bill respecting inland water resources in the
June 9, 1970

Yukon and Northwest Territories. The subject matter of that bill will also be the concern of the research institute to be founded in Victoria, B.C.
While considering this matter we must also remember the Canada Water Act, which is really a water management act. It is mainly concerned with inland river basins and water quality management, and complements the amendments to the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act amendents will cover those areas of Canada that are not covered by the Canada Water Act which was read the third time last week.
We have heard it said in this House that there is a lack of communication between government departments, and that these departments should co-operate and co-ordinate government programs. Having visited the Inland Waters Centre at Burlington last year, and the Bedford Institute of Oceanography at Dartmouth earlier this year, I can say that there is a great deal of co-operation among federal government departments and that they in turn are co-operating with provincial agencies. The Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works also learned that there is extensive co-operation between certain American states, Canadian provinces such as Ontario and the federal government with respect to international boundary waters. In this field the International Joint Commission has done a most commendable job.
I presume most reports regarding the Arrow disaster off the east coast are accurate. If they are, it is obvious that the shipping firm concerned was very much to blame for what took place. It is important that Canada, in its work on such problems, should not be isolated from the thinking of other countries. There should be international agreements in this area. As a result of our visit to Dartmouth we learned that on this matter there is considerable co-operation among countries in the western world. We hope that as a result of our new look toward Asia there will be growing co-operation among countries in the Far East and Canada and that this will upgrade the rules and regulations governing shipping companies, no matter from what countries they hail. We must make sure that these companies improve their standards.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There is very little use in a country having strong legislation which protects its coastal waters if other countries do not do likewise.
Navigable Waters Protection Act Canada must play a leading role with regard to oil pollution off the coast of any country. Canada should promote international meetings and conferences so that all shipping countries of the world will be impressed with their responsibility in keeping the waters clean.
There are many other matters that could be dealt with, such as migratory birds, fish, plant life and sea life in general.


An hon. Member:: Liberal birds.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If they are Liberal birds, they will be very strong flyers. We can get things done in this House by flying over some of the tactics of the opposition. Canada should play a leading role in international politics to promote conferences among the shipping countries of the world. These countries should realize that they have a moral responsibility to prevent oil pollution. It is natural to assume that industrial complexes in various parts of the world will grow at the same rate as the population of the world. As these complexes grow, shipments of oil and gas will increase.
The hon. member is to be complimented on presenting this bill for protection from pollution off our shores. I hope that our scientists who are working diligently at places such as the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, the new Research Institute at Victoria and the Inland Waters Centre at Burlington will accept this new challenge. I hope they will make constructive suggestions which can be incorporated into legislation. We must have legislation with teeth in it so that the regulations will be enforced.
This is a vast problem. The International Court must be the means of ensuring that countries toe the mark with regard to the waters of other countries and international waters. It is very important that a standard of law be developed at the international level. This would result from laws developed at the national level by the various countries of the world. The next step would be enforce the regulations.
Oil slicks that appeared on our waters from time to time were not looked upon seriously until we had a catastrophe. The hon. member who sponsored Bill C-39, and other members who treat this as an important issue, create in our country a mental climate in which people are willing to provide services and accept constructive legislation in order to arrive at a program of anti-pollution. The Canadian people can be proud of those working in the
June 9, 1970

Navigable Waters Protection Act fields of science in this country. They have made a great name for this country at the international level. All hon. members have a moral obligation to support research programs, not only those in our own country but in the developing nations. Standards of living throughout the world can be improved by having anti-pollution legislation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I am
very pleased that Your Honour has been able to overcome your obvious bias to belatedly recognize me. I hope Your Honour will continue this practice in the future without having any misgivings.
I am pleased to participate in this debate upon request. I congratulate the hon. member for having introduced this bill. I think it represents the thought of many Canadians that pollution is being created by outside sources over which we have no control. It is a subject in which the average person must participate because of the magnitude of the disaster that can be created. Canada is not a shipping nation; we have a very limited number of ships. However, we have an immense seabed and seacoast and there is a tremendous amount of shipping in our waters and along our coasts.
Since this bill was introduced by the hon. member, there have been a number of disasters. The recent Arrow disaster has been mentioned. A very large sum of money is being spent to clean up that problem. Part of the cost of cleaning up pollution must be borne by the country, because of its nature, but the main portion should be borne by the industries that are polluting our waters. The people of West Africa were faced with a problem with which they were not able to cope. World attention was focused on the sinking of the Torrey Canyon. Disasters such as these are not local problems. There was also a disaster off the coast of California. When disasters such as these occur, the area in which the disaster occurs must be compensated.
I listened with interest to the previous speaker, who referred to everything but the bill. The bill is limited. The hon. member raised a number of very important points. He mentioned that we are only now developing the techniques, know-how and research necessary to provide leadership in solving problems created by this type of disaster.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The disaster on the west coast which prompted the hon. member to bring forward


the bill was a relatively small one. The Arrow mishap cannot be placed in that category. Maybe the next accident will be four or five times as serious. All our resources will be needed to deal with such situations, including the equipment necessary to restrict damage to as small an area as possible and to make clean-up possible before the damage has reached its peak.
Today we are probably in a much better position to accept legislation of this kind than we were in the past when several amendments having the same general intention were put forward by my hon. friends. I hope this proposal will go before the Transport Committee and that consideration will be given to it. Everyone in the country gives a great deal of credit to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) for the way in which he has exercised his responsibility to the fullest extent under the laws which now exist for combating or preventing pollution in areas over which he has control. We hope a similar kind of control will be exercised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) following the amendment of our laws.
I am not sure whether this object can be achieved under the Navigable Waters Protection Act in exactly the way suggested, but no doubt the committee hearings will establish the mechanisms by which the object can be effected by legislation. Under the bill the minister would be given power to demand that the company concerned should undertake the necessary salvage operation, or alternatively the nation as a whole would do so, the cost being borne by the user of the facility. The average person who is interested in this problem will be most unhappy if the government, through its supporters, talks out this legislation today instead of allowing it to go to committee where it could receive a favourable hearing.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on pollution control. It is a subject which is occupying the minds of more and more Canadians throughout our land. If the mail of other hon. members is anything like my own, not a day goes by when they do not receive letters from concerned citizens asking what is being done to control pollution. I therefore congratulate the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) on introducing an amendment to the act which will assist in clearing up a problem in
June 9, 1970

his own locality which has been brought forcibly to his attention.
I think he is perfectly correct in saying that we should not continually expect the taxpayers of this nation to foot the bill for pollution which has been caused through no fault of their own. I think he is well within his rights, and Parliament would be well within its rights, to make it clear that the polluter must pay. This was the principle which lay behind the recently passed Canada Water Act. We sought to make important amendments to the legislation. Every one of us felt that the underlying principle was that the polluter should pay.
What concerns me about the whole question of pollution is the government's method of attacking it on a scattergun basis, like a man using a shotgun loaded with buckshot in the hope that one pellet will hit the mark. The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) put on record a list of legislation and amendments thereto which have sought to deal with pollution. It seems to me our work would be more effective if one department of government were given the responsibility for dealing with all forms of pollution. It may be impossible to amend all our legislation along these lines, but a start must be made somewhere.
The Canada Water Act sought to make the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources the focal point for pollution control in this country, especially as it relates to water. Recently, general support was expressed for the government's decision to set up a committee to study environmental pollution. Perhaps this is the committee in which the first step will be taken to draw together all forms of pollution control. We do not like to see new departments of government set up, because their number has gone beyond reason already. However, there must surely be a way of centralizing pollution control.
I think there is a danger in this country that we may get scared of pollution and become unrealistic about it. Professor Hans Carol, of the Department of Geography, York University, Downsview, wrote a timely letter-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Canada Elections Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, when I was overtaken by the coming of private members' hour this afternoon I was saying that another principle which should govern the drafting of electoral law is that of maximizing the opportunity of electors to exercise their franchise. Although the legislation before us moves a long way in that direction, nevertheless in my opinion there remain some shortcomings within the legislation. Before I address myself to them I should like to take a moment to express my pleasure at the intent of this legislation to reduce the voting age to 18.
Three Canadian provinces now permit voting at the age of 19 and four at the age of 18. Reduction of the voting age to 18 was one of the first acts of the CCF administration when it assumed office in Saskatchewan; and it was one of the first acts passed by the legislature under the New Democratic Party government in Manitoba. Experience in at least six of these seven jurisdictions indicates that the measure has merit. I am most pleased that we at the federal level may see fit to follow suit.
To return to those areas where there would seem to be shortcomings in the attempt to maximize opportunities for the exercise of the franchise, I should like to make brief but specific reference to the problems associated with placing people on electoral lists in urban polling divisions when through some misfortune they have missed being enumerated and have also missed the court of revision procedures. This is not uncommon. I think that if the legislation is to fulfil its purpose in maximizing opportunity for electors to vote, it should take into account the fact that people can innocently miss being enumerated and miss the court of revision procedures,

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
and make some provision to accommodate them.
My colleague for Regina East (Mr. Burton) has an interesting suggestion in this regard which I hope will come before the House when it is assembled in committee of the whole. The procedure that he envisages involves a person being able to swear that he is a qualified elector. His ballot, on being cast, is placed in an envelope on which his name would be found. A list of persons thus casting ballots would be supplied to each candidate in the election so that he could challenge any of the names listed. The person or persons so challenged would then be notified so they could make representations at the time the ballots were to be counted. Once this procedure had been completed, the ballots would be taken from the envelopes, put in the ballot-box so they remained completely anonymous, and then counted. This is a suggestion to which we might devote some attention in committee of the whole.
Another way to maximize opportunities to vote relates to the polling hours that are allocated. In this regard I would strongly urge the House to consider an extension of the voting hours from the seven o'clock p.m. as provided in the legislation before us to eight o'clock p.m. This would accommodate a great many industrial workers as well as people who work in white collar jobs in commerce and service industries.
Another area that we might well examine in committee of the whole with regard to maximizing voting potential concerns the number of days allocated to advance polling. There are difficulties in regard to accommodating some sectors of our population, such as the railroaders, within the two days at present allowed for advance polling. It may well be advisable to increase the number of days allotted to advance polling.
Related to the need to maximize the opportunity to vote is the necessity to minimize the opportunity for abuse of the right of voting. In this regard I am somewhat nervous about the extensive provisions for proxy voting contemplated by the bill. While such a system is obviously needed for certain groups in our community-an outstanding example of such groups being fishermen-most other groups would be equally well served, I submit, by a comprehensive system of absentee balloting. A system of absentee balloting would, I believe, be less subject to abuse than that of

proxy voting and would serve the needs of the community equally well.
A further principle which should govern the operation of election machinery in a democracy is that of unassailable impartiality on the part of electoral officials. The office of Chief Electoral Officer undoubtedly meets that standard, as does its current occupant. So, too, does the current method of redistributing seats. However, I believe that despite the irreproachable conduct of the vast majority of our returning officers, the causes of impartiality and objectivity, as well as efficiency, would be better served if these officials were appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer after the positions had been advertised and a competition had been held to fill them.
There is one further, rather small omission in the bill as it now stands which I should like to draw to the attention of the House, one which is of particular interest to those of us who represent constituencies which are partially urban and partially rural. I am referring to the difficulties involved in recognizing officially the change in character of a polling division from rural to urban and governing the operation of that poll accordingly.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Once again, one of my colleagues will have a suggestion to place before the House in this regard. I am referring to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who will submit his excellent suggestion to the House in the form of an amendment seeking to designate automatically a polling division as being urban if it has a postal walk. As I say, he will be introducing an amendment to that effect, and I heartily recommend it to the House, assuming of course that the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) does not attempt to reduce his numerous problems by totally eliminating the posties.
I would like to conclude by saying I consider that the legislation which is before us represents a considerable improvement upon that which has in the past governed elections in Canada. The kind of principles and suggestions which we have been putting forward from the opposition side in the last few hours of debate are, I think, well worth the attention of the House. I hope they will receive that attention when we reach Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, in taking a very brief part in the discussion of this momentous Bill C-215, which runs to no
June 9, 1970

less than 355 pages and appears to me to cover every conceivable aspect or contingency having to do with voting, I intend to confine my remarks to two or three general areas and to give broad support to what is being proposed as being better than that which the voters have had in the past.
There is one particular provision of the bill in which I am interested. It has to do with proxy voting, as outlined in the proposals on pages 236 to 239 of the legislation. In the province of British Columbia there are more than two million people, and over half of them live in less than one-half of one per cent of the land area of the province-that is, around the metropolitan area of Vancouver and in the Lower Fraser Valley. In those places there live a great many industrial workers-fishermen,	miners, construction
workers and loggers. This general group of industrial workers over many years of federal elections has been to a substantial extent disenfranchised through the failure of the existing electoral legislation.
Every summer thousands of these industrial workers on the mainland of British Columbia, whether they be fishermen, loggers or miners, take off for the hills, the seas or the mines to carry on their work. They work out of town, away from the one half of one per cent of the land area of the province. Very often when a election takes place, which is often in the summertime, they have been long gone from their home constituencies prior to the holding of the advance poll, which is therefore of no use to them. Being away from their constituencies during the campaign and on voting day, they virtually lose their vote. Large numbers of them have lost their vote. This has had a detrimental effect with regard to one party and an advantageous effect with regard to other parties.
It is no secret that the party I represent here, the NDP, is most closely allied to and representative of the industrial workers of many areas. Consequently, the fact that many of these workers are unable to vote in their home areas has a considerable and tangible effect on the outcome of the election in those areas. Generally speaking, I think the effect has been to create an artificial result in some of the constituencies, giving added weight to the older parties and less weight to the party which the majority of those workers support.
I am glad to see that in the legislation before us this situation is tackled, to some extent at least, in the provisions regarding proxy voting. My hope is that the new system 22478-Hi
Canada Elections Act
of voting proposed in the legislation before us will enable many workers who cannot now vote in their home constituencies to have a vote there. That is better than the system we have had, to the extent that something is better than nothing.
I hope that if this legislation passes it will succeed in achieving a truer political expression of the people in many areas of Canada where industrial workers are often removed from their home base at election time. I wonder whether fuller consideration might not be given to this aspect of the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act. It may be that we should urge that the matter be referred back to the committee for further consideration to see whether what is put before us will be practical in solving the voting problem of a great many industrial workers.
I commend very highly the provisions for proxy voting for incapacitated people, the blind and those who have physical disabilities which prevent them from getting out to the polls and voting by themselves. I think the proxy vote will be very beneficial for those people, for the electoral system and for the country.
In connection with what is proposed in regard to the service vote, the members of our party-and I imagine many members from other parties-have long questioned the situation where any votes in an election are made public, where a group of voters have had their votes made public. I refer, of course, to the fact that in a federal election there is a service vote and after the election the result of that vote is tabulated. We are all familiar with the news headlines stating that the armed services vote went this way or that way. I object to that: I think it infringes on the right to secrecy of ballot. I think this practice should have been stopped before now.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
My colleague, the usually well-informed, excellent and astute member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) made two or three suggestions today when he was speaking on this measure. I say he is usually well informed, astute and wise, but personally I wonder at some of the proposals he made. As I understood him, he would set different restrictions or regulations on the reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18 years. He felt this was a good move. He suggested that in order to qualify for the franchise, younger people should be required

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
to perform a useful public service. I do not believe in that, Mr. Speaker. If we set qualifications with regard to who should vote, they should be applied equally to adults as well as to the young. If the franchise is extended on an age basis, this principle should be universally applied.
I may say I am surprised to find myself so much in contradiction with what my colleague said today. He also suggested that the franchise be extended to the inmates of penal servitude institutions. His idea is that this would encourage people in prison to feel they were truly citizens because they could take part in our democratic processes. I am of the opposite view. People in these institutions have yet to prove themselves citizens in the full sense of the word, much as we may wish them to become that. Rather than give them the same rights as citizens who are law respecters, I believe we should maintain the present situation and not extend the franchise to those in penal institutions until they have served their term of imprisonment.
As I say, I am surprised at the hon. member's suggestions. I admire and usually respect the judgment and viewpoints of my colleague. But this goes to illustrate the very interesting aspects of the legislation. I support much of what is proposed in the bill. It represents a step forward. We in our party will have a number of amendments to propose, and we will do so in the hope of improving the reforms which we have been discussing.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Canada Elections Act, which undoubtedly ranks among the best in the world, is to allow every eligible citizen to exercise freely his right to vote.
Some time ago, a special committee was instructed to consider this legislation, and without having been closely involved in its proceedings, I have no hesitation in saying that its members have surely done a fine job, and that they deserve our consideration. All their efforts aimed at one thing, to make our act even more effective, if possible.
Many recommendations of the committee have been incorporated to the bill before the House, and I support them with a great deal of satisfaction. Other recommendations I view with less enthusiasm, while I am in total disagreement with some others. I agree with the committee that in our day and age, young people of 18 should be enfranchised and allowed to make their views known.

Until recently, we have always considered young people eligible only to the privilege of defending the country. But the maturity they have shown-and this must be admitted- entitles them to be recognized as full fledged members of our democratic society, and I am pleased to see that the committee has decided to grant them franchise.
I am also in favour of the steps taken to improve the voting procedures for the armed forces. We often have to wait several days to learn the final results of the vote in some constituencies. Needless to say that those delays result in real inconvenience, not only for the candidates themselves, but also for the population. The committee therefore deserves our gratefulness and our thanks.
I am not too very keen about the proposal which would allow vote by proxy. In my opinion, such a step would give rise to many abuses. The intent of the legislation should not be criticized, but evil-minded persons should be prevented, especially at election time, from committing abuses and even depriving certain persons of their franchise, because of the proxy vote.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Before granting proxy voting, all aspects of the matter should be considered because in each election, there are always some trouble makers who take advantage of elections to do their own little business.
The law should be as good as it can be because there will always be some ill-intentioned people to get around it. If the law enables those sad specimens of humanity to carry on their activities, I recommend that we reconsider the matter in order to fill this gap in the legislation.
I would be in favor of establishing temporary polls in hospitals or similar institutions. This would enable people who until now have always been prevented from voting to do so without any worry, knowing that they will not run the risk of having their name struck from the electoral list by unknown persons who would vote in their place, since they could not cast their ballot at the ordinary polling station.
I am also in favour of indicating political affiliations on ballots. In addition, the address of candidates should still appear on ballots. It could be added in small print, which would enable the electors to know with whom they are dealing because, in any election, there may be catapulted candidates. As a rule, people in our electoral ridings do not like them.
June 9, 1970

I see across from me the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance) who, like myself, had to deal with a catapulted candidate. He defeated him at the political convention held in his riding, I myself defeated a like candidate in the election. I do not doubt that we are both happy with the results of the 1968 election. Of course, I am only voicing a personal opinion.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that even though a candidate does not belong to a group with a slate of 75 candidates, his affiliation to a party should appear on the ballot. If often happened in the past that for one reason or another legitimate candidates were not chosen at a political convention but were nevertheless elected as independent members. It would therefore mean discrimination if we set at 75 the minimum number of candidates of a political party before party affiliation could be mentioned on the ballot.
Along with many others, I would favour a shorter election campaign. Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, how exhausting it is, especially for party leaders, to travel across Canada. With the present media at our disposal, that is, radio, television and newspapers, I think that we might with advantage shorten election campaigns because they are exhausting, and sometimes we end up so weakened physically that it takes months to recover.
As for the identity card and the permanent list of electors, I think that a lot more time will be needed to consider the merits of those two proposals.
There would surely be some advantages in carrying an identity card and in establishing a permanent electors list. But I wonder if we have made enough progress to introduce these practices, and if it would not be more advisable to postpone those projects in order to look more fully into the matter.
As for election expenses, I am in favour of some degree of control in this connection. I came to that conclusion mostly after the last election campaign during which I went through an astounding experience. Everybody knows that my opponent was a minister and apparently, his supporters were quite determined to get him elected at all costs, because the methods used in St. Hyacinthe by my opponent took us back to the bad old days. In fact, I would not dare to use some of these methods. It was not at all edifying. But enough said. However, I would like at least these things to be put on record.
I could cite numerous examples and I feel I have to tell you what happened at the Hotel-
Canada Elections Act
Dieu of Saint-Hyacinthe, on the morning of the polling day in 1968, around nine o'clock, when a busload of teen-agers invaded the Hotel-Dieu and scattered through the various floors of the hospital. At that time, the hospital employees were helping old people to wash and dress. These oldsters were taken without any more ado to the poll set up in the hospital. Some people believed that such tactics would be to the advantage of my opponent, but out of 727 eligible voters, I won by a majority of 225 votes, in spite of the candies and gifts distributed to the hospital personnel a few days before the poll.
Must I recall that during the last elections, a federal minister has been defeated by the electors of Saint-Hyacinthe, and needless to say, to my great satisfaction. As I was saying ait the beginning of my remarks, no efforts have been spared, although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came twice to visit my riding. A number of ministers also came to visit my riding. Several senators spent a week or two there, going from "door to door" and in spite of all that, as in the constituency of Gamelin, the "catapulted" candidate was not accepted.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make concerning this bill. I thank you.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a duty for me to rise today and express my views on the bill now before us, Bill C-215 entitled "An Act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons".
I am not at all in agreement with the previous speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) when he claims that election campaigns are exhausting. In my opinion, they are not exhausting because it is a good opportunity to visit each voter personally.
First of all, I should like to commend the government on the proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act through this bill as a whole. It is very important that the Elections Act be as impartial as possible and that is the purpose of most of the amendments brought forward. I do say "most of the amendments". Indeed, I would like to draw the attention of the House on clause 13 of this bill with which I entirely disagree.
The second part of this item reads as follows, and I quote:
-any new party that wishes to be identified on the ballot papers must have candidates officially nominated in 75 electoral districts in Canada on the 28th day before polling day.

June 9. 1970
Canada Elections Act
I strongly object to the second part, because I feel it is not up to the government to decide which party will be or will not be an official one according to the number of candidates of that party running in an election. If we do not amend this item, we will rightly be able to accuse the government of discrimination against the people seeking to elect a group of individuals who might be as efficient as any member of any party.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I should like to draw the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) on clause 13 and ask him to delete the figure of 75 in the second part of the item and to replace it by: "a minimum of 10 to 20 per cent". I think the same suggestion was made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council stated in the House, on May 27, that the drawing up of a permanent electors list would cost $13 million to the government and that, therefore, he rejected that possibility.
I know that it is sought in the act to be as fair as possible, but you will agree with me that many irregularities take place at election time. I feel therefore that we must absolutely find a solution which would encourage honesty at election time, and I endorse the views of many a member who would make it compulsory to carry an identity card that the elector would have to show to the clerk and to the representatives of the various parties, failing which he would have to sign an affidavit or to take the oath under clause 39. I believe that this amendment to the act would protect the elector and eliminate frequent frauds.
The amendments to clause 4 provide that when it has been necessary to suspend voting at a polling station on polling day by reason of a particular circumstance, the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to extend the hours of voting at the polling station beyond the hour fixed for the closing of the poll.
I feel we should set a closing time for the polling stations, otherwise there might be delays in knowing the final results for the riding concerned, and this could influence the vote of those who might vote after learning the results in other polls of the same riding or neighbouring ridings.
In closing, I should like to congratulate the government for having inserted section 14 in the bill now under study. I am very pleased to welcome this new concept of maturity in

our people. I feel that Canadians between 18 and 21 can doubtless be considered as being mature people.
In our modern world, where communications media are lightning-fast, where education has become compulsory and accessible to almost every one, and where we feel an overall awakening in our young people, I feel that it is very wise to allow them to use the fundamental right of man, that of choosing his administrators.
I have heard many people say they believe those young people would vote according to the opinions of the group rather than according to the personal value of a candidate.
I believe we are all aware of the influence of opinion polls prior to elections, of the part played by the psychological climate of a community which influences the vote of numerous electors. I believe young Canadians will vote with far more seriousness, which will prompt politicians to present more realistic platforms than in the past, in order to solve the problems we have to cope with.
Students are often much more critical than older people. They are looking for faults and they find them. Being very active, whenever they dedicate themselves to a cause, they do it thoroughly, which could give a more rational and realistic meaning to our elections.
I believe however that we should find ways of letting people know what is going on in the House. That question deserves consideration.
Once again, I congratulate the government for inserting in the bill clause 14 which gives the franchise to every person of 18.
However, I think that we should consider the majority at 18 years of age which would grant privileges in all other fields: insurance, licenses and the right to go into beverage rooms. We should have more confidence in our young Canadians who want to grow up with a sense of participation in the life of the community as full-fledged Canadians.
In closing, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council to give us the assurance that the report of the committee set up to study election expenses will not be left to gather dust because I am convinced that as long as we have not "tamed" the money which runs freely during election campaigns, it will still remain the main asset.
I should like to repeat some words spoken by my colleague from Lotbiniere who sat on
June 9, 1970

the committee set up to study the Elections Act and who stated on Wednesday May 27:
I say and I repeat that until we overcome the problem of money in politics, until we give the same rights to all political parties insofar as money is concerned, as long as the candidates of the various political parties are enslaved by money during election campaigns and as long as governments kowtow to finance, democracy will only be a farce-
There are perhaps many young people and older people too who believe less and less in democracy, because they know as well as I do that money is the master in politics.
As far as I am concerned, although money may not be the determining factor, it is no doubt one of the most powerful tools.
That is why I can only urge that specific regulations be annexed with regard to the expenses incurred and authorized by political parties during an election campaign.
I therefore whole heartedly endorse the statements of my colleague and I hope that the President of the Privy Council will take good notice of the statements I have just quoted and will make a point of taking action in this respect for it is a question of the utmost importance.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay the House very long. There are one or two points that I should like to bring to the attention of the House. I agree with many of the changes in this new Elections Act which have the effect of extending the franchise. I have one suggestion to make to the government in that regard. It seems a little incongruous to me that three provinces grant the franchise at age 18 and three provinces grant it at age 19, but according to provincial statutes, in order to become a full citizen one must be 21 years of age. You must be 21 to sign contracts and do all the other things that go with becoming a full citizen. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is much more important to young people to be accepted as full, first-class citizens than it is to be handed in such a patronizing way the sop of the vote at age 18.
Our young people have not, in my opinion, particularly pressed for the franchise. I suggest that what they want is to be recognized; they want to be involved. The young people I know want to accept responsibility. I suggest they should be made to feel they are citizens. We should not just throw them a sop. I have a suggestion to make to the government. I hope they will act upon it and take the initiative in this regard. At the next federal-pro-
Canada Elections Act
vincial conference the government should recommend that when our young people are granted the franchise they should also be given the responsibility of full citizenship.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate on Bill C-215 I wish to set forth my ideas with regard to this lengthy document which encompasses 355 pages. I shall take a minute or two to enunciate some of my ideas. Bill C-215 escapes many of the very pressing problems with regard to Canadian elections which it should face squarely. It does come to grips with the question of the privileges of teenagers with regard to elections. It lowers the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age. However, it does not come to grips with the question of election expenses.
If hon. members wish to check Hansard they will see I opposed a private member's bill which suggested that the government should pay election expenses. I made a thorough study of the report of the election expenses committee which was set up some time ago. Two very prominent members of this House were on that committee. I refer to the former leader of the CCF Party, Mr. Coldwell, and the former member for Calgary South, Mr. Smith. That committee comprised five members. After studying the whole question of election expenses the committee made some very worth-while recommendations. Bill C-215 does not incorporate some very good recommendations that were made to previous Parliaments, to this Parliament and which will no doubt be made to future Parliaments. Bill C-215 should not be passed by this House without an exhaustive study of the report of that committee.
The committee made a number of recommendations, including the appointment of a commissioner of elections. It was suggested that a commissioner of elections should set a limit on how much time should be spent by each candidate on television and radio, and how much space he should have in the daily press. The main concern of that committee was that money should not buy a seat in this House; money should not have the direct influence that it sometimes appears to have during elections; money should not have the influence in Canada that it sometimes appears to have in our neighbouring country to the south. This commissioner was to rule that each party should be given so much time on television and radio and so much space in the


Mark Willson Rose: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


Mark Willson Rose: I was very interested in the hon. member's remarks and I should like to ask whether he intends to come out against the concept of lowering the voting age to 18. Further, I should like to ask whether he has in mind any specific knowledge based on scientific studies as to the age at which young people acquire the knowledge to make meaningful electoral choices.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The question is an interesting one. I thought I had elaborated at length. I even though I had repreated myself a couple of times. I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who is well used to my repetitious remarks on a number of subjects and who has apparently got the drift of what I meant to say to the House, is nodding his head in approval of what I have said.
June 9, 1970


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No. Just agreement as to the way you said it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can testify as one who experienced, not too many years ago, the full meaning of responsibility. I was fully within an environment of my own, I was living entirely within my own earning capacity, and I had sufficient knowledge to pass judgment on the issues raised at elections when I was 18 years of age. Yet only after I had reached 30, with the passing of my father, which was a great and tremendous loss, did I realize I was really alone and accepted, maybe, the full responsibility for my own thoughts and judgments. One progresses in knowledge and wisdom throughout the period of adulthood to the point at which one is conscious of one's full responsibilities.
Though I was fully responsible for my finances and credit at the age of 18, it was many years before I realized I was not acting solely on my own judgment, without the help of my environment or without the help of the creditors upon whom I leaned. The reason I mention creditors is that very few people at the age of 18 are leaning upon many creditors. They may well be leaning upon the creditors of the family, but they do not have financial responsibilities of their own because they have not yet left the environment of the home. However, at 19 many young people have left the home and have borrowed money in their own name and had to pay it back.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There is one other provision that I would support, and that is the placing of party affiliation on ballots. We in western Canada have no hesitation in accepting this concept. When a person runs as a candidate of a political party, his party affiliation should be on the ballot. Although I think there will be wide acceptance of this provision, some exception may be taken to it in the province of Quebec and in the Maritimes where from time to time it has been the policy to nominate members of like name. But in Western Canada we like to face an election issue as squarely as we can and judge the matter accordingly.
In closing may I say I have no hesitation in voting for the bill and in trusting the judgment of the 18-year olds, particularly the 18-year olds in western Canada whom I know best. They have been raised in an environment that has schooled them well in the art of politics, and they judge just as wisely as 22478-12
Canada Elections Act
many people throughout Canada have judged them in the past.
I rose to put my reservations on the record. I believe that one reaches a transitional period between the ages of 18 and 19 when one is better able to cope with the political jargon thrown at one during an election campaign, and judge it accordingly. At the age of 19 one has left, partly or wholly, the environment of the home and is able to judge an issue as one sees it in the context of his own environment.
tTranslation]


Mr. Keiih Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on Bill C-215. It is somehow difficult for me to take the floor after having listened to my two good friends, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon).

I should like to make a few points. I submit that the bill before the House is of extreme importance. In spite of what the members of the opposition have said this afternoon, the bill makes a start in changing the electoral procedures of this country. This bill makes provision, for the first time, for university students such as those at the University of Waterloo-with which I am very familiar

 who spend four months at university and four months in practical training, to exercise their franchise. It is just as important for these students to exercise their franchise as it is for the members of the armed forces of Canada and the longshoremen about whom we heard this afternoon, as well as many others. In spite of what the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said, if at 18 someone is old enough to serve his country, he is old enough to vote for the people he wants to govern his country.
I am not going to delay the progress of this bill because I know the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and others are anxious to proceed with consideration of the legislation in Committee of the Whole. However, there is one other matter that I think is very important. The members of the New Democratic Party have raised the old bogey about vested interests tying themselves to certain political parties. I think what is more important is that the 20 million citizens of Canada take an interest in their country, align themselves with one of the three or four political parties in Canada and work for that party and the future of the country. I do not care

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
whether they join the Conservative party. I have many friends in the Conservative party, which has provided many years of good government in this country. Neither am I interested in whether people work for the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party or the Raillement Creditiste. But I do think that those who make donations to political parties should be allowed by the Department of National Revenue to deduct such donations from their income tax. There are a few people in Canada who join one of the political parties, but the majority of the people of the country could not care less what happens to any political party or to the Dominion of Canada.
The white paper on tax reform has been published and there are many important problems about which decisions have to be made. The Liberal party is supposed to have a tremendous fund, but I have been unable to find it. Union organizers work for the New Democratic Party, but no record is kept of their hourly contributions, though it cannot be denied that these contributions must be taken in to account. That is all I can say.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: What about union organizers who work for the Liberal party?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: We have a bill presently before us which will provide the opportunity for those over 18, who are good enough to fight for their country, to vote for those who will represent their country. We have provided an opportunity for these young people- some of whom may be students at the University of Waterloo, who take an orientation course and are part-time at the university and part time in industry-to exercise their franchise. Someone mentioned longshoremen this afternoon. We have taken an important step in the interests of responsible government, but let us give a great deal of thought before we go into the second stage of our consideration of the bill, which the President of the Privy Council mentioned, before we decide on the important question of political expenses.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question before he concludes his remarks?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: Certainly.


Frank Howard: With the consent of the hon. gentleman I ask whether he would include within his proscription regarding so-

called union organizers working for a political party, in determining the cost, a union organizer of whom I know, a former member of the Trotskyite group and a member of the Communist Party who worked assiduously for the Liberals during the last election?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: I am not familiar with this matter and I am not at all embarrassed by the question because I do not know what goes on in the province of British Columbia. All I know is that we have our own problems in Ontario and the hon. member has his in B.C.


Roch La Salle: Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this very important bill in order to complete what has been said so far. I intend to be brief.
Like others, I cannot but support this measure because of the importance and the quality of some of its amendments.
I am in favour of the provisions in the bill which are aimed at lowering the voting age to 18. In my opinion, since young people are more dynamic and more competent, this responsibility which we are giving them will ensure our country of a co-operation that will never force hon. members to regret this gesture.
I am among those who believe that these increasingly active young people will be able to use their franchise in a positive way, which will result in a better and greater participation of the Canadian electorate.
I also want to mention that I am particularly interested in the representation at polls. I do hope that at the committee stage we will be able to amend the legislation in such a way as to allow the official opposition party to be officially represented at polls.
Presently, the Elections Act authorizes government members to reserve the right to designate their representatives at polls. In a "just society", it would be perfectly just to let the official opposition designate a representative at polls, since the opposition parties which do not always have the necessary election funds are without a representative at those polls. I think that all the members recognize that the government party as well as the party of the official opposition should be' represented.
I hope that in a near future, at least before the next elections, we will have passed a legislation on the financing of election campaigns.
June 9, 1970

Heaven knows how hard it is to organize an election campaign. I do not think that I am the only one to complain. We all know that the party in power can always fill its election fund more easily. I take the liberty of inviting all members to seriously consider the opportunity of introducing a bill to provide any candidate with a per capita subsidy, such as exists for instance in Quebec for provincial elections, where an amount of 50 cents per elector is granted to official party candidates if they obtain a certain percentage of the vote. This makes it possible to pinpoint legitimate candidates. As certain candidates are financed by the government, the election campaign is run in a freer and fairer way.
I hope that we might at least benefit from such financing over the next election campaign. I am hopeful that a legislation to that effect will enable any serious candidate advocating the platform of a recognized political party to be adequately financed and to undertake an election campaign with all possible freedom.
I do not know of a better way to win the confidence of the people than to allow those candidates to make election campaigns financed by the state, at least in part. A legislation ought to be passed to guarantee the population that a candidate can run without having his hands tied, without being at the mercy of some speculators, as it has been too often the case unfortunately.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks which I wanted to make, while taking the opportunity to say that I am in favour of the bill. This will prove once more that an opposition member can, in a very wise and concrete way, endorse good government legislation, and at the same time hope that eventually the members of the party in power will approve of the good suggestions from opposition members.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to point out that the legislation under study is important, though it contains some legal fictions.
It gives franchise to 18 years olds. It obviously expresses our faith in the maturity of our young people, and it might lead them to realize the importance of the responsibility which is being handed to them.
We should also point out that when franchise is given at 18 years this represents a legal majority which in some provinces is fixed at 21 years. In fact, at age 21, a Quebec citizen is empowered to go to law, to act 22478-12i
Canada Elections Act
validly without the backing of a person who has reached majority or of a guardian appointed for that purpose.
We know that in Quebec, an 18-year old who wants to bring an action against somebody must have a guardian designated by a family council before he can act. If anybody under 21 is prosecuted, a guardian must again be chosen by the family council and defend the minor person's interests.
I think that when the committee has made a detailed study of this bill, it will have to ensure that the provinces facing legal difficulties regarding majority will modify their legislation accordingly, so that the rights granted to people coming of age at 21 in Quebec, should be granted also to an 18-year old. In other provinces, a citizen comes of age at 18 years, as is the case in British Columbia, I believe. But, if we want to enfranchise the citizen at 18 years, we must also give him the contractual and legal responsibilities proceeding from the laws in force in Quebec and in other provinces.
I am not against giving the franchise to electors of 18 years, but I say that the committee should provide with this right all the legal effects involved in the coming of age according to the Quebec Civil Code.
Under this bill, a person of 18 will be entitled to vote or to run as a candidate in an election. However, this right will only have any sense provided that under the Civil Code this person is given the corresponding legal competency.
In fact, young people of 18 or less are teenagers, legally incapacitated. They cannot undertake legal actions or sign a deed before a notary without the assistance of a person of full age appointed by the family council. They are, as I said earlier, legally incapacitated.
If we want to give the young a sense of responsibilities by granting them the right to vote at 18, the provinces should be asked to amend their legislation with regard to majority. As for the Quebec government, it should lower the full legal age from 21 to 18. The bill contains a legal fiction that I find strange. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) who is responsible for the bill-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is rather the President of the Privy Council.


Martial Asselin: -the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) who is responsible for the bill should consult the provincial governments where the legal age is still 21 in

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
order to know whether they would be prepared to lower the legal age to 18.
That is all I had to say about this bill. I shall deal again with it when it is discussed in the committee of the whole. I hope that in the meantime, the President of the Privy Council will be able to tell us whether he got in touch with certain provinces on this matter and whether those provinces are prepared to amend their legislation concerning the legal age in order to grant to the young people of 18 all the legal powers ensuing from the franchise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I must advise the House that if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a number of the themes which have been recurrent throughout this debate, and in particular to refer to some of the possible amendments which have been put forward. First, as to the comment on the physical size of the bill, I agree it is a monster. I think, for those who are not lawyers, this is the best evidence of why a regulation-making power is desirable under our statutes. This is one bill in which it had been decided, long past in this Parliament, that we would not have the details spelled out by way of regulations. For this reason we have to include every comma within the statute itself.
Another subject touched on by many hon. members was that of a permanent voters' list. Hon. members who spoke on this question included the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont), the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and a number of others. I would say again, as I did in opening the debate, that the decision not to proceed with a system of a permanent voters' list was not taken lightly. It was only taken after consideration of the position taken by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in both sessions of this Parliament and, as I said, in both cases the committee recommended against a permanent voters' list system.
One of the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Lotbiniere was the provision of a "carte d'identite obligatoire," a card of identity. I am not sure if "obligatoire" would

imply that we would have a compulsory registration system. Unfortunately, I gather that the hon. member did not put this proposal before the Standing Committee on either of the two occasions when it considered the question of a permanent voters' list, and therefore I suggest it is a little late in the game for him to be making it now.
The basic reason the committee arrived at its decision was that, as I said in opening the debate, a permanent voters' list risks having fewer voters on the list than is possible with our present system of enumeration before each election campaign. I should like to refer to an interesting authority recently published on this question, by Professor T. H. Qualter of the University of Waterloo, entitled "Canadian Politics".


Frank Howard: Not published yet.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, shortly to be published. On page 29 he sets out statistics in comparing with the percentages of the total voting age populations which are registered on official voters' lists in various jurisdictions. It is interesting to note in the table provided that in three of the Maritime provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, over 95 per cent of the persons of eligible voting age are registered as electors. A further group, including Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec and Manitoba, attain between 92 per cent and 95 per cent of the total population of eligible voting age, and the percentage of the total voting age population in Canada as a whole which gets on the voters' list is 91.2 per cent.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Interestingly enough, at the bottom of the list of percentage registration for election purposes is the one province that has a permanent electoral list-British Columbia. While I have said that 91.2 per cent of the persons eligible in Canada generally are on the voters' list with our enumerating system, British Columbia with a permanent electoral list has only 74.5 per cent of the eligible population listed.
Professor Qualter points out on page 29:
Despite this intensive effort-
He is describing the effort made in British Columbia to add voters to the list,
-it is quite clear that voluntary registration schemes of the type in use in British Columbia produce far less satisfactory results than the enumeration procedure used elsewhere in Canada. To this general criticism one qualification ought perhaps to be added. If the continuous roll were more
June 9/ 1970

widely used in Canada, so that the procedure became more familiar, then it might be more successful. As it is, people moving to British Columbia from other provinces will have been enumerated in the past and will in many cases continue to expect to be enumerated. Similarly, electors within the province itself will have been enumerated for federal elections and not all will be fully aware that something more is expected of them in provincial elections.
I have already indicated, in reference to the system in the United Kingdom, that one of the shortcomings of a permanent electoral list is that even on theoretical grounds, and without a compulsory registration provision such as there is in Australia, you do not get a very high percentage of the population on the list and the list goes stale quite quickly. Even in Australia, with the compulsory registration system, up to 5 per cent of the population may not be registered. From the standpoint of making sure that the maximum number of eligible persons get on the voting list, our system of enumeration can claim an advantage over the permanent list system. I assume that is the reason why the committee decided, on two separate occasions, not to recommend the permanent voters' list system to the House.
Extensive reference was made to the question of election expenses. I would repeat the remarks I made at the start of the debate, that the timetable that I set before the House on April 1, 1969-which may be found at 7359 of Hansard for the last session-dictated a certain order of priorities for dealing with election problems. That order of priorities, which I believe was generally accepted in the House, established that in the first place these general changes to the Elections Act should be considered by committee first and then dealt with by bill in the House, this to be followed by changes with regard to election expenses.
The reason I set out at that time-and I think it is worth while to remind the House of it-is that the Chief Electoral Officer has made it clear that when and if the voting age is changed to 18, the electorate will be increased by about one million electors and he will only have under two years to prepare for the next federal election. On the other hand, he feels that with a better election expenses system such as that recommended by the Barbeau Commission, he could be ready in about a year's time. I think, therefore, it is obvious that prior considerations should be given to the general changes in the Elections Act.
Canada Elections Act
We have drawn up the terms of reference to establish a special committee and I expect in the next day or so a notice will be appearing in my name on the Order Paper. A number of amendments have been suggested, a useful one by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) to include under the proxy voting system the occupation of loggers. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) added a number of other occupations to that suggestion. There are various suggestions which we would be interested in hearing in committee, so perhaps somebody will be moving an amendment not only to refer to specific categories but perhaps in more general terms to the effect that any person who by the nature of his occupation cannot attend at the advance polls or on election day in his own poll should have the privilege of proxy voting.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) made reference to a change which had some appeal to me, though I cannot say to what extent it was considered in committee. That is to give to the service electors the further anonymity of the vote to the extent it can be given by combining service electoral results and those of the advance polls. I suspect the number of votes cast by service electors may outweigh the advance polls, but it would be one step further away from identifying this group by electoral results. The House may want to consider such an amendment.
One suggestion which, subject to correction, I do not think has been widely considered by the committee and the House is that made in debate this afternoon by the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather), which I believe would find support and may have originated with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It is that persons incarcerated in jail or penitentiary should not be deprived of the vote. I can well understand the argument behind that proposal. If, indeed, the purpose of the incarceration is part of a rehabilitation program, then they should continue to be treated as citizens within the community. Whatever may have been the former view, perhaps the present practice should not be continued.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be useful if I called particular attention to that suggestion. I hope it will receive publicity, because as far as I know it has not been considered widely in the

June 9, 1970
Canada Elections Act
past and members may wish to focus attention on the proposal so that it may be considered when the bill gets into committee.
I believe the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) raised a question with respect to the provision which would amend the statute to the extent that at revision one might remove the name of an elector who was wrongfully on the list. He took exception to this, but I think there are good reasons for it. There are many persons who by way of nationality and through the unavoidable ignorance of the enumerators may be included on the electors' list though they do not wish to be. A bizarre incident was brought to my attention by the Chief Electoral Officer which, with our changes, would not occur again. In the last election campaign the entire resident staff of the Australian High Commission was enumerated and put on the electoral list. The interesting thing is that all those members of the High Commission staff who had been resident in Canada for 12 months were entitled to be on the list but, obviously, in the position of a friendly and Commonwealth country they would not wish to exercise the Canadian franchise. But there was no way of correcting the electoral list at revision.
The question was raised that if the age of qualification of candidates and the qualification of electors was to be fixed at 18, why not the qualification for returning officers as well? I will be referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) in a moment, but the answer is that the federal government does not have jurisdiction to reduce the age of legal ability from 21 to 18, or at least the jurisdiction in this regard is disputed. The situation heretofore has been that while no person should feel compelled to contract with an 18-year old candidate, it is basically the problem of the 18-year old candidate being supplied with services, printing and otherwise.
Since the returning officer is a public appointee and has to submit to a strict timetable for having services rendered, particularly printing, we should be certain that in every part of Canada the returning officer would be protected from a reluctance on the part of business people to deal with him because he was not of the age of majority. So until the age of majority is reduced below 21, the government deemed it wise to retain the age at 21 for that purpose. There will be many other detailed suggestions which I am sure will be dealt with as we go through the bill.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
May I refer at this point to a discussion which has taken place among the representatives of the parties with respect to the procedure that might be followed in the clause by clause study. I think there will be general agreement to a procedural order whereby the consideration of the committee could be focused first on those changes which are sidelined in the bill and which involve a novelty in the Elections Act as compared with the previous act and, second, on those particular sections to which hon. members would like to offer amendments. On that basis I would propose a procedural order along the following lines:
That when Bill C-215, an act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons, is being considered in committee of the whole, only such clauses, and other provisions, or parts thereof, that propose the enactment of new or amended provisions in relation to the Canada Elections Act and which are indicated by vertical rules shall be open for consideration and amendment;
That all other clauses and other provisions, or parts thereof, when called from the Chair shall be deemed to have been adopted without amendment or debate;
Provided that any clause, subclause or other provision referred to in paragraph two above, may be brought under consideration by any member who rises and forthwith proposes a motion to amend any such clause, subclause or other provision of the bill that may be accepted by the Chair.
To put it more simply, the motion proposes that the debate in Committee of the Whole be confined to the clauses, subclauses and parts of the bill marked verticaHy, plus such other parts as a member on rising may indicate he wishes to amend. On that basis I would commend the bill to the committee. Perhaps the question could be put to the House as to whether a motion in those terms is acceptable.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think we are agreeable to this suggestion. There have been discussions and it was my understanding that we would obtain a moral commitment from the minister that in this part of the session we would institute proceedings to move toward the setting up of machinery under which the other parts of the act relevant to election expenses would be examined. If that is the case, we will go along with the suggestion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I confirm this again. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) made a comment
June 9, 1970

on the draft that I had prepared in this matter. I was not able to speak to him in the latter part of today. I might mention that we are having a House Leaders' meeting at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow and that motion will be brought forward. I think it would be desirable if the Elections Expenses Committee could meet before the House rises for the summer. The plan is to give the public notice of its proceedings in the fall.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the Government House Leader with respect to how we are to deal with the bill in Committee of the Whole is agreeable. I have one thought but it has nothing to do with unanimity in accepting the suggestion. It has been some time since the House proceeded on a bill in Committee of the Whole, and some time since the House considered a bill of such complexity. It is sometimes the practice of the Chairman to proceed rather quickly from clause to clause of a bill of this nature. Clause 18 of the bill takes up 41 pages. It has innumerable subclauses. I think that when we are in committee the Chairman should not proceed with too much dispatch; hon. members should have the opportunity of finding their place in the bill and indicating which parts they wish to amend. I know from past experience that there is sometimes a tendency for us to move along rather quickly. If we bear that in mind, the suggestion is quite agreeable.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the motion proposed by the Government House Leader needs two more words. I say that because a situation could arise under which, if clause 80, say, were amended, we would have to turn back and make a consequential change to clause 46. I am plucking hypothetical examples out of the air. I suggest that the last paragraph of the motion should be changed so that the relevant part reads, "may be brought under consideration or reconsideration." The two new words are "or reconsideration," which are necessary because the motion does not refer to any consequential amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) moves:
That when Bill C-215, an act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons, is being considered in committee of the whole, only such clauses, and other provisions, or parts thereof, that propose the

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion enactment of new or amended provisions in relation to the Canada Elections Act and which are indicated by vertical rules shall be open for consideration and amendment;
That all other clauses and other provisions, or parts thereof, when called from the Chair shall be deemed to have been adopted without amendment or debate;
Provided that any clause, subclause or other provision referred to in paragraph two above, may be brought under consideration or reconsideration by any members who rises and proposes a motion to amend any such clause, subclause or other provision of the bill that may be accepted by the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
question now is that the bill be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

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

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on June 3, I raised the following question in the House of Commons, as reported on page 7682 of Hansard:
In view of the reported statement by Dr. Mc-Taggart-Cowan that the safety standards on ships flying flags of convenience are disgraceful and that if similar standards existed with application to aircraft there would be a crash a week, I would ask the minister whether his department has laid down any regulations with respect to standards applicable to ships operating in Canadian waters, especially for those ships carrying cargoes such as oil which would cause serious environmental damage should a sinking occur?
The minister partly answered this question two days later when a similar question was asked in the House. However, I welcome this opportunity to expand on the very important principle involved, for Canada must move quickly and effectively to protect our coastal environment from the type of costly damage which we witnessed in the recent sinking of the oil tanker Arrow. Canada should insist that all shipping plying our territorial waters
7936	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion be adequately equipped for navigational purposes and conform to a high standard of safety regulations.
A few days ago Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, who heads the present task force which was set up to investigate and clean up the oil spill from the Arrow indicated that there should be an international agreement controlling the equipment and operation of oil tankers similar to the regulations which control commercial aircraft. He went on to say:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This flags of convenience business is one of the sloppiest damn things I ever saw. If the commercial airlines ran their business like the tankers do you would be crashing a DC-8 every week and the world would say stop it.
He went on to point out that in 1944 the International Civil aviation Agreement was written, which sets out safety standards, requirements for navigation aids and control of commercial aircraft. A commercial aircraft, wherever it flies, is under its control although the essential prerogatives of the pilot are preserved in emergencies. All the nations of the world adhere to the International Civil Aviation Agreement. He felt there was no reason why countries which co-operate in the aviation field could not get together in the marine field. This is certainly a desirable objective and one which we should press for vigorously.
The flags of convenience ruling allows a vessel to operate under the shipping regulations of a country with lax rules if it flies the flag of that country. It is an easy way out for any unscrupulous owner or company to avoid those standards of safety and operation upon which their own country might insist. It allows shipping to ply international waters with dangerous cargoes whether the ship is seaworthy or not. Over the next few years we will see immense damage to the world environment unless steps are taken to remedy the situation.
I feel Canada must lay down some very strict regulations for the shipping that enters our territorial waters. Full and adequate safety standards must be insisted upon. We want no more incidents such as we witnessed in the sinking of the Arrow on the east coast.
It does not make sense to ban the drilling for oil in the Gulf of Georgia if we allow oil tankers with inadequate navigational aids, etc., into the area. The risk of another costly oil spill in our territorial waters will be greatly reduced if adequate amendments are made at an early date to the Canada Shipping Act.

DEBATES	June 9. 1970
In the international field, of course, we should press vigorously for adequate safety standards in shipping because the ecology of the oceans is also our concern.
It seems that this is the appropriate time for Canada to examine its need for a merchant marine. All the ingredients are present for a successful move into this field. We are one of the greatest importing and exporting nations in the world. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have a slowly dying shipbuilding industry on both the east and west coasts. We have the skilled craftsmen and the workers to operate a shipbuilding industry. It would not only provide employment and a monetary return, but we could build into our merchant marine those safety standards required to give the best possible protection to our coastal areas. I hope this matter, together with adequate safety standards, will be high on the list of priorities at the next session of the House.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) for his interest in pollution.
You may remember that this very afternoon, the member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) introduced a private bill on pollution. We are know that pollution is now the object of very timely studies and comments.
As for the question of the member for Kootenay West, on June 3, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) asked a very similar question on June 5 last, as reported in Hansard at page 7767, which proves once again the interest of all the members in this matter of pollution.
I should like to recall only a few words of what the minister said in reply to the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I quote:
-In fact, we did so in Brussels in November of last year. In addition, as I have advised the House from time to time, we are presently working on considerable and substantial changes in the Canada Shipping Act which will have the effect of bringing about the improvements that Dr. McTaggart-Cowan along with others, myself included, agreed with.
It is true that recently the famous Arrow incident in Nova Scotia opened many people's eyes. This will encourage the department to bring out more rapidly regulations on pollution.
All hon. members will remember that before the Manhattan undertook its trip, the
June 9, 1970	COMMONS
Department of Transport required that many improvements be made to it before tackling northern ice. Similar measures will apply in the future until such time as the government can introduce its bill on the steps to be taken to avoid pollution.
We cannot but congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who, during the Brussels conference in November, advocated an international agreement on the steps to be taken to fight pollution. Unfortunately such an agreement could not be concluded during the international conference. However, inside as well as outside the House, the minister said on several occasions that the government would introduce legislation to that effect as soon as possible. The department's officials are engaged at the present time in drafting that legislation and, knowing how the minister feels about it, I am sure that within a short time, perhaps before the end of this session, legislation to establish standards so as to prevent incidents like the one that happened recently in Nova Scotia-I refer to the Arrow-will be passed and that we will thus be able to prevent the pollution we dread so much and which spoils rivers and streams.
Perhaps the hon. member did not expect such an answer, but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The time allowed the Parliamentary Secretary has expired.



NATIONAL PARKS-REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITY IN LIGHT OF POLLUTION OF LAKE ERIE

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) the following question:
In the light of the deplorable state of Lake Erie and the need for environmental rehabilitation, and having regard to the fact that the people of Ontario are being barred from using the beaches of Lake Erie, will the minister give consideration to the development of an East Erie National Park?
I welcome this opportunity to enlarge on the urgency of this question and to hear the minister's answer. The need for action by the federal government is based on two imperatives. The first is to be in a position to clean up the pollution of Lake Erie. I quote from an article in the Canadian Churchman, which is the national publication of the Anglican Church in Canada.
It is no wonder that sometime during the last decade Lake Erie died. The largest fresh water
DEBATES	7937
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion lake in the world is now being turned slowly into a weed-choked swamp. The water near its shoreline cannot be used for cooking or drinking. Not even boiling or chlorination can remove the contamination.
The other imperative is that the urbanized industrial heartland of Ontario, with rapidly expanding population pressure, has no adequate national parks. There are no adequate recreational facilities for the public, especially for those in low-income groups who cannot afford vacations in northern cottages. Ontario has only 12 square miles of national parks, compared with Prince Edward Island which has 7.9. The matter has been fully discussed in a study by Dr. John S. Jackson of Brock University, entitled "Recreational Development and Erie East Lakeshore," in which he says that the public are restricted to narrow road allowances while vast stretches of unused beach lie on either side. He even suggested that private business interests have erected fences into the water to prevent people using their legal right of access to the beaches. My information comes from a brief presented to the federal caucus of the New Democratic Party at Hamilton, by the Association for the Preservation of Erie East Lakefront, whose initials spell APEEL.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I address an urgent appeal to the government on behalf of numerous Canadians living in the Niagara peninsula to deal with the problem in the only way available, by developing an East Erie National Park. If the minister accedes to this plea he will earn the gratitude of numerous Canadians of this and later generations who will by his action be able to enjoy an improved quality of life.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us would agree with the appeal made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), both with its principles and with his desire- a desire that we all share-with respect to what my hon. friend described as the horrible pollution of Lake Erie. There are some problems arising from this, of course. As my hon. friend knows, this government, the government of Ontario and the municipalities concerned are taking steps to make a more direct attack on pollution than by way of establishing a national park, though I am not derogating from this very good suggestion.
One problem is the availability and very high cost of land in this particular area. I do
June 9, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not have the sort of knowledge of the area that my hon. friend has. But as I say, the principle is good. My minister has been very active, as has the government, in the pursuit of more national parks in Canada, and he has indicated that by the year 2000 hopefully we will have a total of 80 to 100 national parks. During the last year three new national parks have been established and there are six or seven presently under negotiation with the provinces.
For example, only last Friday the minister, as part of a series of discussions extending over the last two or three months, discussed with Hon. Rene Brunelle the substantial enlargement of an existing national park in Ontario as well as the establishment of a new park. Only yesterday the minister had the agreement of the province of Quebec to the establishment of a new national park, and there is a second national park now under negotiation in that province. And so it goes across the country. I think there are seven or eight parks now under consideration.
I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood on the importance of establishing national parks in what he described as the heartland of Ontario-this applies to other provinces too-those urbanized areas where people cannot travel some distance to enjoy the facilities of a national park. The minister has held discussions in several provinces along this line and the whole matter is being pursued very actively. I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. The matter is an important one; we are conscious of it and indeed are doing a great deal about it.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES-MONTREAL-BOMB EXPLOSIONS-CO-OPERATION BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE WITH OTHER FORCES

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Canadians have the same sense of outrage that we in the House have this evening at the recent bombing activities in Westmount in the city of Montreal. This is what brings the Parliamentary Secretary and myself together for a brief exchange this evening.
It began last Friday when I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), as minister reporting to the House for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whether he had had an opportunity to check the serious allegations that the RCMP were not co-operating with other police forces in connection with the [Mr. Honey.)
investigation of the outrages in Montreal in the last few days.
The Solicitor General replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Immediately I saw the story published in the paper I had this matter checked into and find-
My seatmate, the hon. member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Fairweather), interrupted and asked:
Is it a canard?
The Solicitor General replied:
Yes, it is. That is precisely the point, and today's newspapers so indicate.
When the Solicitor General agreed it was a canard I believe he was ducking the question, because I think he was relying on senior officers of the RCMP who could only be expected to say that there was all the co-operation in the world. Yet, sir, a year ago, as Your Honour would well know, in the province of Quebec the Prevost Royal Commission reported about the joint workings of the police forces in that province and singled out for special observation what it regarded as the somewhat secretive work of the RCMP, who apparently set themselves apart from the other police forces there. So my first question to the Parliamentary Secretary is: What has been done to overcome the criticism voiced in the Prevost report?
I do not expect a detailed or full answer. I understand the minister's position. One cannot probe too deeply into matters of this kind. I realize that, but I think that if he could give us and the country a general reassurance it would be helpful. I have checked with members of the press gallery and others who have followed the events of that day in Westmount and in the city of Montreal. I was told the Westmount police chief was sort of tagging along while other police forces rushed on to the new bombings that occurred. He was left behind waiting for his own car to catch up with him. I think the reports of the press about the co-operation, or lack of it, in dealing with this very serious problem in the city of Montreal add to the feeling of disquiet. I am told specifically by the press-and I suppose that I either have to eat my words in this regard or prove them, and if I have an opportunity 1 feel I can do that-that there is a feeling that the lower levels of those three police forces simply do not get along.
My second question, therefore, to the Parliamentary Secretary is: What sort of thing has been done to see that all levels of these
June 9, 1970	COMMONS
police forces work together? As I have said, sir, I have spoken to people whom I regard as serious journalists, one of them being the best journalist I have worked with in 30 years in that profession, and I count on his word and on his diligence. I think it takes more than the answer that I received the other day to remove the disquiet that I have in my mind.
I should like to say in closing that I have no desire in any way, in making the speech that I do this evening, to give comfort to the people whose activities can only lead to loss of life unless they are caught-and I hope they are caught and put away for a long, long time. But I think we must have some kind of statement for the public I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will now be in a position to give one that everybody across Canada, whether they live in the metropolitan area of Montreal, in Eekum Seekum or in Vernon, B.C., will find reassuring. We hope that in future all the police forces in the Montreal area will act in harmony in dealing with a very serious national problem.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say, first, that we all share the hon. member's feeling regarding the recent rash of bombings in Montreal and in the city of Westmount. We all hope this bombing will stop and that the culprits will be brought to justice.
DEBATES	7939
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I want to assure the hon. member that the utmost co-operation exists between the RCMP, the provincial police and the municipal police. I am informed that this week a special meeting took place among representatives of these police forces and a co-ordinating committee was set up to exchange information, to try to act in a co-ordinated way against these bombings and to try to achieve joint action in bringing the people responsible to justice.
RCMP services have always been available to all provincial and other legitimate authorities seeking them. Meetings and exchanges of information are always going on, on a general basis. As I say, a special meeting was held this week among representatives of the three police forces, and we hope that by the concerted use of their facilities we will have better prospects of bringing peace to the city of Montreal and to the city of Westmount I share the feelings of the hon. member in this respect. I will bring his remarks to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), who may wish to make a further statement. I assure the hon. member that close co-operation is taking place among the three police forces.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.



Wednesday, June 10, 1970