1970-01-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Clermont.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, members will have noticed a news item in the press yesterday to the effect that two major retail establishments in Canada were planning increases in their interest charges on certain charge accounts. I wish to inform the House that I have been in touch with the two companies and that each has agreed to suspend its decision in this matter until March, pending the outcome of the Prices and Incomes Commission's current discussions with the business and professional community aimed at limiting price increases. I wish to express the government's appreciation of the co-operative response of these two companies.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, before tabling it, I would like to comment on the white paper entitled "Proposal for Metric Conversion in Canada". In this paper the
government sets out its proposed general policy for conversion to the metric system of measurement from the traditional inch-pound system. To quote from the white paper:
The government believes that adoption of the metric system is ultimately inevitable-and desirable -for Canada. We also consider it appropriate for the government to assume a leading role in the planning for and in the implementation of this change.
This matter is of direct concern to all Canadians, to our industry and to all levels of government.
Today in Canada, although the metric system and units such as metres and grams are being used in many important sectors, it is the inch-pound system which predominates. In the world at large, however, the great majority of countries have already adopted the metric system or are now in the process of converting to it.
The white paper addresses itself to the importance of timing in connection with metric conversion in Canada and to the complexities involved. For example, in a modern industrial country such as ours, there will be costs associated with a move to the metric system. These costs will be offset by benefits which are expected to accrue from metrication. They will also be reduced to the extent that the change takes place over a reasonable period of time in relation to the real needs in the various sectors of activity in Canada. We must be aware of the possibility of incurring even greater costs if we do not start to plan now for the ultimate adoption of the metric system.

Metric units today form the accepted basis for international measurement and standardization. A country employing the metric system is, therefore, in a favourable position in an increasingly interdependent world economy. The countries of the European Common Market are long established users of the metric system. Both Britain and Japan, two of Canada's leading trading partners, have already embarked on a changeover. The United States, our principal customer, is now conducting an extensive study of this subject.
As a matter of fact, just four countries- Canada, United States, Australia and New
2470
January 16, 1970

Tabling of Paper on Metric System Zealand-are still using the inch-pound system at this time. Canada's ability to maintain and expand its vital export trade with countries in the metric sphere will directly benefit from the move we have decided to make.
Changing to the metric system will have important benefits for the Canadian consumer. These benefits will derive principally from the inherent simplicity of the system and its convenience in general use. The ease in converting from one metric unit to another -from kilograms to grams, for example,-will simplify the arithmetic in making value comparisons of competitive consumer products.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
For these reasons and many others which are indicated in the white paper, as I have remarked earlier, the government believes that the adoption of the metric system is ultimately inevitable and desirable for Canada. However, no legislative action is contemplated which would make mandatory a general use of metric in place of inch-pound units.
The white paper outlines what is the start of a long process on the road to metrication. It proposes certain organizational arrangements to plan for and encourage conversion. For example, the government intends to appoint a preparatory commission which will act at the federal level to co-ordinate the study and planning. A mandate will also be given to the proposed standards council of Canada-a bill on this subject is now before the House-so that it may fill a similar role in the more limited area of its responsibilities, that is, the industrial sector and physical standards. Planning and preparation will be encouraged so as to obtain the maximum benefits at the minimum cost to the consumer, to industry and to government at all levels.
Our intention is to study and consult extensively and so to determine what is the best process for this transition. It will be necessary, for example, to decide on the timing of changes appropriate to each individual sector of the economy. In issuing this white paper the government is inviting comments from all interested parties. We hope to obtain the widest possible involvement and co-operation of the community as a whole. Participation of other levels of government, of industry, and of the public at large in this effort will be welcomed and will be of the greatest importance in the attainment of the ultimate objectives for Canada in this area of measurement and standards.


Mr. Speaker, I wish now to table, in both official languages, under Standing Order 41(2), copies of a white paper entitled "Proposal for Metric Conversion in Canada".


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the courtesy of the minister in providing this statement to members of the opposition early enough so that, with their natural ability, they can become instant experts and make a reasonable reply. I say quite seriously that these statements on motions should really be commented on with light rather than with heat, and to receive a document in ample time to make an adequate reply is much better than receiving it, as we sometimes do, just five minutes before the time for making a response.
In keeping with the objective of nonpartisanship 1 might properly say that we on this side feel very much as the minister does. I think I am entitled to get in a little commercial for the hon. member for Mal-peque who has tabled a private member's bill calling for a metric system inquiry commission. I thought 1 might be entitled to say that at this time, Mr. Speaker.
Let me say at once that we will co-operate in our approach to the suggestions contained in the statement by the minister. There is no question at all that there is a movement in the world toward the adoption of the metric system, or the international system as it is more correctly defined. This is part of a whole movement toward international cooperation and I think we would be foolish if we did not recognize this and attempt to do something about it. I think it is correct to say, in the same spirit of non-partisanship, that the previous government under the leadership of the Right Hon. member for Prince Albert did undertake certain studies in this regard.
There have been a number of problems associated with this matter and I will deal with them very briefly. While there is no question that the jurisdiction lies with the federal government, I think we have to bring the provinces in from time to time because of the educational and other situations which will exist if we are ultimately going to change over to the metric system. Those of us who remember our school days when we were exposed to the metric system only to abandon it when we left school will realize how important it is that the educational systems of the
January 16, 1970	COMMONS
provinces be adapted to keep pace with what this government and the governments of the world are doing.
There is a division in the countries of the world today. By far the greatest number of countries have adopted the metric system, but we cannot forget, of course, that the countries which have retained the inch-pound system have by far a preponderance of the world's trade. We should think particularly of our trading relations with the United States, which of course is and has for some years been examining its position with regard to adoption of the metric system. Whether we like it or not, what we do must to a considerable extent is keep pace with what is being done in the United States. I think it might well be suicidal for us to adopt the metric system without considering what is being done in the United States. It is in connection with the dangers and difficulties with relation to trade that the greatest problems will be generated. In the world of pure science and academic research I think we can say that the metric system has largely been adopted and has world-wide ramifications now.
I agree that there must be a continuous and detailed study. We are prepared to co-operate with the government in this regard. Shortly after 1951, when the matter first came up for discussion in the United Kingdom, there was a considerable amount of examination and later the minister of technology submitted the whole question to a standing committee. I recognize that a committee of the House might not be best equipped from a technical standpoint to make a decision, but from the viewpoint of keeping the public abreast of what is going on I would strongly urge the minister to give some thought to having the white paper he tabled today submitted either to a special or to a joint committee so that there might be a continuous study and reports from time to time to this committee by the boards the minister proposes to set up.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Peace River I should like to thank the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for having given us an advance copy of the white paper which he has now tabled and the statement he has just made to the House. Also like the hon. member for Peace River, I might indulge in a brief commercial by drawing the attention of the House to the fact that Bill C-42 on the Order Paper in the name of my colleague from Timiskaming calls for the 21611-181
DEBATES	2471
Tabling of Paper on Metric System introduction of the metric system. If my friends on our left have a similar bill, that will make it unanimous.
Speaking of the minister's courtesy in letting us have a copy of the paper and of his statement in advance, I think everyone knows that when this courtesy is extended to us it is usually extended to our friends of the Press Gallery as well. When I sat at the coffee table with some of our friends at ten o'clock this morning I found they were already applying their special talents and their superior intellect to some of the problems which would arise if we switched from the inch-pound system to the metric system. I did not understand all the things they were talking about.


An hon. Member:: Neither did they.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe not. One of them told me that when we switch to the new system a perfect figure, instead of being 36-24-36, would be 90-60-90. I gather some hon. members know what that means. In my own way of figuring things I thought about my friend the hon. member for York West and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre who, once this system comes into effect, will no longer have to give their weight in astronomical figures but will be down to 150 or even less, and some of us, of course, may disappear altogether.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: When we ski in Europe we will know what the measurements mean.


Stanley Howard Knowles: assure hon. members that even if I am a ghost I intend to stay here.


Gerald William Baldwin: As long as you do not get too holy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am trying to inch into this subject, Mr. Speaker, but I seem to be having difficulty.
Speaking seriously, however, as one of my colleagues at the press coffee table said this morning, whatever system we use the dimensions of the government's failure will be extreme. I think it is generally agreed that this is the kind of step Canada will have to take, and we agree with the statement made by the minister, both in the white paper and in his words to the House, that the decision is not one that can any longer be postponed.
January 16, 1970

Tabling of Paper on Metric System
It is quite true that there will be difficulties. Great expense will be involved and, as the hon. member for Peace River said, the change will reach right down to our educational system. Our children and grandchildren and those who come after them will have to spend not just a day or two on the metric system but will have to learn it all the way through. But even though there are difficulties connected with such a change, it is obvious that the advantages outweigh the difficulties and the cost and that we should move in this direction. Therefore it is good that some planning for it is being done.
As has already been said, very few countries in the world are on the inch-pound system, but it does happen that one of them is the giant alongside us, the United States of America. We in this party frequently suggest that we should not be influenced in certain matters by what they do in that country, but I think that in this matter we and our American friends will have to act together. I hope that the kind of public action being taken in Canada will be viewed by them as a lead and a suggestion to them that they should step up their studies and activities in this field as well.
We welcome the fact that, as the minister has said, there will be liaison with the provinces because they will be involved not only in the changes generally but with their particular effect on education. All told, we shall be glad to co-operate with the government in hastening the day when this change can be made with as little confusion as possible.
While we are making this kind of change, perhaps we might also do something about our cold temperatures. We might shift over from fahrenheit to centigrade. Some thought might also be given to a simplified world calendar that would make many of our computations much more comprehensible.
In general terms we thank the minister for giving us the information in advance, and we shall be happy to do what we can in connection with the work that needs to be done in preparation for a change to the metric system.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat the comments of the previous speakers concerning the new policy of the federal government in connection with the metric system, but I would like in my turn to thank the minister who was kind enough to send us in good time copies of the

white paper on the conversion to the metric system, in order to enable us to study it in both languages, had any of us wished to do so.
The advantages of the metric system are known throughout the world. On account of its coherence and other recognized advantages, as, for example, its accuracy, the metric system is the only valid system for the measurement of values based on decimals.
As this system is the most exact there is and as it is becoming more and more widespread, I believe that, as it is proposed today, Canada should adopt it.
In North America, according to the white paper, the commercial gallon has two different values. The same difficulty arises in a number of other fields. The United Kingdom has recently adopted the metric system. Most countries of the world use it.
As a matter of fact, only four countries, as it is said in the white paper, have not yet officially adopted this system but are considering doing so in the near future.
The conversion to the metric system would bring problems. The government will have to act very carefully in this respect, because we could not adopt this system at a moment's notice. Yet, the government proposes to us this morning the creation of a commission with a view to preparing the Canadian economy to this conversion so that the transition will be so smooth as can be.
On page 8 of the report are indicated the disadvantages that would result from converting to this system too rapidly. It is also mentioned that this system should not be introduced without the provinces being consulted, and more especially the industrialists, for they will be the most affected by this change.
Here is an excerpt from page 8 and I quote:
that it is not essential that conversion should proceed equally and evenly in all sectors.
-To do so permits each sector of industry to assess the problems of conversion and consider practical solutions, including timing, without the inhibitions which compulsory immediate changes in physical standards would involve. Metric conversion may be conceived as a variety of programmes extending over periods of years as determined by the needs and problems in different sectors of the economy.
If the government wants to adopt the metric system by complying with these recommendations, we fully agree since it would permit all the sectors of the economy to adapt to the new situation and to carry out
January 16, 1970

the conversion process as soon as possible which is as necessary to Canada as to the other countries.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies in each of the official languages of a "Special Report on Prices of Tractors and Combines in Canada and Other Countries." This is a report of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery. The importance and thoroughness of this report and its implications for Canadian farmers are recognized by the government, and it is the intention of the government to consider the report and its recommendations most carefully.
Since the report covers matters that are the concern of or fall within the jurisdiction of several departments, an interdepartmental working group has been formed, the function of which will be to make recommendations to the government. Already this group has initiated discussions with officials in the United States and Britain. It should be noted that this special report covers only one phase of the commission's investigations and that the final report will be available in late summer.
In the meantime the government would welcome the views of organizations, firms or individuals in respect of this important matter.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture to the House this morning because I think it reveals to the House and to the country as a whole the actual capability of the government in dealing with this major problem.
Some years ago it became apparent to those in the agricultural industry as a whole that they were in difficulty in trying to make an economic living, and since the government was little disposed to increase the prices that farmers could receive for their produce the emphasis of farm groups was placed on in-put costs, the major proportion of which, other than that of land, lay in the realm of farm machinery.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
As long as four years ago the agricultural industry in Canada found there was a great deal of difference between what Canadian farmers had to pay for their equipment com-
Tabling of Report
pared with what farmers in other nations had to pay. As a matter of fact, farm groups in this country took the initiative and found that It was possible to procure farm machinery in Great Britain at a much lower cost than in Canada. As a result, representations were made to this government to such a degree that the government appointed a commission to study the cost of farm machinery in other countries.
This morning the minister has tabled a special report, and he indicates it should be noted that it only covers one phase of the commission's investigation. Without having seen the report, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to believe that it is perhaps an edited or elaborated version of what was presented to the agricultural congress almost 12 months ago. Now we have it presented to Parliament.
It is an interim report, Mr. Speaker, and the government says it is going to take it under consideration. But before it does so it is going to set up another committee to study the report's ramifications in respect of various departments and this committee is to make a report to the government. This is just further procrastination and it shows, to my mind, that the government has no initiative, no aggressiveness and very little appreciation of the problem facing the agricultural industry today.
The real attitude of the government was amply portrayed by the minister in his statement. This commission was set up on the basis of representations made to the government by the agricultural industry of Canada, but his last words were that "in the meantime the government would welcome the views of organizations, firms or individuals in respect of this important matter." Mr. Speaker, in four years all this government has done is go round in a full circle.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, while we were supplied with a copy of the minister's statement, for which we thank him, we would have also appreciated a copy of the press summary supplied to the news media.
It has been so long since the Barber Commission held its first hearings that farmers were beginning to wonder whether a report would ever be filed. Since farm machinery capital and repair costs represent such a proportionally large percentage of total farm expenses, great interest will be aroused by the filing of this report. Farmers have long felt that Canadian farm machinery prices

January 16. 1970
Tabling of Report
are exorbitantly high. Ontario farmers have proved this by importing British-made tractors at a considerable saving. If the Barber report suggests action under the Combines Investigation Act, we trust the government will act promptly in this regard. Because of the awkward financial situation of farmers in western Canada, we are very concerned whether there are going to be any farmers left to offer service to or any dealers left to offer it, since the companies have and are withdrawing service from many points.
The minister mentioned the forming of an interdepartmental committee to deal with the report and make recommendations to the government. We trust that somewhere in the process an opportunity will be provided to farmers and other interested groups to make recommendations to the government, because the farmers want and need action now, not ten years from now.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture advised us this morning that pious wishes would be expressed once again by a Royal Commission on the prices of tractors and combines.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Since the final report will not be available before the end of the summer, companies selling their products at exorbitant prices will continue to exploit the Canadian people. Needless to say that manufacturers of farm implements-who contribute to election funds-will welcome this two-and-a-half-year postponement granted them by this government-who was to bring about a just society-for they will be able to keep on exploiting the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want action. They are fed up with royal commissions. Reports slumber in desk drawers under a two-inch coat of dust. To give an example, last spring we met with representatives of all the farmers' organizations of western and eastern Canada, and we have still received no reports because the briefs submitted at the meetings were detrimental to the reputation of the government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we hope the investigations will not end up with just reams and reams of reports, but rather by the adoption of energetic measures to prevent man from exploiting his fellow men.
IMr. Thomson.]



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr.   Roberi-B. Major@Argenleuil: for leave to introduce Bill C-178 intituled "An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Major:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the riding of Argenteuil into that of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, in order to avoid confusion between the provincial county of Argenteuil and the federal electoral district of the same name, and also to pay a tribute to the Iroquois people after which the area was named hundreds of years ago.


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


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. When will the minister be in a position to announce the final payment for the 1968-69 crop year for wheat, oats and barley?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I do not at the moment have a specific date for the announcement. The hon. member knows the pattern of the past and it may well be that the timing will be about the same as in past years.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government any other plans to assist cash-short farmers in the event that there is no final payment for this crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: That, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of policy for consideration by the government, and any such decision will be announced at the appropriate time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do not hold your breath.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
January 16, 1970

When the minister is able to report on this point and announce the final payment, if any, would he consider advising the House what additional costs there were to the Canadian Wheat Board for that crop year for the drying, extra shipping charges and handling costs of tough and damp grain?


Otto Emil Lang: I shall be glad to look into the question of whether that particular statistic can be isolated, Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Wheat Board's operations. It may well appear in the Wheat Board's annual report, or earlier if possible.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: In view of the fact that barley is being traded on the export market at approximately 20 cents below the domestic price, has the government in fact established a two-price system for barley?



UTILIZATION OF LAKEHEAD TERMINAL SPACE

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House if a special agreement has been made between the grain handlers union and the Wheat Board to trickle grain into Lakehead storage facilities, thus cutting down lay-offs of grain handlers between now and the spring shipping season?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the House on an earlier occasion, the arrangement which has been arrived at for moving grain from the prairies to the Lakehead is one which, to my mind, is the most effective and efficient way of taking the grain there and ensures that the handling system is in the best possible shape to handle the very large amounts of grain which will have to be handled after the opening of navigation. The plan was arrived at without discussion with the grain handlers at the Lakehead, but in subsequent developments of the plan members representing the union were in discussion with us and we were able to explain to them the objective which we had in mind in dealing with the scheme alluded to.



PROPOSED FARMER SUPPORTED SALES AGENCY PLAN

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Canada Grains Council has considered the proposed farmer supported sales agency plan and given its approval to it, can the minister indicate when this excellent idea will be implemented, under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are, I know, very good ideas being developed within the Canada Grains Council and we are in constant touch with them about these ideas. Of course, the implementation of any specific ideas and the work that has to be done by the government in preparing to meet any of these proposals may be complex matters, and any decisions of this sort are matters to be announced by the government in due course.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister loves the
phrase, "in due course".



APPOINTMENT OF LAKEHEAD MOVEMENT CO-ORDINATOR

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement a few days ago to the effect that a grain handling co-ordinator will be appointed for the Thunder Bay region, when will he be making an appropriate announcement to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: When I am ready to make it, Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's explanation in such optimistic terms of how well wheat is moving, why is it that only 100 boxcars a day are being unloaded at the Lakehead when there are facilities for 400 box cars a day to be unloaded. Why is this failure being explained as a success by the minister?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have before me figures regarding unloadings. The pattern has been maintained at a fairly constant rate of about 400 boxcars a day in all the reports I have had to date. The target is between 400 and 500 boxcars a day for the immediate future, and it will of course rise to over 500 in later stages. We want to be in a position to work on over 1,000 boxcars a day once navigation resumes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the minister's attention some information that apparently he has not obtained from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. gentleman but he knows, of course, that at this point of the proceedings he cannot bring information to the attention of the minister. He may only ask questions.

January 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Trudeau:: Send the information over.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to ask a question when one meets with such evasion as this minister constantly practises in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him this: Is it not a
fact that up to the fourteenth day of this month and in the last few days especially only 100 boxcars a day were being unloaded, whereas there are facilities for 400 being unloaded. Is that a fact or is it not? Let the minister answer without evasion. Let us have the truth.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that approximately 4000 boxcars to be unloaded are on the way to the Lakehead at the present time. The last figures I saw, and they are up to the day before yesterday, show that unloadings are running at more than 400 cars a day for the Lakehead region. I will be very glad to produce these figures and these daily reports so that the right hon. gentleman may obtain his facts accurately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not the first time the minister has misled the House with false information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: The Solicitor General had better stay with marijuana.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman cannot suggest that the minister has wilfully misled the House.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I did not say wilfully.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point the right hon. gentleman is trying to make. He did not suggest that the minister had wilfully misled the House. I appreciate that point. Perhaps we might go on.


John George Diefenbaker: One moment please, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the point of order the right hon. gentleman is seeking to raise.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether Mr. Speaker does. I will never charge deliberate misleading of the House when stupidity affords an excuse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note that a number of other hon. members are anxious to ask questions about the same subject. Perhaps we might allow two or three further supple-mentaries, after which hon. members might agree to go on to another subject.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my supplementary question perhaps I could resolve the present difficulty by saying to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert that his figures are for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminal only.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is indulging in debate. Perhaps he might ask his question.



FINAL PAYMENTS FOR 1968-69 CROP YEAR

Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate to the House what is the expected possible or probable level of final payments for Durum wheat and hard red spring wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position at the moment to make a statement about this. I have in the past indicated that the prices for grain have been for some time running at levels below the levels required to meet the initial payments which were made to farmers for the crop year in question. Accordingly there is significant doubt about money being available in the pool, if it were to be closed at the present time. Of course, these matters can change. The actual closing of the pool itself will affect the final amounts. That, certainly, is the situation at the present time. There is no reason at all for us to be optimistic about the pool; indeed, the likelihood is that the treasury will be involved with fairly significant amounts in order to make up the difference between initial payments and amounts realized.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: A further supplementary question,
January 16, 1970

Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement to the effect that quite possibly there will be no final payment for the 1968-69 crop year, would the minister and his officials and the government support the principle of making a substantial acreage payment to western farmers in lieu of the government's failure to make these final payments?



EFFECT OF COLD WEATHER ON MOVEMENT

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as last year it was stated that grain deliveries could not be maintained to terminal elevators because of cold weather and inasmuch as today the temperature at Camrose, Alberta, is 50 below zero, at Fort Qu'Appelle, 35 below zero and at Winnipeg 27 below zero, a factor that may jam up the working of the master plan that has been arrived at, will the minister indicate whether for the present year plans have been made for contingencies such as cold weather so that the terminals will be filled by the time the shipping season opens this coming spring?


Otto Emil Lang: The problem last year in connection with unloading at Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, was more complicated than one simply involving cold weather, because at that time it involved the clogging of the system with damp grain, as well as the cold weather which extended not only throughout the prairie region, where it is expected, but also throughout the mountains and other areas where it is not expected. The position at Vancouver is that there is in storage about the right supply of grain for the ships that are expected. We do not foresee any difficulty with regard to the movement of the grain required to meet the needs of the ships which are expected.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to grant one more supplementary to the hon. member who brought this question up in the first instance.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact that Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminals are receiving 100 cars a day and say they can handle 400, and since more than 200 grain handlers have been laid off, would the minister seek to persuade the Wheat Board and the railways to increase immediately the number of cars arriving at the Lakehead each day?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: I have explained to the hon. member why the number of cars arriving is, in fact, an appropriate number of cars, and I do not think I need give that explanation again.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question relating to the dairy policy.
Would the minister indicate to the House whether the total amount of dairy subsidies will be increased this year in order to provide for the re-adjustment of a certain number of quotas which are inadequate and raise a great deal of criticism from many farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are a number of ways in which the net return to producers of dairy products could be increased, and one of the most important would be a reduction in the cost of exporting surpluses. The standing committee of this House is addressing itself to the matter now and we are holding discussions with the dairy farmers of Canada and many of the other producer organizations which have a direct interest in this subject.



COMBINES


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what action his department and the government intend to take to deal with the problem of the very large number of Canadian companies which are being taken over each year by United States interests? The minister advised the House in December that his department had been studying this problem very hard for some time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will
appreciate, I am sure, that the information he is seeking now should normally be given by way of a statement on motions.


George Harris Hees: With great respect to Your Honour, I began my question by asking the minister if he would consent to advise the House at the first opportunity on motions. I am just asking him to say yes or no.

January 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: In
due course, when our studies are complete, I shall make the House aware of our decision on this matter.


George Harris Hees: In the meantime, is it the intention of the minister to become a modern Nero who fiddles while large sections of the Canadian economy are absorbed by United States interests?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If we have a Nero, you have got a zero.


George Harris Hees: I just asked.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has he received any direct representations from representatives of organized labour concerning his proposed temporary voluntary curbs on prices and wages?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.


Robert Muir: Does the minister intend to meet with representatives of labour in the near future, shortly, or at some time, to discuss this matter?


Edgar John Benson: As I explained to the House, Dr. Young of the Prices and Incomes Commission has indicated he hopes to be able to hold a conference in February at which industry, business and the professions will be represented. I believe his next step would be consultation with organized labour. Although I do not report for this commission and I am not in continuous contact with Dr. Young, I believe he is in touch with organized labour from time to time in this regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact that the military observer team in Nigeria has stated in the course of a recent conference that it was 
only able to spend about three hours at Owerri and several other towns on the periphery of the former Biafran-occupied territory before returning to Lagos, will the gov-enment request the Nigerian government to enable observers to visit immediately the areas formerly occupied by Biafran forces in order that they might be in a position to observe and report from the areas in which the main threat of massive starvation is believed to exist?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
I shall ask the minister to take that suggestion into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Has the Prime Minister received any response from the President of Nigeria to the message the right hon. gentleman dispatched to him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had no answer yet, to my knowledge.



DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS


Mr. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention to introduce new Canadian awards for bravery and, if so, can the minister give the House an assurance that awards granted to Canadians in the past will not be considered as falling within the same category as foreign awards?


John George Diefenbaker: That is what they were described as in another department.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Consideration is being given to adopting new Canadian awards for bravery. It has been realized that the single award now authorized, the Medal of Courage, does not cover the whole range of courageous acts by civilians and members of the forces. I would assure my hon. friend that there is no intention whatever to downgrade the awards which gallant and brave Canadians have received in the past from the Sovereign on the recommendation of the government of Canada. It is unthinkable that these would ever be regarded as foreign awards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: You
had better tell that to Pelletier.
January 16. 1970


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State said they were foreign awards.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St Georges'-Si. Barbe):: Would the minister tell us whether a report has been prepared on the reclassification of military awards and, if so, would he be prepared to table it in the House?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am not aware that such a report has been prepared. It is intended to prepare such a report when the new awards are decided upon.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Will these awards come under the auspices of the minister, as we hope, or under the auspices of the Secretary of State?


An hon. Member:: As we do not hope.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think it is likely to develop this way: the decorations committee would look after the civilian side of awards and I would hope that the Minister of National Defence would deal with the military awards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I should like to direct this supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a report prepared on the reclassification of military awards and would he be prepared to table such report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of such a report, Mr. Speaker. I do know, as the Minister of National Defence has said, that work is being done to establish awards which would supplement the present ones and which would be tied in with the Order of Canada awards instituted some time ago. As far as I know this is being done under the auspices of Government House and not of any particular minister.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State is not here today, being on the official absentee list. He gave us to understand yesterday that the report was in the hands of the Prime Minister. Is there any basis for that statement? The chairman of the committee is the Undersecretary of State.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of the precise nature of the report to which the right hon. gentleman refers. I repeat that work is being done by officials under, I believe, the titular supervision of Government House rather than of any minister. Of course, the Undersecretary of State and other officials are members
Inquiries of the Ministry of such a working group. If they have produced a report and have sent it to my office, I have not yet taken cognizance of it.



POLICY RESPECTING INTEGRATION OF U.S. AND CANADIAN RESOURCES

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether, since his original discussions in Washington with Secretary Hickel, there have been further communications which would have the effect of varying the original proposals discussed in Washington?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in communication with Mr. Hickel since that date, but there have been no specific proposals with the exception of my specific proposal to Mr. Hickel that it would be in the interests of the United States as well as Canada that we be afforded a wide-open market for our crude oil in the United States.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister table in the House any relevant documents that are made available or issued in regard to this matter either by the Canadian government or the United States government? Is the minister also prepared to table now the studies that were carried out by the Canadian government relating to energy policy, particularly the feasibility study on an oil pipeline from western Canada to Montreal?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, such documents will be tabled by me as are in accord with the rules of the House as well as in accord with the public interest. With respect to studies of pipelines from the west to Montreal, I believe the Borden report is a public document and is a fairly comprehensive study dealing with that issue. I would refer the hon. member to it.


John Stratford Burton: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister has established an advisory team consisting of oil industry executives to advise him on oil policy, would the minister consider expanding this committee or establishing a separate committee composed of people who will be able to advise him on matters affecting the public interest?

January 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think the committee as constituted is an extremely good one, and the country is very fortunate that men of this calibre and capacity are willing to serve on this advisory committee. For the present, I have no thought of enlarging or expanding that committee.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce flying a kite or was he giving us a peek at government policy when he is reported to have said in Toronto yesterday that unilingual French-speaking units within the public service "are second best" and "one of last resort which I hope and believe will not materialize"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member's choice of words is procedurally correct. The hon. member can ask the Prime Minister whether a minister's statement is an expression of government policy, and I assume that that is what the hon. member is asking the Prime Minister now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister was not stating government policy in this regard because government policy has not yet been established. This I said a few days ago. I have not read the speech in question, but from the part quoted by the hon. member it seems to me that it would not be a difficult position to accept that it is second best. I suppose first best would be to have everyone in the country speaking both languages.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I quite agree with what the Prime Minister says, and in view of his answer to me yesterday I did not intend to ask him any further questions about the matter since I understood that government policy was under review. However, in light of the speech made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce yesterday, and in view of the statement made in the House by the Secretary of State, who expressed the opposite point of view that it would be a logical extension of existing bilingual services to have French unilingual units in the public service, is it the policy of the government to allow other ministers to contribute their

thoughts in a personal way, as in the case of the NATO debate, so that we may obtain a full expression of cabinet opinion before government policy is actually defined?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe we received applause and encouragement from the members of the opposition with regard to this form of dialogue, and we intend to continue it when it is opportune to do so.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for whoever is responsible for fielding questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his absence. In asking this question I run the risk of being branded by my wife, but I ask it since many Canadians are interested in the subject. Can the minister tell the House what the government is doing to assure the public that no danger exists, if such is the case, in the use of oral contraceptives?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker I should like to assure the hon. member that the minister recently reviewed the reports relating to the adverse effects of oral contraceptives. Steps have been taken to check further into the latest reports of the adverse effects.


Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In asking this question I assure the House my interest is purely objective. Can the Parliamentary Secretary advise whether the department has made any study of the drug known as L-dopa which is reputed to have amazing rejuvenative powers?


Stanley Haidasz: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Approximately 13 neurologists have been given permission to carry out an investigation of the drug known as L-dopa and its use in relation to Parkinson's disease.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A further supplementary question. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is asking for volunteers from his own party in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Refer it to the Senate.
January 18, 1970



GLACE BAY HEAVY WATER PLANT-LEGAL ACTION AGAINST NOVA SCOTIA

Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the inability of the Glace Bay plant to deliver heavy water to the government of Canada, is the government considering legal action against the government of Nova Scotia for defaulting on its contract with Atomic Energy of Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member referred only to the inability of the plant. To date there has been no government decision that I know of in this regard.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is really supplementary to an earlier one. In view of the fact that the heavy water plant in the Maritimes is not making very substantial progress, is the minister considering reviving plans for a heavy water plant at Estevan, Saskatchewan?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl
Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the interest of showing some government initiative in its so-called fight against inflation, will the minister suspend until March 1 the increase in the price of cigars in the parliamentary restaurant?
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have given up smoking cigars.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from a statement made last night by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who proposed a national water quality code with regional guidelines. Is it the intention of the government to propose such an amendment to the Canada water bill?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the speech, if speech it was, of the minister referred to. Under the aegis of the Canada Water Act I think we will achieve, if the Act is effective-and we believe it will be-national standards by the introduction of water quality management areas under the Act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question. In closing the debate on the water bill is it the intention of the minister to outline the changes that the government is proposing to make in the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this is the kind of question which might be asked later during the debate when the bill is being considered.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this now is that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has made a statement and probably other ministers will be doing so also. At this time I think it essential that we know whether these various statements are to be consolidated at the conclusion of the debate, so that we will not be asking questions all the time.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay Wesf):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether this question should be directed to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent oil discovery by Imperial Oil in the Canadian Arctic and the statement by Stewart Hodgson, one of the commissioners of the Northwest Territories, about the urgent need for the federal government to establish adequate conservation and land use regulations in the territories, I should like to ask the minister whether such regulations are lacking and when the department will lay down adequate policies to meet the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I have serious reservations as to the form of the question but perhaps the minister might wish to reply.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think there is regulation now and it is the intention

January 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry to take an over-all approach to pollution in the North which will no doubt include provisions in respect of assuring the well-being of the ecology in the event of oil exploration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has any information he can pass on to the House regarding the success the Prices and Incomes Commission is having in persuading the leaders of organized labour to keep wage demands within agreed-upon guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; the commission does not report to me in any sense. I had one meeting with them and that is all, to my recollection.


George Harris Hees: Would the Prime Minister ask his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to take the first opportunity on motions to report to the House on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I will ask him, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent eruptions by the volcanic Mr. Fullerton of the National Capital Commission, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to resign and make way for Mr. Fullerton?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. The minister is in Quebec city on other business.



MALTING BARLEY-DENIAL OF SHIPPING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, now that he has had a bit of a break during the question period. In view of the fact that producers in some areas of central Alberta are being denied shipping

privileges for certain varieties of malting barley because of unfavourable freight rates, will the minister conduct an investigation of this matter, particularly in relation to the Alberta Wheat Pool and Canada Malting, in order that these producers may enjoy a fair and equitable share of the malting barley market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking into the complaint to which the hon. member refers to see whether there is any substance to it and what solutions may be required. I hope to be able to make a report soon.



INDUSTRY


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether a decision has been made in respect of the proposal to establish a potash export board to deal with potash marketing problems?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, as a result of conversations that have been taking place between this government and the government of Saskatchewan, we have reason to believe that changes will be made to the present system as defined recently by the Saskatchewan government. I should not like to preclude the success of this operation and I will not comment further.


John Stratford Burton: Did the Premier of Saskatchewan inform the minister or the federal government of the nature of the discussions to be held with potash officials in Germany, or was he acting in any way on behalf of the government of Canada in respect of these discussions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Personally, I did not need any explanation, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board whether he has had discussions with his colleagues who have responsibility in respect of problems anticipated as a result of
January 16, 1970



Inquiries of the Ministry
a number of lay-offs of grain handlers at Mr. Diefenbaker: Did the Wheat Board get Thunder Bay occasioned by the inability of his quota book back to the Premier of Sas-the government to maintain and sustain an katchewan within 15 days? adequate flow of grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course the very premise of the question is false, Mr. Speaker, because in fact a sustained and steady flow of grain is planned. However, notwithstanding that there have been discussions concerning this whole situation between myself and a number of my colleagues.



MEETING TO DISCUSS BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Government House Leader. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is yet in a position to meet with other House Leaders to discuss possible terms of reference under which the question of broadcasting the proceedings of the House by radio and television might be considered by a committee?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker. I expect that probably next Thursday afternoon I will be able to talk about that.



PICKING UP OF QUOTA BOOKS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, whether or not orders have gone out to discontinue the picking up of quota books which has become a source of deep concern and resentment, as he knows, in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The enforcement of the rules concerning the orderly marketing of grain is going forward in the usual way, and where these enforcement procedures require the collecting of evidence that evidence is collected. Normally, of course, this involves the picking up of permit books. According to the Wheat Board Act, as it has stood since I believe 1947, these permit books must be returned or a duplicate issued to the farmer within 15 days. In fact, the Wheat Board is able to get them back much quicker than that.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister answering for the Minister of Labour. Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission practising discrimination against residents of towns and villages by refusing to pay unemployment insurance benefits to claimants residing in these communities unless they are prepared to accept jobs in cities, which often entails many miles of travel?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I would be glad to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Sarnia has a specific case in mind, I would be only too glad to talk it over with him after the question period.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, will the Parliamentary Secretary discuss with the minister the possibility of investigating the lack of efficiency in a number of unemployment insurance offices across Canada where many people, and I am sure all hon. members agree, are not getting a very efficient response to their claims and consequently are waiting months for legitimate payments?
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation development and utilization of water resources, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, last night in the course of my remarks I indicated to you that we are getting the pol-

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
lution we deserve because of our conduct and inaction. We cannot continue to dump sewage and industrial wastes into our rivers, lakes and streams and also emit pollutants into the air, without getting the results we are now obtaining. I said we should move from an affluent society to an effluent society. I mentioned that as a member of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, I obtained the impression from the presentation of the minister and the answers to questions by officials that they seemed to be dealing in the area of studies rather than the area of action. They seemed to be hung up with the jurisdictional problem when in fact they had adequate legislation before them to take effective action to deal with the question of pollution.
Then, I proceeded to outline to the House the reaction of the minister of energy and resource development of Ontario and pointed out that he was concerned about the lack of co-ordination between federal agencies in dealing with the problem of pollution. I mentioned that he was also concerned about the importance of having a single agency which would gather together the enforcement provisions of the different acts in order to make them really effective. This Ontario minister was also concerned about the lack of national standards and incentives related to pollution equipment. He indicated the willingness of the province of Ontario to give municipalities tax exemptions in respect of buildings that house pollution equipment. He also pointed out that the Ontario government is willing to forgo the 11 per cent sales tax with regard, to pollution equipment and is asking for a response by the federal government on this important matter. He mentioned the lack of incentive forthcoming from the federal government.
Then, I referred to the Canadian Wild Life Federation brief which indicated that we are pussyfooting through the concept of co-operative federalism and providing an excuse for the federal government's inaction in respect of this important problem. The brief stated that Canadians want a meaningful federal participation by this government in combating this problem. It also indicated that the success of this legislation would depend on a massive input of federal funds. At that time, I said I hoped the minister, in his closing remarks, would meet some of these comments of the Ontario minister of energy and resource development and of the Canadian Wild Life Federation.
I suggested that when the bill is referred to the committee we should have an opportunity to call witnesses from the different provinces and different organizations to give their views in respect of this important bill. Then, I became slightly parochial and set forth the situation in the city of Toronto where, as a result of sewage disposal and industrial waste, there is a pollution problem in respect of the Don River, the Humber River and the Credit River. A disgraceful situation has developed in the city of Toronto. The beaches cannot be used for swimming and in the fall of the year ducks die as a result of pollutants in the water. I pointed out that in 1964 a large program in respect of pollution in the Great Lakes system was referred to the International Joint Commission which is composed of three Canadian and three United States representatives. At the close of last evening I pointed out, by reference to a United States commission report, the number of pulp mills, chemical plants and food processing plants that are pouring their industrial waste into the Great Lakes in Ontario.
When we appreciate the fact that the Great Lakes in Ontario are the main pure water source in the world, it certainly behooves us to take immediate action. I mentioned that Lake Erie is now considered to be a so-called dead lake. In Biblical times we had the Dead Sea and now in modern times we have Lake Erie referred to as the dead lake. There is an imminent danger of the term "dead lake" being applied not only to Lake Erie but to Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes.
I should like to refer to an article by Mr. Peter Calamai which appeared in the Montreal Gazette for October 13, 1969 under the heading "Pollution: point of no return?". In this article Mr. Calamai is commenting on the pollution report released by the International Joint Commission with regard to the health picture of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The article reads:
The deciding factor will be how fast and with how much enthusiasm governments and industries seize the one last hope which the joint TJ.S.-Canadian research committees left for them.
To save Lake Erie all these groups should take multi-million dollar action within three years; to save Lake Ontario they have six years.
The main problem in respect of the lake is the deposit of phosphates. I continue quoting:
While the pollution report outlined a whole series of water quality objectives and recommendations it offered one, fast and sure method of curbing the gross pollution of the lakes.

January 16, 1970

"Stop phosphorus going into the lakes", the researchers said, and they will be healthy as can ever be hoped by 1986.
Failure to stop phosphorus inflow into Lake Erie within the three-year limit, the report warns, will bring the prospect of the lake regenerating its own pollution from phosphorus in the bottom muck.
While the report continually uses the word "phosphorus" the researchers made it clear they were referring largely to phosphorus compounds such as phosphates, which is phosphorus combined with oxygen.
These compounds occur in municipal sewage- coming largely from detergents housewives rinse down the sink-and in fertilizers and some industrial processes.
Four years of study by the pollution experts who wrote the report convinced them that phosphorus was the key to pollution in the lower lakes area where population has increased 100 times in the past 150 years.
The phosphorus-44,000 tons annually into the two lakes from all sources-is plant food for the algae rapidly coating lagoons and beaches. The more plant growth there is in the lakes the less oxygen is available for fish and for the biological processes necessary to neutralize other sewage.
Then, the report continues and points out the following:
Even more vital, one of the researchers commented, is that the same process is taking place in all Canadian lakes. Within this century the same point-of-no-return could be reached in Lake Superior or Huron.
How to stop the phosphorus?
Cut it off at the source, says the report.
About 67 per cent of all the phosphorus input into the two lakes comes from municipal sewage: another eight per cent comes from industrial wastes. Of the municipal share anywhere from 50 to 70 per cent is directly related to the phosphates in detergents.
So the report recommends an immediate reduction to minimum practical levels of the phosphorus in detergents and the complete elimination of such phosphorus compounds by 1972.
How practical is this?
Phosphates make up about 30 per cent of a box of detergent.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
One U.S. manufacturer already has a brand on the market with 25 per cent less detergent than other products and sales are going well, according to one researcher.
The article concludes:
If the detergent companies do replace their harmful products by 1972 that action will probably save Canadian taxpayers $5 million annually in sewage treatment costs alone.
This indicates that the problem we are having is phosphates, the main source of which is the detergents used by women.
I think I should relate to members of the House that just recently one of the research
Water Resources
experts at the University of Toronto has come forth with a phosphate free detergent. I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) to call that expert before the committee to give us the benefit of his findings. I ask that the minister contact that professor, if he has not already done so, so that we could have the joint cooperation of the professor and possibly of the Polymer Corporation of Canada to produce this phosphate free detergent because the main source of the phosphate in the detergents comes from ERCO, the Electrical Reduction Company. Just this week that company was fined $40,000 for infractions to the Combines Investigation Act. It seems to me that we have a public duty, if a professor has found a phosphate free detergent, to use a crown corporation like the Polymer Corporation which would be suitably geared to produce this detergent and make it available.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that his time has expired. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John Gilbert: I will not trespass on the generosity of hon. members any longer than about five minutes at the most.
As I said, I would like the minister to take immediate action with regard to the finding made by the professor from the University of Toronto, and also to delve into the feasibility of the Polymer Corporation, which I understand is looking for other lines to produce, developing this product.
I could go on ad infinitum on the problems of pollution in the air, but before doing so I should like to say that we also have a problem of oil pollution in Lake Ontario. The other day the Gulf Company of Canada was charged by the Ontario Water Resources Commission with polluting Lake Ontario. Again the International Joint Commission studied this problem very seriously, and in the Globe and Mail issue of December 3, 1969 the findings of that commission are reported as indicating a conflict between the Ontario and the federal officials with regard to the possible effects of oil in Lake Ontario.
The article reads:
Six submissions from the gas and oil industry argued against any curtailment of drilling. A thick brief from the Ontario Petroleum Institute Incorporated told of elaborate plans to deal with a leak should one occur-

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
In contrast to the industry briefs were submissions from the city of Buffalo, the town of Hamburg, N.Y., and Toronto Alderman Anthony O'Donohue, all of which called for a moratorium on drilling.
Harold Baumler, counsel for Hamburg, said the greatest danger posed by drilling "is not an oil spill such as recently occurred in California but an accidental leak of salt brine".
He said experts have warned that a spill of salt brine from an oil well "would be one of the greatest natural catastrophes that could strike the Great Lakes". Within 48 hours of a major spill all of Lake Erie would be polluted with salt.
"If enough salt water got into the lake it would kill every fresh-water fish and plant."
I am sure that the minister has jurisdiction in this area and I hope he will take immediate action to call an immediate moratorium on oil drilling in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.
I cannot do better than to quote from the main speech by the member from our party who led off the debate. He said:
(1)	There are no uniform water quality standards, nor a set of various plans to meet specific situations. This means that in areas of Canada where public opinion is not well organized, pollution control agencies will follow the path of least resistance and allow industry and hesitant municipalities to dictate policy.
(2)	The bill will allow industry to pay a fee for the right to pollute. The people of Canada want clean water, not money.
(3)	Many municipalities do not have the finances to make a serious effort at pollution control. The government's vague promises about loans are not sufficient if Canada is really going on a clean up campaign.
(4)	There is little scope for the influence of citizens' groups and popular opinion generally to affect the plans of local pollution control agencies. Industry will maintain powerful influence and this should be balanced by the organization of public committees.
May I say in conclusion that my reading of this bill leads me to the belief that all we have really is a new administrative framework for overcoming federal-provincial conflicts, and that we have not taken a hard look and come forth with solutions to meet the problem of pollution. We have to help municipalities financially, tighten regulations applying to industry, set national standards and, above all, we have to have federal leadership in the enforcement of this act.
I look forward to having the minister before the committee to resolve some of these problems and come forth with solutions which will make Canadians proud of their clean air, clean water and clean environment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate, it has been made crystal clear by the various mem-
bers who have contributed to the discussion that there are great inadequacies in Bill C-144. I will not be repetitious at all in the contribution I want to make because I think that the inadequacies and deficiencies have been clearly defined. As you are well aware, the members of this group have felt so seriously about the matter that we endeavoured to have the bill referred back to the government, so that the obvious inadequacies and inefficiencies could be eliminated. It was because there have been such long delays in moving to deal in forthright terms with the problems of renewable resource management that we felt the most strenuous action available in this House should be taken. It is not for me to judge why the government has failed to come to grips with the vital aspects of pollution in our environment.
However, there is a new report that has become public which indicates that perhaps the explanation is that the government is not fully aware of the nature of the problem. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Jack Davis, speaking yesterday to the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce-and I am reading from the press despatch-said that he does not subscribe to alarmist talk about pollution. Quoting directly from the speech, I read:
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
"I don't believe all that I read about dying lakes and sickening seas. Most of it is poppycock ... written by novices who are reaching for headlines ..."
Mr. Davis said there are pollution problems in Canada "but the ecological situation is still basically under control."
The minister called for a national water quality-code, with regional guidelines drawn to meet regional needs.
In this statement, delivered as recently as yesterday, we have the reason for the halfhearted, half-baked approach to the problem of dealing with the control of water pollution outlined in the bill that is before us.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat the problems in the legislation that have been outlined by earlier speakers in this debate. We shall have an opportunity to deal with those in some considerable depth when the legislation finally comes before the committee. But in the light of the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries, a minister who has basic responsibility in the field of our renewable resources, it is important to underline that the legislation will in no way deal with the fundamental problem that he has outlined, the necessity of establishing a national water
January 16. 1970

quality code. I have looked carefully through the legislation and I see no provision in it at all dealing with this major problem that was referred to by the Minister of Fisheries.
My purpose in speaking today is to refresh the memory of the minister responsible for conducting this legislation through the House, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). In his statement introducing the legislation, he delivered a speech that was typical of the flowery Irish oratory to which we have become accustomed. Throughout his career in the House of Commons, the hon. gentleman has established himself as a Lin-colnesque Irish sort of orator, who can best be described in the well-known phrase, "He has kissed the Blarney Stone." I do not think that kissing the Blarney Stone is the sort of solution that is required in dealing with the problems of pollution of our rivers. I sit right across the floor from the hon. gentleman, and I have known him from the days when he served in the Royal Canadian Air Force. He and I received those foreign medals that were referred to by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) the other day and we could make a good night-fighter crew-


Duncan Gordon Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not wish to have the record misstate the facts. It has been made clear that the medals he and other gallant people have received will never be treated as foreign medals.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I was merely quoting the statement of the Secretary of State, within whose department I understand this matter is being considered, and he did use the phrase "foreign medals", including those that were awarded for service in World War II. As I was saying, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was a navigator and I was a pilot, so we could form a very good night-fighter crew. Maybe we are dealing in the dark with respect to the present legislation, and perhaps I can throw some light on the matter.
We should recall the public discussion and consideration of this subject that has taken place over the last 20 years. These discussions have brought us to the position where everybody is concerned. I am not just referring to novices interested in alarmist talk, but I include the most responsible people in the field of renewable resource conservation and development, those who have been in the vanguard in warning us, we are reaching the crisis point because of our failure to deal
Water Resources
adequately with the problem not only in Canada but more particularly south of the border in the United States of America. I repeat that everybody is concerned.
There is another old Irish saying that the sweetest memories of life are the recollections of things forgotten. Obviously, the minister has forgotten much of what has transpired in the past, or has not been aware of it. Certainly, this would apply to the Minister of Fisheries in the light of what he said yesterday.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated that the decade of the 70's will be known as the pollution decade when at long last governments not only in this country but in other countries will come to grips with this critical problem. Actually, I think it was the decade of the 60's when governments and responsible public leaders became deeply concerned over the dangerous trends that were becoming all too obvious in the area of our natural resources.
The United States talked frequently about the necessity of conserving resources for the future. A private organization under that name emerged, with the intent of alerting governmental officials to the growing problem. The Secretary of the Interior under the former Democratic government, in fact under several Democratic governments, the Hon. Stuart Udall, wrote a very significant book that received considerable attention in the early 60's. Its title was "The Quiet Crisis," the crisis that had come upon us almost in the night as it were, and he was no novice who was trying to grab newspaper headlines. He was a man knowledgeable in the field, who had the responsibility of leading the fight for better conservation measures in the great republic to the south of us.
In Canada the study of the problems of renewable resources focussed around the Resources for Tomorrow Conference held in 1961, and because of the body of information brought together at that conference it was expected that remedial action would be forthcoming within a few years. We have waited until 1970 and, as hon. members have indicated, there is not much of substance provided in the bill now before us.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) indicated that nothing had been done in past years. Obviously, he has not read the three volume report that came out of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference. It is because of this that I want to review briefly the record of the past two decades.
Water Resources

January 16, 1970
[DOT] (12:50 p.ra.)
We must give credit to the government of Ontario for early initiative in this field. It was because of that province's concern over what was happening to its natural environment that pressure was put on Ottawa for federal assistance in the late 40's and early 50's. Because of this pressure, ad hoc arrangements were made whereby Ottawa assisted with specific projects. There was some realization that this was quite inadequate, and in 1953 the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act was passed, which remained on the statute books of Canada and was not used to any great extent really until the latter 50's and the early 60's. This lack of use resulted from a general lack of awareness on the part of the general public to the crisis that was upon us. However, between 1957 and 1963 several major water conservation projects were undertaken which involved the direct participation of the government of Canada. I could refer to the greater Metro Toronto scheme, the Winnipeg floodway and water control project, the South Saskatchewan dam and the Passamaquody project in the maritimes as well as other similar projects in other parts of Canada. This was the first real attempt at federal government leadership in this field.
It was soon realized that the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act was quite inadequate because it placed the initiative on the provincial government in getting projects started. It had been felt that direct participation by Ottawa to the extent of 37i per Cent of the total cost of the projects would be sufficient incentive. We are fully aware that the management, conservation and development of our renewable resources is going to be an expensive proposition. However, in view of the remaining financial obligations, even the 37J per cent was not sufficient to arouse provincial governments, who have the direct responsibility in this area, to take the necessary action. This experience of course arises from the fact that there is a fundamental jurisdictional problem, and it was for that reason the government of Canada, seizing the leadership responsibility which must inevitably devolve upon them, called the Resources for Tomorrow Conference in 1961.
The provinces own the renewable resources. Water moves from one province to another. There is interprovincial jurisdictional division. There are international complications that must be dealt with. It is obvious that the federal government had an obligation

to provide encouragement and leadership in the resource development field, within the constitutional framework of course.
Fundamentally it was realized, because of the unhappy experience with the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, there must be some federal financial assistance on a guaranteed basis, on the basis of a specific formula underpinning the scheme.
Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, as has been pointed out by several hon. members in this debate, the basic ingredient of federal leadership in the wise management of our renewable resources, including water, is lacking. There is no provision whatsoever for financial participation. Instead, I would say this is a retrograde step and we are going back to the laissez-faireism and ad hocism, if I may use that phrase, that existed before the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act was passed.
The bill and preliminary publicity material issued in connection with it are full of "it is expected" and "we hope". There is no specific terminology to indicate that the government of Canada has decided to take a firm lead in this matter. It is designed to deal with the area of jurisdictional dispute. However, this area has already been adequately dealt with by the Resource Ministers' Council, which is very seldom referred to these days but does exist with a secretariat located in the city of Montreal for the precise purpose of overcoming the areas of jurisdictional dispute.
The Resource Ministers' Council has done excellent work, notwithstanding the relative neglect by the Liberal administration since they returned to power in 1963. It has reviewed all the cost-sharing agreements; it has collected all the basic data concerning Canada's water resources; it sponsored the Pollution of Our Environment Conference in the fall of 1966 and it has encouraged Canada's participation in the hydrological decade which is from 1965 to 1974.
It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, to bring forward a piece of legislation now, which, in pious terms reinforced by Irish oratory, hopes to deal with the problem of jurisdictional division in the field of resource management. We have the machinery; what we need now is federal leadership in the renewable resource field.
In his speech the minister emphasized, and I must give him credit for this, that he recognized that the greatest source of inadequacy was the failure of the government to put its
January 16, 1970

money where its mouth is. There is no provision for financial support and I can assure him, on the basis of the brief summary I have made here, that if there is no promise of financial support from the federal level of government then there will be no action on the part of the provincial governments. They are concerned, they are greatly exercised on the matter, but the federal government has been withdrawing its financial support from so many areas of joint participation and cooperative federalism that I am sure it will be almost impossible, as it has been over the previous two decades, to get them to take leadership in the field. The leadership responsibility lies solely and entirely with the federal government. This was demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt at the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point I emphasize in bringing my remarks to a close.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume same at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I believe a water act could be one of the most important pieces of legislation to be put on the statute books of this nation. There will not be a dissenting voice in this House or in the country in respect of setting up an adequate water policy. However, there will be much resentment if this Bill C-144 is not amended so that it is meaningful and effective. In a few words, it lacks teeth, strength and direction.
Water pollution should be an offence in any part of the country by any person or company, and effective deterrent measures should be prescribed in the bill. Financial support to the provinces should be specified where joint programs can be arranged; and these should be uniform. In fact, our amendment pretty well covers this field and should be accepted. If we can proceed from there without undue delay some relief from the serious pollution situation might be forthcoming.
Time is of the essence and this has been forcibly brought home to us when we realize that DDT now pollutes all waters. It has been found in the penguins of the Antarctic and
Water Resources
the polar bears of the Arctic. The Great Lakes are polluted with DDT to a point where the Cohoe salmon caught in Lake Huron were condemned for food because they contained DDT beyond the tolerance of the human body. The pollution in some areas of the Great Lakes such as Lake Erie has reached a point where some species of fish have been eliminated.
Much of the pollution, Mr. Speaker, in the Great Lakes could be corrected by the installation of sewage disposal plants in some of the cities. The city of Owen Sound in my constituency is one of those municipalities that values and enjoys a clean environment and is making use of such a plant. The Georgian Bay area, which constitutes much of my constituency, enjoys comparatively clean water when one thinks of the conditions in Lake Erie. We do not have large cities dumping raw sewage into the lakes in our area and our municipalities are progressively accepting and using sewage disposal systems.
The extreme pollution in Lake Erie is the result of run-off from the tobacco producing areas where large amounts of DDT are used, along with nitrates and phosphates which are used in fertilizers on all farm lands. Added to this, there is the sewage from several large cities on the United States side of the lake. The result is massive mats of algae covering as much as 800 square miles and fouling most of the beaches of Lake Erie. These conditions are not conducive to the production of fish or clean water. Georgian Bay is not plagued with the growth of algae. However, it is not free of DDT, as we have over 3,000 acres of orchards bordering the south shore which use pesticides in their operations. The residues no doubt find their way to our water. We have other pollution, but to a minor degree compared to the country-wide picture.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Water is undoubtedly the most important of the four renewable natural resources because the other three namely, soil, forests, fish and wildlife, are dependant on it; but all four are inter-related. For example, forests and good farming practices prevent the carrying away of the topsoil which silts into the lakes and reservoirs. It is, therefore, obvious that conservation work in all its phases should be co-ordinated, and the unit in which it can best be co-ordinated is the river valley. At this point the people are closest to their river. They know its vicissitudes best and, helped

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
by some technical advice and financial assistance, they are the ones best able to ensure that the water in its fresh water lakes is used to the best advantage for all.
We in the Georgian Bay area have a beautiful country which attracts tourists by the thousands both winter and summer. For many years now we have come to the realization of the value of clean air and pure water. Our people began conservation projects of various kind with a view to preserving these great assets. We were given encouragement and financial support by a provincial Conservative government and a federal Conservative government to the tune of 37j per cent each. The result was the establishment of two authorities, the Sauble Valley Authority and the North Grey Conservation Authority. These authorities are extremely active and have completed many conservation projects. We feel their accomplishments have made our area a virtual tourists' paradise. All water can be improved and no doubt Georgian Bay and Lake Huron are no exception. I know our people will co-operate in any way possible, but they will need direction and financial assistance.
Mr. Speaker, DDT presents this nation with the biggest threat to our health as it is the most powerful of the water pollutants and is reputed to be killing the vegetable plankton in our lakes and in the sea, the source of 80 per cent of man's oxygen supply. Some scientists estimate the oxygen supply contained by the sea will last only 40 more years at the present rate of wastage. It has been authentically stated that since creation every drop of water has been used by someone at some time. There is no such thing as pure water. It has all gone through the normal natural cycling process. It is an accepted fact that since the turn of the century the population explosion and the industrial revolution have upset the normal recycling process..
As long as things were found in nature, bacterial action could take care of them. Man has developed thousands of compounds which are not found in nature and these cannot be broken down through natural action. In many parts of this continent as well as in Europe people are living in oxygen-deficient atmosphere. More oxygen is being used than is being replaced and we continue to destroy the oxygen-producing parts of nature.
Hydro-carbon pesticides are claimed by scientists to be similar to atomic wastes. DDT is 50 per cent effective after 15 to 20 years of exposure. Of the billions of pounds of DDT

used in the last 20 years, 90 per cent is still active. If any one of us were sold as food we would be labelled unfit for human consumption because of the pesticide levels in our bodies.
It is now evident we have been careless about our environment, and the position in which we have placed ourselves is almost as catastrophic as the migration of the lemming into the sea to destroy themselves.
We may ask what is being done about present supplies of DDT which are to be disposed of. Are people being warned not to pour it down the drain or dispose of it in some other way which would make a further contribution to the problem which exists? In Owen Sound we have alerted our people by radio to bring any DDT to be disposed of to a central collecting point. This is an area in which I feel the federal government has an immediate responsibility. Advice should be given to all the provinces as to what is the proper and safe method for the disposal of DDT. I would suggest that if unused stocks were exposed to a high degree of heat in a smelter the harmful effect would be neutralized. There may be other methods which would be just as effective.
I pay tribute to the minister for the finely polished phrases he used in presenting Bill C-144. He gave the impression that this legislation would cure all our water ills, but this is not so. In plain words, this bill lacks guts and leadership and contains no commitment regarding financial assistance. If passed in its present form Bill C-144 will nullify the federal assistance of 37J per cent now provided in the statutes and would foist all financial responsibilities on to the provinces. Nevertheless, the government would hope to bask in the sunshine of popularity for its water policy but in reality the bill in its present form is only another exercise of the government's austerity program.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, the water bill now before the House is perhaps the most important piece of legislation we have tackled in 20 years. This is a sweeping statement, but facts are available to prove it.
The explosion of an atom bomb is something which happens in a moment; we can all see the mushroom cloud and we all know its devastating effect. Pollution, on the other hand, is something which is creeping up on us day by day. It is creeping up at an increasing speed. I do not think that even those who appear to be exaggerating realize the terrible danger which confronts the whole human
January 16, 1970

race, the whole animal kingdom and even, perhaps, the trees and the grasses of the planet on which we live.
This water bill at least opens up the subject. That is about all it does. I shall not spend much time criticizing the bill itself because there is nothing in it which comes to grips with the real problem. The real problem is the destruction of the water resources of the planet and I suggest we are not thinking big enough, if hon. members will pardon the pun, when we try to tackle it. It is an international problem of immense proportions. I understand the nations of the world intend to hold an international conference on water pollution in 1971. That is just a year and a half too late.
We have no need to be modest about water in Canada. We are one of the nations which is still blessed with vast reserves of pure water. But we are going about destroying this great resource at an alarming rate. The old excuse is trotted out that we do not have the money to control pollution. I shall not run down the list of directions in which we have been wasting money. The number is legion. I maintain that money does not need to be an obstacle in this case. If we attack this danger with half the enthusiasm with which we attack lesser matters, such as putting out new medals or building art centres, we should get to the root of it.
The root of this menace is international, and its solution lies through international cooperation. There is no sense talking about international co-operation unless we are first willing to set our own house in order. We are destroying Canada's lakes and rivers. Not only that, but we are destroying the land which surrounds these water resources. I do not think we can entirely separate one form of pollution from the other because if we pollute the land in Canada with insecticides and detergents it is obvious that the rain will wash this material into our rivers which, in turn, will carry it to the lakes and to the seas.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The first thing to do to solve the problem is immediately to outlaw pollution of our streams, rivers and lakes. I do not think there is any constitutional problem involved, and not only can it be done but, if we are to survive, it must be done. As I said before, Canada has what is probably the greatest fresh water supply in the world, and consequently it is our duty to conserve it.
Water Resources
If we take quick action that is successful, then we might even have the answer to the problem of finances. After all, we have a resource that is saleable. If we plan properly and do not give away our water to some other country in perpetuity-in other words, if we sell it by the gallon rather than give concessions-then we can finance the whole deal.
In this regard we cannot escape our duty by passing the blame on to the provinces. Nor can we expect the provinces to handle the prevention of pollution piecemeal because it is too big a job for them to tackle. I started by saying that this problem is an international one that affects all mankind. However, we cannot wait for all mankind to become alerted to the danger. Those who have no fresh water left are too late to solve the problem, but we are not.
I suggest as a fair and concrete proposal that the federal government call now a conference with the provinces to inform the provinces what the federal government is going to do and the standards it is going to insist upon to conserve our fresh, pure water, not in 1971 or 1981 but as of January 1970. I can assure the government that it would receive no opposition from us if this were done.
In light of the speeches so far in this debate, it seems to me that all the prodding is coming from members on this side of the House. I am very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the House are not rising to their feet to flay their own government for the inadequacy of this bill. I know there are many talented members on that side, and I should like them to tell us their ideas with regard to taking effective steps not only to protect the water of Canada and North America but the water resources on this planet.
If this sort of thinking is too big for them, then let them resign their seats and abdicate their responsibilities. They have abdicated practically everything else already; the only thing remaining is for them to move out. I suggest there is a vacuum in this respect that must be filled; and if hon. members opposite have not thought about it till now, then it is time they did.
If hon. members do their homework, they will discover a great deal of thought has already been given to this subject. A magnificent article, which arrived in the mails yesterday, has been written outlining the horrors

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
of pollution. Although it does not propose many answers for dealing with it, the answers are fairly obvious.
The first action we must take is immediate and effective steps to stop pollution now. In this regard we must give leadership. Let us not wait for Peru to tell us what to do; let us tell them what to do. Let us tell the great American republic to the south, which is getting a lot of criticism these days in every other regard, that they are failing in their international obligations.
What are we doing to meet our obligations? I think the republic to the south of us, which has the money, is willing to buy fresh water if we have a sensible plan for supplying it. I suggest in this way we will be able to finance the very measures that I am suggesting.
A lot of research has been done on which, as yet, no action has been taken. However, we need a great deal more research. Why not give our young men an opportunity to study water control and proper methods of conservation? In order to do this we need more money devoted to research in this country. We require additional scholarships at Canadian universities. If we have no diplomas in water control, then let us beg our universities to open up schools to teach our young people about water and water conservation.
The problem of pollution is so great that I suggest we require hundreds of trained people to tackle it. Having trained our young men, let us give them something to do. We have the water resources and the need to preserve them; we have young men of ability and brains, with sufficient drive to take on this responsibility. What they are expecting from us is leadership. These young men want to cut their hair and go back to work. They do not want to loaf around as they think we do here. But they are fed up with the lack of leadership being shown by the government, and so am I. I could not go down to Yorkville and tell these young men that they are wrong and that we are right, because in this respect I think we are wrong.
It is not the responsibility of the provinces to show leadership in this field, but it is their responsibility to co-operate with the federal government in devising a national plan of water conservation which is acceptable to the provinces. Certainly, we cannot shift the financial responsibilities to the provinces and municipalities, which are already carrying a back breaking burden of debt. Although we have not given leadership in fields like hous-

ing, intercity transportation, and things like that, let us take responsibility here. The field is wide open.
As I have said, there are no constitutional hurdles in fighting pollution. The main hurdle is raising the money. If we first have a sensible plan to deal with pollution, then I suggest the very water resources that we wish to save and conserve will foot the bill for the job that we have to do. Water is probably the most important national resource that we have next to men; and we have the manpower. Let us put our young people to work helping to clean up our streams and stop further pollution. If this is done the government will find it will receive more co-operation than it dreamt was possible.
This is not a partisan matter but something in which every member of the House should be vitally interested. It is also something that every department of government should concern itself with. It has been said by several members who preceded me that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has a sufficiently wide interest in the subject to police anti-pollution laws without in any way running into constitutional difficulties. To claim that such difficulties would exist is to drag in a red herring; and red herrings are a specialty of the fisheries department. So, let hon. members stop that kind of talk.
Unemployment in Canada is rising, 6 per cent of the national labour force being now unemployed. Let us put to work about 3 per cent of the labour force to deal with water conservation. This would be a direct answer to the unemployment problem and is the kind of thing that should be done. This would be a national investment, though it would take courage to follow such a course.
I do not pretend to be some sort of Jeremiah standing alone in the wilderness. I am reinforced in my views by some words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I think they should be on the record. He said:
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
We all know how easy it is to dissipate our natural heritage by a short sighted attitude towards industrial and commercial development. In recent years many members of the public, certain industries, and all levels of government have become more conscious of the dangers of resource mismanagement and pollution.
So, it is known by the Prime Minister, and I presume by every member of his cabinet, what pollution will eventually do. This should be known by every member of this House. If it is not hon. members need do nothing more
January 16, 1970

than read this supplement on pollution published by McMaster University, which I am sure all members received in the mail. I do not think it exaggerates the situation. I think it understates the facts.
After reading this publication I was reminded of something I first read many years ago. I went down to the table of the House of Commons and drew a book in which this whole situation is very vividly described. I refer to the Holy Bible, and particularly the book of Revelation. That is worth reading. There is a reference to God pouring out his wrath. There is a pretty accurate description of air, land and water pollution in the book of Revelation. If that book has any validity in this day and age, then we should know that this pollution will end civilization unless we smarten up and do something about it.
This is the same old challenge and we still blame money or the lack of it for the present situation. The book challenges us to follow the suggestions contained in it. Are we unselfish enough to take the bull by the horns and master it? Are we willing enough to dig down deep enough in our pockets and pay the taxes necessary to at least get this plan on the road? Are we brave enough to talk turkey to the provinces, having set our own house here in order, and brave enough to tackle this problem on an international basis? If the world wants fresh water we have it, but we expect international co-operation, particularly from our great neighbour to the south and the other great nations of the world. Fresh water is not the only thing Canada possesses. If we are going to pollute our oceans with DDT and oil slicks as a result of digging into the bowels of the earth below sea level, allowing wildcat oil wells to spew their venom, as I call it, into the ocean, killing all the fish, then co-operation is of a great significance.
It has been pointed out by a man with a great deal more scientific knowledge than I have that life on earth lives on a very thin but evenly balanced rhythm. When you interfere with that rhythm by polluting the air and water you upset the whole system. It might well be that the book of Revelation is much closer to what is going to happen to us in a very few years than one might think, unless one takes note of those things told us not only in the Good Book but by our own well-trained and well-qualified scientists.
Most of the articles I read in this paper have been backed up by men with doctorates in biology, chemistry and engineering. These 21611-19
Water Resources
are men we have trained under our free educational system. They warn us of the difficulties we face. What is the point of sending these people to university and on post-graduate courses when we completely ignore the warnings they bring to our doors?
There has been a great campaign throughout the country in the press and over the radio about what I would refer to as some of the small aspects of this matter. It has been suggested we are poisoning our song birds. The situation is much more serious than that. I believe these people when they say we are not only poisoning our song birds but poisoning ourselves by the very food we eat from the Safeway stores and the comer grocers. These foods contain a great deal more pollution than any man would willingly take if he could see the amount of poison he is taking into his system three times a day.
The same people who are complaining about the loss of our song birds like to point to certain industries, like the E. B. Eddy Company, and say they are poisoning us with refuse. However, those people refuse to stop using the dangerous commodities which they put down their sinks every day and which poison our rivers and eventually our oceans. They should stop waving this flag of horror and pointing to the other fellow. They should ask themselves what they are going to do in their own homes and what the government is going to do with the taxpayer's dollars to stop this enemy of mankind before it stops us.
I have only one main criticism of this bill and that is it just contains a pious hope. It does not do anything significant. It does set guideposts. That is all very well, but the guideposts have been there for at least 2,000 years. We have been warned about what is going to happen if we abuse the soil, air and water which God gave us free and unpolluted. It is not good enough to put up a flag and say we believe in non-pollution or in pure water unless we give strong leadership.
1 do not agree with the suggestion that because we built these factories we cannot stop them from polluting the air. At least we can see that no more factories are built without proper cess pools, smoke stacks and electric machinery for taking these poisons out of the air, water and waste products before they are dumped into our rivers or left on the hillsides to be washed down at a later date.
In order to appreciate the amount of pollution taking place one need only take a trip through the Crowsnest Pass. Only 50 years ago it was one of the most beautiful mountain

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
areas in the world, equal to the Alps. If you travel there today you will see that it is blackened like the Ruhr Valley. You might think you were in Birmingham, England on a foggy day. You cannot see the sun for the smoke. All the rivers have been polluted from the mines and the fish in the creeks are dead. The trees on the mountainside are dying and turning brown because of the polluted air.
We have done this and I think we are going to continue to do it unless we solve this problem before 1971. One university professor suggested that we could not get around to doing anything significant about this problem until 1981. One of the articles I read contained the statement that, because of the increasing tempo of pollution, we may not have ten years of reasonable life left on this planet unless we do something about it.
I am told that the DDT we are putting into the ocean today has already made serious inroads on the existence of plankton. As most of you know, this is the microscopic green plant life floating around in the ocean. It is responsible for renewing the oxygen we breathe. As we cover more and more square miles of our planet with concrete this process of renewing the oxygen is being left almost entirely to our oceans. If we continue to destroy our forests by covering the surface of the land with concrete buildings, we will double the burden of the plankton of the ocean. We are already wearing down the ability of the plankton of the ocean to reproduce that green material which in turn produces food for the fish and oxygen to replenish the air we breathe.
Some scientists say we may not have ten years left at the present rate of pollution. Last week I drove through Pittsburgh. About five miles out of the city the air was not fit for human beings to breathe. I wondered that my automobile operator could even see the road through the smoke, sulphur and fumes. This was a foggy, overcast day and all the poisons going into the air were trapped between the cloud banks and the earth. We were coughing and sputtering and we had to turn on the headlights at two in the afternoon. It was difficult to see the road. This is what we are doing to our atmosphere.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
This pollution in the atmosphere is going into our plants. We are putting these poisons into our sewers and eventually into our oceans. I thoroughly approve of the idea of attacking the pollution problem, but this bill represents only a bit of flag waving. At the 
present time a non-partisan and non-political attitude is required. This is a problem in respect of which every province of the country will have to co-operate and one in respect of which the Prime Minister will have to give leadership. This is not a situation in which we should find it necessary to sit here and make fun of the Prime Minister. The bill may have to be strengthened, completely revised and brought up to present standards. It is not necessary that we should wait until we have all the knowledge and information available. Let us use the information and knowledge we do have, and use the power we have, to stop pollution and to bring the provinces together to work on this problem immediately. If we cannot obtain agreement from the factory owners and shareholders, then we will have to be tough and tell them they will no longer be in business unless proper action is taken.
I am one of the strongest free enterprisers you are ever likely to meet, but I do not believe free enterprise should be permitted to destroy the air I breathe and the water I drink. The air and the water which support the trees, the game and the marine life in the provinces of Canada are very vital to their survival. It would be a very short-sighted premier ol a province who would not co-operate with the minister in respect of this water bill if it were a bill which would offer a real solution. He would find he would be very popular for having given this kind of leadership. I, for one, would say "Good luck, Mr. Minister". If he can make this bill work I will be one of the first to stand up and give him the proper kudos. However, I want to make sure that he does not take a wooden attitude toward Pollution Control. I want him to convince his colleagues in the cabinet that this bill is far from being adequate in its present form.
We should welcome aid from every source. We should welcome every ounce of co-operation in order to prevent a national and international disaster. If we think big enough we may well be able to do this. We still have the water resources here. The task involved would not be an impossible one but would require a good deal of courage in the initial stages. The very factories and industries which may have to be disciplined, and perhaps taxed, in order to make this scheme work would thank the government in the end because they would then have a chance of being around on this planet for another 100 years or so. Many people are thinking about this. I like to think some of them are here. I
January 16, 1970

Water Resources
do not even know who put out this pamphlet to which I referred because I was so busy reading the suggestions and some of the answers contained in it. A suggestion has been made that we should have a new bill or revamp the present one in order to put some teeth in it. We should not wait for someone else to do this. It is further suggested that we should present the firms with a plan to prevent further pollution of any lakes, rivers or other water supply source.
I believe high priority should be given to this matter. I believe we should spend a significant amount of money on pollution control measures. It may be necessary to set up a special branch in the department for this purpose. I know in the great United States of America they are seriously worried about the water problem. In the next 25 years they will have to supply water to great cities like New York and Chicago. With proper planning, I believe we could supply that water. If the plan were well worked out I believe we could sell that water on a gallonage basis and not seriously lessen the supply of water in this country. I think we could sell the United States a great deal more water than they are getting at the present time. I think we could do this at reasonable prices and it would be a source of income. Some of this income could be used to train people to take more of an interest in this subject. This income would also help pay for some of the dams and hydro systems which are necessary for the transportation of this water from one part of the country to the other.
I think if we use our natural resources properly we will also have more water for our power network. Here again, cheaper power would mean that our industries might be able to afford to contribute more money to help pay for the over-all plan. The Prime Minister has assured us of his direct interest in this matter. The minister made a very fine speech in which he said what a wonderful thing it would be if we had lots of fresh water and could give this blessing to the rest of the world as well. I think we should get on with the job and stop hiding behind the excuse of no money, no co-operation or the problem of the constitution. We should send this bill to a committee composed of members who could keep an open mind about it. We should take the suggestions which I know will *be made by members of the committee and .then with courage, imagination and grit put this plan into effect. The type of popularity the minister and Parliament will end up with 21611-19J
in a very few years will be well worth while, and probably the industries and the taxpayers will welcome the amount of dollars appropriated in the next budget to handle this problem in an efficient manner.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I very seldom refuse a challenge. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) challenged us on this side of the House to stand up and speak up. I should like to outline a few observations I made while he was speaking. I like to listen to the hon. member for Pembina. He is always colourful and always has some purpose in his remarks. What struck me, Mr. Speaker, was that he did not look at you for two minutes during his speech. He watched his own colleagues. He turned around and, noticing there were only two or three members on the Conservative side, insisted on watching them during the whole of the speech in an effort to convince them that this is a very good bill and that they should be here to support the government at this time rather than somewhere else.
The hon. member challenged a member on the government side to get up and speak out. At the same time he said what we need is action and leadership, not talk, not discussion, not haggling and all this kind of thing. I can tell the hon. member that we have studied the problem. We have had our own ad hoc committees. We have discussed the matter with our ministers and their officials. We know what we are doing. We also think we need action now and not talk. We know the bill will be sent to the appropriate committee where we will have another opportunity to amend it. That is why we refuse to stand up here and talk for nothing. This would only contribute to wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Speaker, to meet the challenge put to us by a member of the opposition, I will merely lend my voice to the Canadian municipalities which are also greatly concerned about the problem of water and air pollution. However, because certain provinces refuse for various reasons to co-operate adequately with the federal government, the means to fight pollution are denied to them.
It is not necessary to review the whole history of water and air pollution to conclude that we have now reached a critical point. This is a national, a provincial and a municipal problem which this bill attempts to remedy. But before undertaking anything the municipalises, the provinces, the federal gov-

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
ernment and the neighbouring countries should reach an agreement. The problem of pollution may indeed concern more than one country.
This is an urgent problem and it seems to us that the time has come to act rather than to indulge in endless discussions and studies.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In the many letters I receive, people often write about this problem because my riding is affected by pollution. I am talking about central Quebec, one of Canada's most attractive regions; my friends will not resent these remarks because they too are proud of their constituency. Since we also have our problems, people write to me asking why the government has failed to take the necessary steps.
The reason is that the federal government is limited in its action as a result of some futile discussions on the distribution of powers. The difficulty does exist, but it should not be given priority over another, much more serious problem involving the health of an entire nation, of the whole world.
Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a letter which I shall not quote in full and this for two reasons: First, because the remarks are not all fair and then, because it is obvious that the author is not aware of how the governments of his province, his municipality and his country work. But I think that this letter is an alarm call. Therefore, the government should take concrete action rather than getting lost in endless discussions.
Here is an excerpt from that letter:
Why don't the governments do something-
This is an alarming alternative: either we wake up around the year 2000 in a world where mankind is poisoned through water and air or in a world in which it is still good to live. I come back to the quotation:
Why don't the governments do something besides setting up royal commissions?
Instead of doing that, they merely discuss things in the house. And I replied to my correspondent that it was precisely on account of those conflicts of jurisdiction and party politics that nothing was being done.
The letter says further, and I quote:
What are they waiting tor to make available to the automobile manufacturers the plans (which exist) for a hydraulic motor-?
I must say this is something new to me, which goes to show that the relationship between a member of parliament and his

electors can be useful to him from time to time.
What are they waiting for to force, in the public interest on an international scale, all this country's industries to reduce pollution through the use of filters that would precisely eliminate most of the pollutants?
The writer of this letter may not know that this is about to be done and that we would have made much more progress without the conflicts of jurisdiction.
The letter says further on:
What are they waiting for to prohibit, again in the public interest, the use of detergents "re-enforced" with enzymes which keep on fighting against everything even once in our waters?
What can the U.N. do-?
Why are they still concerned about frontiers when pollution does not care a rap about it and attacks our whole planet without discrimination as to colour-?
As you can see my correspondent simplifies the problem. He is probably a candid innocent sould but who at last saw with his own eyes this urgent problem.
I continue to quote:
Why is the government always or nearly always late as far as its legislation is concerned-?
The reason of these delays is precisely that too many governments spend their time quarrelling with each other rather than achieving practical results. However, I must make a concession to my friends of the opposition. I said a while ago that they give us the impression that they want to protract the debate, but some of them are making positive interventions. I hope that they will continue to do so during the sittings of the parliamentary committee where the final touch will be given to this bill.
I continue quoting the letter:
Why do some people kill with "pleasure, indifference and pride'' animals which do not harm anybody and which, on the contrary, destroy some of the pollutants, thus contributing to the survival of life on earth?
What can we do?
The writer speaks of bombs. He adds and I quote:
Is the status of a nation more important than the survival of the human species (4 billion people in the year 2000) ?
He obviously forgets that Canada cannot solve the problems of all other countries, not even those of all the provinces in Canada without the agreement of these provinces.
Is it impossible for a supposedly rich country such as Canada to help efficiently two thirds of the population who-?
are treatened to be poisoned to death.
January 16, 1970

This letter appears like the alarm call now raised by the Canadian population as a result of the educational campaigns that were conducted in the country by magazines such as the one that was mentioned before by my friend and of certain studies initiated by technicians and scientists. The time has come for the Canadian people to call for better understanding between provincial governments, and better co-operation with the municipal authorities so that at every level of government everyone might be able to bring, as soon as possible its own contribution, for the problem is urgent indeed. It is all very well to complain because some people are starving or killing each other for reasons beyond our understanding but we had better stop our idle talk and take effective steps in order to convince the other governments that they ought to work in harmony with us so as to answer this pressing problem which threatens to annihilate humanity as a whole.
The present bill is a first step, and a very important one, in the right direction since it encourages peace and understanding between the provinces. The municipalities affected by pollution should also have their say and the provincial governments should stop considering the representatives of the municipal administrations as poor relatives or simpletons.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to make it clear that I am rising on a point of order, not to express my views on the bill.
I rise on a point of order and I want to draw the attention of the House to line 22 of the preamble of Bill C-144.
In order to explain my point of order, may I read in part the preamble of the bill. I quote:

And Whereas the Parliament of Canada is desirous that, in addition, comprehensive programs be undertaken by the Government of Canada and by the Government of Canada in cooperation with provincial governments,
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, the French text reads as follows:
Et considOrant que le Parlement du Canada sou-haite, en outre, que des programmes d'ensemble soient entrepris par le gouvernement du Canada agissant seul ou en collaboration avec les gou-vernements provinciaux...
My point of order is the following: in my humble opinion, the use of the particle "and"
Water Resources
in the English text and the particle "ou" (or) in the French text gives more power to the minister in one case, and that raises a problem with regard creates some to the interpretation of the powers granted.
Mr. Speaker, people might say that the powers conferred under a bill do not derive from the preamble; nevertheless, the fact remains that the bill itself follows from the preamble and that both make up a whole.
My point is this: Regarding the particle "and" in the English version, it is conjunctive. If I say apples "and" oranges, I add up. The particle "and" does not really offer any alternative. One thing is not automatically excluded by another when the particle "and" is used; on the contrary it is added to the other. The particle "and" excludes nothing.
As for the particle "ou" (or) in the French version, Mr. Speaker, it has an opposite effect. It adds nothing. You can choose one thing or another: apples or oranges.
The particle "or" really offers an alternative. It is one thing or another and not both at the same time. However, the minister could interpret the English version differently. As for the particle "or", it excludes an entity, while if the particle "and" is used and if one of the entities is chosen, the other is not necessarily excluded.
I will undoubtedly be told that those considerations deal with linguistics and syntax, but it seems to me that this is important since it is one of the basic principles of the bill and it is especially important because it defines the government policy outlined in Bill C-144.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the French text does not give the same definition of the power as the English text.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the words "by the Government of Canada" do not exclude possible participation by a third party which, non-officially or officially, could co-operate with the government in the application of this policy. In the French version, the exclusion is automatic. The words "par le gouvernement du Canada agissant seul" automatically exclude all provincial consultation or participation.
Mr. Speaker, it follows, in any event, that the minister, using one version or the other, could, to his advantage, work against the wishes of the provinces.
I wanted to rise on a point of order because, in my view, if one version rather than the other were invoked, this could

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
undermine federal-provincial relations, because the French version states, and I quote:
-comprehensive programs be undertaken by the Government ot Canada-
That means that the minister, owing to that expression since it is followed by the particle "ou" (or), could neglect to consult the provinces and decide on his own accord to undertake something or implement any policy. According to the English version, it is not excluded that, should the federal government decide to act because that would be within its jurisdiction, experts or provincial counsels could co-operate in formulating or implementing the policy.
Consequently, without necessarily introducing a mo ion against the principle of the bill, since we agree with it, I feel that Your Honour should take the matter under advisement and give an opinion on the various possible interpretations of the two texts, so as to make them as identical as possible and avoid errors in their interpretation, and in order to have a uniform text in both the English and the French versions.
If we were dealing with a text of secondary importance, the interpretation of a sub-paragraph would not matter as much. But in this case we are dealing with the policy and the principles of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know we would greatly appreciate your intervening with regard to the interpretation of those two versions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might say a word on the same point of order. I should like to make clear that it does not come by surprise so far as I am concerned; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was kind enough to inform me that he was going to raise this point of order, and I have been looking at the wording of the preamble. As a result, it seems to me that the hon. member does have a point that should be looked at by someone, and I know of no better place to look for protection around here than the Chair.
The British North America Act, in section 132, and the Official Languages Act in one section-I have not got it in front of me, but I know it is there-both make it clear that so far as the Statutes of Canada are concerned, both versions are authentic-the English version and the French version. I submit there is a danger that if we pass this bill in its present form we will have an English text that seems to say one thing, and a French text that seems to say another.

Like a good many other members of the House, I cannot claim to be very proficient in French, and I do not claim to be extremely proficient in English; but I do know the difference between the English word "and" and the French word "ou". One puts two things together, and the other gives a choice. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this should definitely be looked at as a point of order, and perhaps Your Honour can give a ruling on the matter either today or the next time this bill is before us.
What we are looking at is line 21 on page 1 of the English version where we have the words "government of Canada and by the government of Canada in co-operation with provincial governments," as opposed to line 22 of the French version where we have the corresponding phrase "seul ou." I submit they say quite different things. It is altogether likely that the hon. member for Lotbiniere and I would disagree as to what we think the bill ought to say, but he and I would at least agree that the two versions ought to say the same thing. I hope Your Honour will take the point of order under advisement.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Vicloria):: As far as the point of order is concerned, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to hear further contributions on the point of order, but I might indicate right away that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is a valid one and I am ready to agree to the suggestion that the Chair reflect on it over the weekend. However, if hon. members want to make further contributions, it I am prepared to hear them. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin).


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I do not rise to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) might have been justified to rise on a point of order in this connection, since, for all practical purposes, it is only a matter of construing in the
January 16. 1970

same way two versions of the same act. Yet, I do not think the French text means the same thing as the English text.
However, I did not rise on a point of order to discuss the syntax or the structure of the French or English wording. I can see that the two versions are at variance, and that is why I think that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is probably right in rising on a point of order. But I do not believe that this is the right time or the right place to do so. This is now the debate on second reading, the purpose of which is to refer the bill to the appropriate committee.
I would suggest that such representations should be made during a committee meeting, in the presence of the department's legal advisers. Then, clarification of the meaning of the text can be given. At any rate, today we are not preparing to adopt the bill as a whole. There are other points which might have to be debated. However, I feel that this kind of point of order should be made to the proper committee.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has just said is substantially what I myself wanted to say. Obviously, there has been a mistake in the translation. Before I took the floor a while ago, a government member told me that he intended to bring up, during a committee meeting, the question raised by the member for Lotbiniere. Whether this is in order or not, it is perhaps not the main point which, I suggest, is that the correction be made, because there is an unexplainable error in the translation.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, just a word on the point of order. I think it is very well taken, because the whole fundamental objective of the bill is in question. Perhaps the wording of the main operative section of the bill is not affected, but certainly the difference between the two proposals that are mentioned in the preamble is of substance in the French version. Therefore, I concur in the decision to consider this matter further. I just add that I am very glad to see a number of Liberal members jumping up to speak when they can do so in the safety of not having to talk about the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) rising on the point of order?
Water Resources


Mr. Orlikow:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might indicate, as I have already, that I shall be very pleased to reflect over the weekend upon the point of order raised by the hon. member.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some comments on this bill. Today is January 16, and when the minister made his speech on November 20 he said:
I begin the debate on this bill with a great sense ol urgency, and with the knowledge that what we say and do here over the next few weeks will affect the lives of all Canadians for decades to come. We must act, and we must act today, to rehabilitate, to protect and to develop our priceless national heritage and our most important single natural resource, our water.
That was said on November 20. Then the bill disappeared from the face of the earth and we did not get it back until almost two months later. So much for the extent of urgency that the minister expressed. The minister was in his usual fine form and we got everything from poetry to philosophy-


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I might point out that the bill would have been passed long ago if the opposition had not wasted so much time obstructing matters that could have been passed much more quickly and much more effectively-


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. I suggest to the minister-


An hon. Member:: 
David Orlikow: -and to the House leader who has been expressing his views outside the House about the iniquities of members on this side holding up the business of the House, that if being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job we should have been back here shortly after Labour Day, rather than October 22. We lost six weeks when we could have been discussing matters of importance. We do not need any lecture on that matter from members of the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Orlikow: Members on the other side call "order." They should have objected when the minister was speaking. The minister gave a very eloquent speech and dealt with the reasons why we need to act in the field of water pollution. At pages 1048 and 1049 of Hansard he summarized the things which this

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
bill will achieve, how the various forms of government will act, what their responsibilities will be, and what are the purposes of the bill. But he left out just one thing. At page 1051 of Hansard he raised the question, but did not supply the answer. He asked:
Who will pay the gigantic costs involved? The answer to that is that just as everyone is responsible, so in the end everyone must pay.
Mr. Speaker, I want to mention just how bad is the record of some of the largest municipalities in Canada and how necessary it is that the federal government do more than talk, more than pass legislation such as this, more than lecture provincial and municipal governments. The federal government, which is the major tax collecting agency in this country, must help the municipalities meet their obligations in the field of sewage disposal and the treatment of the water used in our cities. At present the municipalities are unable to do this because they simply do not have the money.
As other members have pointed out, pollution is prevalent in every province and virtually every city of this country. Just four days ago there was a report from my own province that in Red Sucker Lake water pollution is a growing problem. The effects on the Manitoba fishing industry-


John James Greene: Red Sucker Lake-is that an NDP lake?


David Orlikow: This report reflects the effects on the Manitoba fishing industry as a result of mercury being found in fish caught in that province. It has now been established that the mercury is waste from industries in the province of Saskatchewan. What can the province of Manitoba do about that situation? Very little, I should think, although my former colleague, the Premier of Manitoba, has threatened to sue the federal government for its lack of control.
Every day in the newspapers one finds reference to pollution and the problems created by it from one end of Canada to the other. I looked at some of the newspapers of the last couple of days and found from British Columbia a report that the Utica Mining and Smelting Company wants to dump 9 million gallons of waste into Rupert Inlet. With regard to Nova Scotia there is a report that the Scott Pulp Mill is polluting the water in the Pictou area; and in Preston, Ontario, a potato chip factory is dumping waste into the Grand River. In Sudbury, International Nickel Company, one of the most profitable compa-
[Mr. Orlikow.1
nies in Canada, is dumping effluent into the rivers and poison into the air. As I drive through that city I can imagine what the world will look like if and when an atomic bomb is dropped.
What are the federal and provincial governments doing about this tremendously wealthy company? Virtually nothing. Indeed, one does not need to go to Nova Scotia, Vancouver Island or northern Ontario; one needs only to walk 100 yards from this building to see the Ottawa River-one of the largest in Canada, if not in the world-becoming in effect an open sewer. It is so bad that scientists at the University of Ottawa suggest that in the very near future all forms of life in the river will die.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In the 80 miles between Ottawa and the mouth of the Ottawa River near Montreal, 14 communities, ten of them in Quebec and four in Ontario, are pouring raw sewage into the Ottawa River. Paper mills, four in Quebec and two in Ontario, are dumping an enormous amount of waste into the river every day; so much so that, as I have already said, it has been predicted that soon no life will be possible in the river. The city of Ottawa sewage disposal plant treats primarily only that sewage which Ottawa dumps into the river, the result being that only 30 per cent of the suspended solids is taken out of and removed from the sewage in the river. This means that a city with a population of 200,000 is dumping its raw sewage into the river.
On the other hand Hull, across the river in Quebec, with 57,000 people has no sewage treatment facilities at all. Only 8 per cent of 143,000 people in Quebec living along the Ottawa River treat their sewage. The paper mills on both sides of the river pom- 130 million gallons of effluent into the river every day. Is it any wonder that when one steps outside this House sometimes the stench of the river is unbearable? That is the situation regarding the Ottawa River. In Montreal, a ci'y represented in Parliament by the Prime Minister himself, 2.5 million people pour into the St. Lawrence River 500 million gallons of virtually untreated sewage every day.
The minister made a most eloquent speech; he is one of the most eloquent speakers in the chamber. But on analyzing his speech one realizes there is little meat in it and little indication that the federal government intends to remedy the problem of water pollution. From my reading of the speech it seems that the federal government is saying
January 16, 1970

in its proposed bill that the provinces now have, and should continue to exercise, the main responsibility in the field of water pollution control and water resource management. The federal government supposedly will help the provinces by providing research, advice and a communications network among the provinces in respect of water matters. Apparently it will do little else. The bill promises little action by the government.
We think that water pollution matters ought to be considered within a more comprehensive framework embracing water resource management; that national standards with regard to water should apply to all parts of the country and that the agency to introduce these standards is the federal government. From my reading of the bill, I do not think the government proposes to do this.
The bill is deficient inasmuch as many waters in the country are not covered by the legislation. The bill covers only those waters which may be considered interprovincial or international in nature. It does not set uniform standards and gives us no assurance of stopping wastes being dumped into the rivers and lakes of this country. We are told that the bill is to be flexible. I suggest, instead, that we shall see laxity of enforcement in those cases where it is against the interest of an industry or province to enforce the measure.
For example, it is conceivable that the Irving interests in New Brunswick, which are not noted for being overly concerned about the public welfare, could bring pressure to bear on the government of that province or on the local municipality, and in that way not be forced to clean up the pollution which is being created. It seems that this bill will allow industry to pay for its right to pollute. This is an iniquitous proposal. If we are serious about controlling pollution, we should not merely offer incentives to industry but we should make a decision collectively after consulting provinces and municipalities. We must insist that all bodies which permit pollution to occur, including municipalities, obey the law.
Although the government says that it wants to decrease the incidence of pollution, from my reading of the bill I doubt the seriousness of the government's intention. To illustrate my point, to apprize hon. members of what is happening and to show the extent to which municipal governments are guilty of permitting pollution to occur, I refer to figures con-21611-20
Water Resources
tained in the Sixth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada entitled, "Perspective 1975".
The following cities have virtually no facilities for the treatment of sewage being dumped into rivers or the sea: St. John's is listed as having 100 per cent no treatment; Dartmouth-Halifax, 99 per cent no treatment; Saint John, 99.8 per cent no treatment; Quebec City, represented in this chamber by that great humanitarian, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), 100 per cent no treatment; Montreal, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) represents in part, 91.6 per cent no treatment. Then Windsor, represented in part by the progressive new Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray), 85 per cent no treatment; Saskatoon, represented by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) responsible for the Wheat Board, 93 per cent no treatment; Vancouver, represented in part by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford), 59 per cent no treatment; and Victoria, British Columbia, is listed as having 98.9 per cent no treatment.
This table indicates those few cities which have primary treatment facilities. Ottawa is listed as having primary treatment facilities to the extent of 100 per cent, that is, all Ottawa sewage receives primary treatment. This treatment affects only about one-third of the waste materials being dumped into the river. Hamilton treats its primary sewage to the extent of 100 per cent. That city contains the Steel Company of Canada and Defasco. Millions of gallons of polluted water from those steel industries are poured every day into Hamilton Bay. This is the record, Mr. Speaker. One finds that municipalities are well aware of their problems and have been calling upon federal and provincial governments to take action to solve them. If municipalities have failed to take action, it is not because they have been unaware of the extent of the problem they face.
I have before me a pamphlet prepared by Mr. Eric Beecroft, chairman of the Department of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, for the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities entitled, "The Municipality's Role in Water Management". On page 7 of the pamphlet Mr. Beecroft says the following:
(b) Planning grants should be offered-by federal-provincial agreement-to encourage provinces and municipalities to make an early start in surveying their problems and preparing their

January 16, 1970
Water Resources
programs. Such planning grants should be generous enough to ensure that studies will be undertaken promptly, on a regional basis, wherever needed.
(c) There should be a long-term program of financial aid, guaranteed to last for at least five or possibly ten years, along the lines outlined in more detail in the main text. The aims of such aid should be:
(i)	to give not only loan support but generous grant aid, to municipalities or regional groups of municipalities, to enable them to proceed with essential programs of general benefit to the health and economy of the nation as a whole;
(ii)	to assure that no undertakings essential to pollution control (for example, projects to relieve the overload on combined sewers) should be omitted for lack of municipal financing-
At page 14, in discussing major obstacles to action, he says:
The second is that senior government financing, when offered at all,
(a)	is not offered in a form which encourages regional cooperation;
(b)	is limited generally to loans which only add to an already heavy municipal debt burden-[DOT]
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We know that the municipalities and the provincial governments are now paying an interest rate of 10 per cent and upward whenever they borrow money. Therefore, it is not surprising that faced with the prospect of sharp increases in municipal taxes and the opposition of local taxpayers they should be, to say the least, loth to proceed as rapidly as they should with the extension or construction of sewage disposal systems. It would probably cost Montreal $100 million or more to build the treatment facilities necessary to clean up the sewage which flows from a city of 2J million people, and in the light of its financial difficulties it is hardly surprising that the city of Montreal has not been inclined to move in this direction. Mr. Bee-croft goes on to say:
Senior government financing ... is seldom effective in bringing industries into conformity with water quality standards and into co-operation with municipalities in their region.
He talks about the capacity of the municipalities to pay for this work, and says:
A factor to be taken into account is that municipalities do not have the revenue-raising capacity necessary to warrant a substantial enlargement of municipal debt and that furthermore to make matters worse for municipalities, other requirements of very high priority and very costly-education, transportation and traffic, and comprehensive measures of redevelopment-are competing with water supply and water purification for the limited revenue resources.
It is true that the minister in his speech in November spoke about the increased aid

which municipalities could get from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I do not know on what information the minister based that part of his speech, but a return on October 23, 1969, in response to a series of questions asked by my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), gave an entirely different impression. We were given a list of municipal sewage loans approved under the National Housing Act and the applications received by CMHC from June 1 to December 30, 1969. Among the towns whose applications were refused were Halifax, Hamilton and Saskatoon. I mention them because they are among the largest cities in a long list of municipalities whose applications were turned down.
These are the facts. The municipalities have a major role to play if we are do deal effectively with the pollution of Canada's waters. The municipalities have made it clear repeatedly over the last ten years, in representations to the federal government, that they simply do not possess the financial resources necessary to play the part which they must play if we are to deal effectively with this problem.
What has been the government's answer? Partly, 1 suppose, because of the constitutional view taken by the Prime Minister that the municipalities are creatures of the provinces and that the federal government cannot, therefore, deal with them directly, hon. gentlemen opposite take the position that the federal government cannot do more than it is doing. For my part, I think the Prime Minister's view on this question is a mistaken one. However, I do not wish to discuss this aspect of the government's policy in detail. I would refer hon. members who are interested in this subject to the speeches made, unfortunately outside this chamber, by a former mayor of Toronto, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) regarding the failure of this government to deal with the problems of the cities.
In addition to all this, we are faced with the determination of the government to follow a program of austerity. Mr. Speaker, we cannot follow a program of austerity, we cannot cut down the funds expended by the federal government, while attacking a problem of this magnitude. The federal government cannot follow a program of austerity while at the same time helping the municipalities to extend or build new sewage disposal facilities by means of generous loans or subsidies whose effect would be to lower interest rates for such work.
January 16, 1970

Because of the government's mistaken view of its responsibility in relation to the cities of this country, and because of its austerity program, the fact is that in the next few years the cities of Canada will not meet their responsibilities; they will not move with the speed with which they should in modernizing their sewage disposal and treatment facilities. This is a fact, and all the speeches the minister may make either in Parliament or across the country will mean nothing until the federal government gives to the municipalities and the provinces the kind of meaningful financial assistance which would encourage them to meet their responsibilities in this field. This has not been done to date, and I believe it will not be done in the coming years as a result of the mistaken and niggardly policies of the federal government.


Mr. Ian  Walson@Laprairie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with Bill C-144. Its main objective is to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, their improvement, development and utilization. I am happy that the federal government has moved off the sidelines and that it will now be saying to the provinces, including my own province of Quebec, that it is prepared to enter into agreements to establish on a national, provincial, regional or lake or river basin basis, intergovernmental committees or other bodies which, among other things, would maintain continuing consultation on water resource matters, advise on priorities for research, planning, conservation, development and utilization based on the formulation of water policies and programs, and facilitate the co-ordination and implementation of water policies and programs.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should like to direct a question to the minister in this regard. Perhaps the point does not require clarification, but I would appreciate some assurance when he replies. I presume that since no reference is made in clause 3 to national interest, these bodies could be established, in agreement with the provinces, in regard to any river covered by the legislation, which would include both boundary and international rivers.
There is a river in my constituency, the Chateauguay River, which crosses the international border as a stream but is nevertheless described as a river both on the United States side and on the Canadian side of the border. It develops into a river on the Canadian side, and in turn has a tributary or two, 21611-201
Water Resources
which themselves are called rivers and originate a few miles across the international boundary. I know that it is a matter of very immediate interest to the people in the counties of Chateauguay and Huntingdon, through which these streams and rivers flow, that the Chateauguay River basin be included under the terms of the act. I know that they hope it will be possible, by agreement with the government of Quebec, to establish a consultative body, as provided by the bill, for the Chateauguay River valley.
We have in the Montreal region a number of bodies of water associated with the St. Lawrence River and which I presume are of national interest in the same way as the St. Lawrence River. The Lake St. Louis portion of the St. Lawrence River was, until a few years ago, Montreal's major water playground. On the south shore, the major water recreational area has been the Laprairie basin. Both of these bodies of water which form part of the St. Lawrence River are now seriously polluted and unuseable for swimming purposes.
The pollution of Lake St. Louis and the Laprairie basin has been so serious over the last few years that we now find small craft navigation is being impeded by the growth of weeds, which have primarily been caused by phosphates entering the St. Lawrence River system from farm and industrial waste as well as from household detergents. Pollution has rendered these two most beautiful Montreal area sections of the St. Lawrence River practically unusable for recreation. It is a situation that we realize has required attention for a long time. Happily, this bill is finally going to provide the impetus for action.
This bill provides that the federal government may enter into an agreement with a province to establish an intergovernmental committee with jurisdiction for, among other things, river basins. The bill also provides that where there is a national interest in water resource management, the federal government can enter into an agreement with the provincial government concerned to establish and maintain an inventory of the waters, to conduct research, and to formulate comprehensive water resource management plans, including detailed estimates of the cost of implementation of those plans. It also provides for the designing of projects for the efficient conservation, development and utilization of such waters and, finally, for the

January 1$, 1970
Water Resources
implementation of any plans or projects referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of clause 4.
This last provision is of particular importance because it clearly implies that the federal government is prepared not only to formulate plans but to implement them. There is the further implication that the federal government will pay for a substantial portion of that implementation. I hope the federal government is planning to make a substantial contribution-by "substantial" I mean at least 50 per cent-to the cost.
The dramatic feature of this bill is that, in cases of significant national interest, where all reasonable efforts have been made by the federal government to reach agreement with the provincial governments on water resource management and its ancillary aspects have been unfruitful, the federal government can then act on its own. Thus, we in the Montreal area can now expect action to be taken within the foreseeable future.
I both hope and expect agreement will be reached with the province of Quebec to establish the necessary anti-pollution programs for our rivers in Quebec, and more particularly for the St. Lawrence. It would be in the interests of Quebec, and especially the citizens of the Montreal area, if such action were taken soon.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The fact that there is a possibility of direct federal action if no agreement is reached with Quebec and Quebec does not move on it itself within a reasonable time, is an incentive to provincial action. I am singling out my province because I represent the most populated constituency in that province, but this indirect form of pressure applies to any province which is going slow on anti-pollution measures. The threat of possible direct federal action will give the necessary incentive to Quebec to devise and initiate, in collaboration with the government of Canada, measures to deal with pollution of this most important body of water in our province-a matter which is of vital concern to all residents of the federal constituency of Laprairie.
My constituency borders on Canada's major water artery, the St. Lawrence. For too long the citizens living in the Montreal area generally, and in particular those living in areas bordering the St. Lawrence, have been deprived of the recreational benefits of its use. I should like to hear a brief indication of what the minister considers to be significant

national interest. I suspect this would not apply, for example, to the Chateauguay River which flows across the international boundary. It would be useful to the House if the minister today or next week gave an indication of how he will determine those matters which are of significant national interest. Will it be water flow or the non-recreational use which has been made of particular water bodies in the past? I should like clarification from the minister as to this definition.
The other matter to which I draw the minister's attention is the desperate need which exists in Canada and throughout the world at this time for cheaper methods of sewage disposal. We know how to deal with water pollution of our rivers and streams. We know that several alternative sewage disposal methods are available to municipalities. We also know that up to now these methods have proven terribly expensive. Surely, with our advanced technology we in Canada are in a position to develop less expensive methods of dealing with pollution. Surely, there is a way of dealing with pollution without bankrupting ourselves in the process.
I will give an example of just how expensive an anti-pollution drive can be and how, if proper planning is not instituted, it can result in ridiculous situations. Five years ago, in a part of my former constituency a town built a sewage disposal plant on the recommendation of its engineers. It cost about $500,000. No other town bordering the Chateauguay River has since installed a sewage disposal plant. The result is that this town with a population of approximately 2,000 is saddled with a plant that costs $40,000 a year or more to operate. It is cleaning the sewage and pouring the cleansed water into a river which is polluted.
In my view there has been in this instance, a mis-allocation of public funds. The federal government is involved in that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved the loan to the municipality. Officers of CMHC have argued that once an application by a municipality has been approved by the municipal affairs department of Quebec, they are duty-bound to allocate the funds. CMHC has not fulfilled its duty to the public by simply accepting, without submitting any views of its own, a request from a municipality for a loan to construct a plant which is without question too expensive and which has proven to be an almost unbearable load on the taxpayers of the municipality.
January 16, 1970

This incident has demonstrated to me, and should have demonstrated to CMHC, that what is now needed in Canada, more than anything else, is serious research into the development of inexpensive sewage disposal plants. Less costly disposal units are desperately needed. I hope that when the minister responsible for the implementation of Bill C-144 decides on priorities, he will give first priority to the development of inexpensive sewage disposal plants. I hope he will at the same time establish an apparatus through which we can make available information concerning the least expensive type of sewage disposal facilities which can be made available to all the municipalities of Canada. I am convinced that this would be the best first step the minister could take in implementing the attack on water pollution which is the objective of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry) moved: that Bill C-22, respecting Little League Week, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced during the previous Parliament by my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). He has since been promoted to a higher position but retains an interest in the Little League and is desirous that we do something with this Bill. I agreed that I would reintroduce it in this Parliament. In the city of Windsor, which we represent, many dedicated people are doing a tremendous job in connection with the Little League organization. We have watched this program closely and have seen the wonderful things they have done in helping young boys become better citizens.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Little League baseball is an avenue through which early training, teamwork, sportsman-

Establishment of Little League Week ship, discipline and character-building are instilled. The volunteer leaders in Little League baseball, certainly those I know personally in my area, have made the program part of our way of life. It does one's heart good to see the tremendous crowds that follow Little League baseball games and participate in the program.
Little League baseball boys have the opportunity to play the game under advantageous conditions. This contributes to their welfare. More than 750 Little Leaguers have joined the ranks of professional baseball players in the United States, and thousands more continue to play the game at high school and on the sandlots. These people assume leadership in all walks of life. I was a baseball player when I was young. I do not say that it gave me great leadership ability, but I know it helped me become a better politician.
Little League baseball not only fosters friendship among boys; it develops co-ordination and good health habits. It also breaks down social barriers and makes for a more closely-knit community. It knows no national boundaries, because leagues have developed in 27 countries and baseball is played with equal enthusiasm everywhere. Little League baseball also fosters the healthiest kind of father-son relationship. Through baseball father and son meet on common ground from which blooms companionship, respect and love. All parents strive to give their youngsters a happy childhood that will prepare them for the ups and downs of fife. The Little League is only one avenue of reaching this goal.
The managers, coaches and other officials of the league who devote so much of their time, thought and energy to providing constructive direction for the boys, deserve our respect and gratitude. I do not think they are seeking too much when they ask that the second week in June be designated as Little League Week in recognition of the efforts of the Little League to help boys develop qualities of good citizenship and sportsmanship through baseball and to make them better citizens.
Over 2 j million boys take part in Little League baseball in Canada and in 23 other countries. Canada has more Little Leagues than any country with the exception of the United States. In Canada nearly 50,000 boys participate, with the assistance and guidance of over 7,000 adult volunteers. I would ask the House to favourably consider this bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, although not a heavy-hitter
2506	COMMONS
Establishment of Little League Week like the hon. member tor Essex (Mr. Whelan),
I should like to take part in this debate. My colleague just interjected that perhaps the heaviest-hitter in the government is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). I should say for the record that I did try to get one of our athletes to take part in the debate this afternoon, but they are either too stiff to get around after the Governor General's skating party or are at home with the 'flu.
Seriously, as one who has had a very sincere interest in baseball all my life I give my full support to this bill. I think it is a very worth-while measure. Many of us have had a connection with Little League baseball in our constituencies. I suppose, like most members of this House, my interest is good but my ability to participate is diminished by my activities here.
Those who assist Little League baseball, the fathers and others who are community-minded, deserve a great deal of credit for this type of activity. I take the opportunity to personally congratulate these people for the work they do. They unselfishly devote many hours to the Little League. I know something about this matter. So far as the value of Little League baseball is concerned, one of its greatest advantages is that where there are Little Leagues, juvenile delinquency is probably at a rate lower than any other part of the country. In other words, this type of activity reduces one of the problems with which we are so concerned these days.
I am also pleased to take part in this debate because of the diminishing interest there now seems to be in baseball. It is not as popular as body-contact sports such as football and hockey. Television presents these sports to greater advantage. Nevertheless, baseball is deeply rooted in our lives. I think a measure such as this would not only help our young people but would cause more attention to be directed to a very honourable sport and one which has not quite the glamour of some others.
Some thought should be given in committee to the considerations in respect of declaring such-and-such a week to be an official week, because it may be that everyone who has a pet project would want to have it authorized as one of the 52 that could have a week of recognition during the year. With that one qualification, I should like to congratulate the honourable, heavy-hitter from Essex for bringing forward this measure. I support its referral to the committee and hope something will come out of this proposal.

DEBATES	January 16, 1970


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to congratulate the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) for sponsoring this bill. I am pleased to support it. Like the hon. member and like many other members of this House, I am a ball player -but I come from the prairies, where we play more and better ball. There was no Little League baseball when I was of the age when I might have played it. I did not have an opportunity to play baseball until I was 20 years of age. I am sure I would have been a much better player had there been a Little League in those days. However, when one watches the efforts of the House of Commons team and the young PCs Allstars on the lawn of Parliament Hill each year, one realizes that the Little League would have been useful in earlier days.
I should also like to add to what the previous speaker said about the interest in baseball these days. Baseball has always been my favourite sport. It requires a great deal of effort and organization to promote and keep it going. It is a sport which requires modern equipment, facilities, grounds, and so on. I believe it also requires a greater degree of thinking while one is playing than most other sports. In my opinion this is needed in the sporting world as well as the physical training that goes with all sports.
The other point I wish to make also pertains to something said by the previous speaker. While I have nothing against pancake weeks or basket-weaving weeks, and so on, I believe a program such as the Little League is more deserving of this type of recognition than some of the commercial-product type national weeks and days we have all year, every year right across this country. Again I wish to congratulate the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill. We are pleased to support it.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to commend the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) who moved this bill. I hope he will not be disturbed if I contribute one or two matters which represent the sort of second thought that must be given to the bill before it is adopted. The hon. member has the office next to mine. He is known for the forthright way in which he expresses his opinions. I am sure that it will not in any way disturb him if I make one or two suggestions which are perhaps worthy of further consideration.
January 16, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The Little League of Canada is an outgrowth of an organization in the United States. The Little League was incorporated in the early 1950s and has its headquarters in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. It is a very good example of an organized group which conducts research, maintains statistics and does its very best to promote the sport with proper regard to safety and the type of equipment that must be developed and provided. It also pays attention to public relations. The activities of the Little League leads to a Little World series which is held in the United States and which we also have in Canada.
The mover of the bill was kind enough to show me a few minutes ago the report on the Little World series which was held on August 20, 21, 22 and 24, 1968, in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. A similar program was held in Canada, and there are pictures of the team at Sherbrooke. The western team at Santa Anna, California, was declared the champion. The Little League is very well recognized. Its players are young people under the age of 16. It has extended into Canada and, I believe, involves 50,000 young people. In my constituency there is a very active organization, and the parents who donate their services to promoting baseball among the younger generation perform a service for which the community has every reason to be thankful. In other words, there is no question in my mind nor, I am sure, in the mind of any member of this House, that the program of the Little League is a wholesome and highly desirable type of activity.
I have several questions which I believe should be asked. The bill before us proposes to designate a Little League Week. About 40 national sports organizations in Canada have at one time or another expressed to the department their interest in a similar type of designation. The hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested this would still leave open twelve weeks in the year. It would, but I am sure he would be the first to say that we must have priorities in this regard. It is possible that other worthy causes not related to sports will seek a similar designation. We all agree that there is a limit to how far we can go in designating weeks for this type of cause.
I wish to go on record as wishing that some recognition be given this group. I say that without reservation. But I do not believe our neighbours to the south have yet designated a Little League Week. They operate under a
DEBATES	2507
Establishment of Little League Week national charter and within the last two years they have sought to establish a similar type of organization in Canada. Until two years ago all the funds collected, entry fees, membership fees and insurance premiums, were paid in U.S. funds through the head office in Pennsylvania.
I believe they have taken steps to build a Canadian organization to meet the concern that at one time was expressed on that score. But apart from the basic question of how far we should go in designating the Babe Ruth League, the Little League or the various football leagues and other organizations, I suggest hon. members should think about policy before we make such designation by an act of the House.
The basic question that remains relates to the place of this organization and its structure in Canadian sport.
Parliament has established a National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport. There have been discussions at various times to the end that the Little League organization be affiliated with a group which is known as the Canadian Federation of Amateur Baseball. Unfortunately, up to this time no resolution on this matter has been put forward. Funds are provided through the National Advisory Council to assist in a number of activities in Canada, among which is baseball.
There has been no affiliation of the Little League group with any of the established sports organizations that are receiving official or semi-official recognition through the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am not prepared to say that it is necessary that they should do so. I feel that the matter should be discussed and reviewed in an appropriate forum. In other words, if we have a national policy on sports, if we have established grants to encourage and develop various sports activities, the proper question to pose is: What is the relationship of the Little League to the bodies that have been given official or semi-official recognition?
I hope there will be further discussion of this matter. I am confident that there is nothing that cannot be resolved in a fair and amicable way, recognizing that everyone concerned is serving the younger generation, trying to develop activities that are healthy and in which we want our young people to engage.
Another comment that has been made-I simply wish to mention it without associating myself with it-relates to the question of the
2508	COMMONS
Establishment of Little League Week degree of Canadian control of the program. I have referred to the discussions that took place regarding the lack of affiliation of Canadian-organized bodies. There is no question that the Little League is highly organized through the head office in Pennsylvania which continues to direct and control the program.
I listened to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and to the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). I was pleased that neither of them raised the question of Canadian control. It has been raised in other quarters. The question of the development of institutions and organizations which are controlled within our own society is one which leads to a discussion which cannot always be productive.
I have listened to those who support the Watkins point of view in regard to industry. The last speaker is a member of that group. I am not one of those who share that point of view. I do not share the concern that is often expressed in this regard. I do not think we can make lacrosse our national sport in the sense in which some hon. members have proposed it at different times. It is probably the only truly distinctive Canadian game with a wide following and participation. We have long given up trying to make cricket the national sport of this country because it has not "taken" here and does not receive the response of other games.
There is no doubt in my mind that the influence of T.V. has resulted in the promotion of sports such as hockey, football and baseball. I believe our neighbours to the south will have to accept Canadian hockey players and we will have to accept U.S. football players. I suspect that there will be an expansion of baseball in our country. It is the kind of sport that is adapted to television and to the kind of spectacle that our people love to see.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I am one of those who enjoy these sports as much as any member of the House, and I am not at any point going to say we should look down on the sports that are gaining a broad North American audience, and in any way deplore them. We have a broad range of athletic, social and cultural activities which are common to the North American continent, and baseball is one. The associations and organizations which have devoted themselves to the sponsoring of this kind of sport commend themselves for favourable considera-

DEBATES	January 16, 1970
tion. I believe the Little League should receive all the encouragement that can be given it, because of the program it has demonstrated it is capable of generating. It is a very well organized group. There is a wide degree of participation by younger people, and by parents in a voluntary capacity.
I am told that there is a series of interleagues between Canadian and American cities at border points. When Canadian teams are not sufficiently numerous, they fill in and play back and forth with teams from the United States. I think this is a very helpful, healthy sign and is the type of activity that builds international good will from a very early age.
In reviewing this bill, Mr. Speaker, I have called to the attention of hon. members that there is still an unresolved problem in relation to some of the other groups that are receiving official recognition and support. I believe that hon. members should also consider the basic question of what form of encouragement and recognition we should give. We must decide how many weeks we can give to baseball, football, hockey, the Babe Ruths, the Peewees, the Juniors, the Little League, and the various age groups that are organized in this way. I think before we make the decision that this week will be Little League Week, we should consider a policy and be prepared to say to other groups, "This is the kind of encouragement and recognition we are prepared to extend to you, and we wish you all the best in developing your program."


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, it is good that we have a private members' hour, because every once in a while we get a refreshing suggestion like this. I hasten to give my unqualified support to the idea that we give as much publicity, encouragement, financial and every other type of assistance as possible to the people who run Little League baseball.
As a member of the Mounted Police I was thrown into close contact with young people who got off on the wrong track, and from my experience and the experience of others with whom I have worked I find that when young people are involved in something like Little League baseball, the incidence of juvenile delinquency falls off dramatically.
I recall in a certain town the juvenile court had to hold special sessions every week. Then a young corporal in the Mounted Police set up a boxing class in the town. He had been running it only a few months when the juve-
January 16, 1970

nile court had to close entirely; there was no outward manifestation of juvenile delinquency. After having a record of being the worst community in Canada, in a few weeks, it became one of the best.
The hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) is to be congratulated for taking up the ball from where it was dropped. Discussion on this bill opens up a whole field of interest. Some people, and perhaps they are dreamers, say there is no such thing as a bad boy, but there certainly is such a thing as a bad boy if you do not give him something to do. But given a proper outlet for their over-abundant energies, very few young people will go wrong. I think this is the point the hon. member is trying to make, and I support it.
In our day young people were called bad or difficult; they were not called juvenile delinquents. Society is vitally interested in helping these young people, but methods have changed over the years. The wood shed and the strap were used in my schooldays. Now we use a lot of fancy psychology. Perhaps we need a happy medium between the two. When you give a boy proper leadership and there is family teamwork, juvenile delinquency becomes a minimal problem.
The community of Sherwood Park, a sat-telite town near Edmonton, Alberta, is so well organized that I believe all girls and boys of school age have an opportunity to participate in Little League baseball. It also provides a wonderful opportunity for parents to get out, to get a little fresh air and keep in contact with their own and other children in the com-muni'y, all of which makes the family work together and play together. I do not think it is necessary to add that Sherwood Park is not a nest of juvenile delinquents.
The service clubs of Canada have always been helpful with regard to the young. The Optimists' clubs across Canada have supported the Air Cadets, a natural place to which young people graduate from Little League baseball. At a later age our magnificent Air Force caters to these young people who, when mature, may have a role in defending Canadian skies.
This bill also brings to mind the need for a well-organized, national physical fitness program. I am not alarmed about setting aside a week for Little League baseball because I am quite sure in that week, basketball, hockey, skiing, and so forth, would also receive more attention and promotion. Perhaps a better name could be found for it. Youth Appreciation Week is recognized in many areas, and
Establishment of Little League Week perhaps Little League Week is an offshoot of that. I give my support to this type of activity.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I feel that if the CYC had been involved in this type of thing, its reputation might have been saved and the thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money used to much greater advantage. I hope that even at this late stage the CYC might be revamped, with a little encouragement and the proper terms of reference. Most of its members, if not all, joined with the intention of carrying out projects like this. If we have a plan for them, a little supervision and well-defined terms of reference, the CYC may yet have a fully up-to-date physical fitness program for the country.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt other members wish to speak on this subject. I hope we will send the bill to committee.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in the debate on this very interesting bill will be brief indeed-and I am as gratified as hon. members opposite at that. However, I think the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), coming from a somewhat deprived area of Canada where, unfortunately, the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission is unable to intercept the signals from the five Detroit television stations across the river, may have a somewhat distorted view of what is good for Canada. I make this point before the bill goes to committee because I note the first two words of paragraph 2 of the bill are "throughout Canada". I am not sure it is a good thing for the fabric of Canadian culture that we observe and honour an institution that has been enshrined by legislative action of the United States Congress as the national sport of the United States of America.


Gerald William Baldwin: Wait until they hear about this in Calgary.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I wonder if we would not be wiser, Mr. Speaker, to limit the geographic purview of this bill to a long baldhead, or perhaps a sinister-free, distance from the United States border. Seriously, I join other members in endorsing this bill. I hope it will present a more realistic approach to the fact of the continental entity which we enjoy, rather than some of the things which we observed and heard in areas of entertainment in the last few weeks.
2510	COMMONS DEBATES	January 16, 1970
Establishment of Little League Week


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in this debate. We have listened to a number of our colleagues who have a great love of baseball, and one or two of them are young enough to recall the days when they played it themselves.


Thomas Miller Bell: We all are.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I am not claiming any great record as a baseball player but perhaps I have one distinction, that of having been an executive of one of the local Little Leagues in Ottawa, the McKellar Park Little League, located in the constituency of my good friend the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).
We are all aware that governments are taking a greater interest in sports than in years gone by. Many of the facilities used by Little Leagues are provided by the communities, and principally by the municipalities. There is considerable support for sport from various agencies of the provincial governments. Lately, the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport has played what I consider to be a significant role in encouraging worth-while sport in Canada. I do not wish to recall recent history unduly, but I feel that as Canadians we can all take pride in the efforts which our government and its agencies recently made to reinforce Canada's position in international hockey.
It is against this background of wider government interest in sport that we should consider this bill. Emphasis must be laid on the degree of citizen participation in Little League baseball and similar leagues which support hockey, football and other sports available to boys and young men across Canada. Long hours of voluntary work are spent by those who undertake the responsible jobs of coaching and managing the teams. They virtually dedicate three or four months of the year to the activities of Little League and the children in the community. Anything that we in Parliament can do to encourage this very important degree of citizen participation in the community should be of first importance.
The hon. member for Ottawa West brought some problems to our attention. It is quite obvious that there are not enough weeks in a year to properly recognize or commemorate every sport in this country. After a further study it may well appear that the designation of weeks in support of different branches of sport is not the best way for Canada to show

national support for sporting activities. When this matter is studied further, we will have to consider the degree of public support which should be given to branches of particular athletics rather than to the total sport itself. Perhaps there is a question whether there should be a week for the support of hockey, baseball, or whatever other athletic activity we think of, rather than for a particular branch or a particular league.
Having made these comments, I think the very fact that the time of the Parliament of Canada is taken up with the considertion of a measure of this type is indicative of the growing importance of organized sport in our community. In conclusion, I emphasize that the kind of baseball played by the youngsters who have the benefit of participating in Little League is far different and perhaps far better than the kind of ball we played as boys. These youngsters are well equipped with uniforms, bats, balls, clothes and all the other paraphernalia; they are properly coached and trained. The same goes for the youngsters in the hockey and football leagues. All this volunteer activity is a credit to our community. I hope the substance of this bill will be given serious considertion by an appropriate committee of the House.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) in this bill because I feel it is very important to a great many young people in our country that we designate a week in the second week of June as Little League Week.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has done, and is doing, a tremendous job in promoting sports activities and providing physical fitness programs across Canada. Perhaps he cannot do that in the House of Commons, owing to the lack of facilities. In many areas of the country there is a tremendous increase in sports participation. Many people are involved in the activities of the Canadian Baseball Association. Those trying to establish a countrywide organization understand the problems confronting the Little League Organization in trying to establish rules, regulations and the type of equipment that is to be used across the country.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Attempts are being made to establish age groups, because in sports organizations across the country there is a tremendous overlapping in this respect and sometimes people
January 1G, 1970	COMMONS
do not have the opportunity to participate in sports. We will be benefiting all Canadians by introducing Little League Week, and assisting those who have worked so hard to accomplish what has been done in this field. We have done a great deal under the Little League organization. It is true that we have worked with people and sports organizations of the United States, but we have found it more practical to establish our own organization and either consult or be affiliated with our friends across the border.
Other facts must be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) indicated that he did not have the opportunity of participating in Little League. I have found across Canada an increased interest in baseball perhaps because I come from an area which hosted the Pan-Am games. We had difficulty in creating a team to participate in the Pan-Am games because there was no organization in Canada which gave our young people an equal opportunity to participate. If they did nothing else, the Pan-Am games established a greater measure of unity across the country.
I think we all applaude the aims of the Little League and its attempts to set age limits. It is most important for us in the House of Commons to show interest in our young people. We hope that our young people will take an interest in what we are doing in Ottawa, and by passing this bill we shall show them we are interested in what they are doing.
It has been suggested over 7,000 adults work hard for many hours to give many of our people an opportunity of participating in Little League baseball. These people do a tremendous job. Sometimes our young people are disappointed and discouraged, especially when they see what some adults are doing behind the scenes. Perhaps we need a new program which will teach these people how to behave when our young people are participating in sports activities.
As it is established, the organization is not designed to produce athletes. Perhaps that is why we have separated from other athletic organizations. The organization is designed to build better citizens in our country. I say this because the organization's regulations state that the organization does not exist for the purpose of putting professionals into the field; it exists to give youngsters the opportunity to participate in sport, to compete and to understand what happens when you win or lose.
DEBATES	2511
Establishment of Little League Week
I hope that the National Advisory Council and the Committee on Fitness and Amateur Sport will give further consideration to the provision of facilities for organizations such as Little League. It is difficult for Little League to function effectively because when your young people wish to enter sporting events one finds there is difficulty in finding enough space and in obtaining the facilities to enable them and our older people to enjoy themselves. Also, the smaller diamond which Little League players use makes it necessary for the league to play on specified fields. This factor makes Little League operation more expensive.
I therefore hope that financial assistance will be given those who manage the Little League and who have worked long and hard to establish the existing facilities. I repeat, the League does not exist in order to create athletes. To reinforce this point may I read from the Little League pledge, printed on the back of the Little League leaflet. It says:
I trust in God
I love my country and will respect its laws
I will play fair and strive to win
But win or lose I will always do my best
Boys wishing to participate in Little League baseball take this pledge which indicates that the organization is not necessarily designed to produce athletes. I realize that there are only 52 weeks in a year and that almost every organization wants a week set aside for its own purposes. I would not mind combining Little League week with, say, national salad bowl week or pancake week. To some extent, the work carried on by various organizations overlaps in nature, and I should not mind if Little League Week were combined with another national week. I hope the committee will consider the second week in June. That was chosen in preference to one near the end of July; toward the end of July you would have difficulty bringing young people together to play Little League baseball because of the summer holidays.
The second week of June is usually the last week in which we can bring young people together to compete in Little League baseball before the play-offs and exam time. I also think the second week in June fits in best with the over-all program of the organization. I hope this bill will go to committee and that the committee will do a good job of studying and discussing the measure with the people involved in the organization.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
2512	COMMONS
Establishment of Little League Week


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker,
I move:
That the said bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion (Mr. Pilon) agreed to.
DEBATES	January 16, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: Cinq heures.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, January 19, 1970