1970-01-19

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Bernard Dumonl (Fronlenac):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the House that on Wednesday, January 14, at 2 p.m., I received a phone call at my office, asking me to prepare to appear on a CBC broadcast on Nigeria-Bia-fra which was to include participants from the four parties represented in the House. At 4 p.m. the same day, the broadcast was cancelled by another telephone call.
Well, on Friday, January 16, at 10.15 p.m. on Format 60, only a representative of the Liberal party appeared on the program. I therefore accuse the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) of having prevented the representatives of the CBC here in Ottawa from preparing a broadcast where the four parties would have been able to make their voices heard and of having requested the Montreal bureau of the CBC to prepare a broadcast where he alone would speak favourably on behalf of the government.
If the Nigeria-Biafra issue is to be presented favourably to Canadian citizens, the voice of the opposition should be heard. I therefore ask that an inquiry be initiated in order to find out who is to be blamed, because the population needs to know the whole truth about the Nigeria-Biafra dispute and must in no way be muzzled by this government, particularly in view of the fact that the Crown Corporation is financed by all Canadians, who have a right to unbiased and detailed information.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Dumont) has given the Chair advance notice of the question of privilege he intended to bring to the attention of the House today.
I have had since then the opportunity of studying the matter raised by the hon. member. I wish to point out to him that, even though, under the circumstances he set forth, he had a substantiated claim against the parliamentary secretary to the minister or against the CBC, this would not be necessarily a prima facie case of privilege.
I do not see how the special rights or parliamentary privileges of the hon. member have been affected in any way whatsoever under the circumstances he described.
I must reach the conclusion that the matter cannot be considered any further, and I must add that, in view of the fact that the hon. member did not move any motion, his question of privilege cannot be studied any longer by the House.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions-Mr. Yewchuk:
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development presented on December 16, 1969, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Athabasca.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take exception to the propriety of putting on the order paper at this point the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca to which you have just referred.
The basis of my argument will be that as a private member, lacking any authority whatsoever from this particular committee, the hon. member cannot, according to our rules, raise the question he proposes to raise, which amounts to a motion to concur in a substantive proposal, which can only be done by a private member by way of a private member's notice of motion.
2514	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report
I intend to refer the Chair to a number of precedents which may be cited with respect to this particular course of action and to refer in a more general way to our Standing Orders as they bear on this question. Later I wish to make some reference to the relation which certain of our Standing Orders have to the general policy governing the course of action proposed by the hon. member.
First, with regard to the proposal that the House concur in this particular report, I am advised by members of the committee that though the hon. member for Athabasca may be the vice chairman of the committee, neither he, nor the chairman nor any other member of the committee had any instruction to make this motion to concur in the committee's report. In fact, I am advised that this matter was not discussed in the committee.
I think it must be perfectly clear, therefore, that the hon. member cannot lay any claim to be speaking with the authority of the committee when putting forward this motion. The committee arrived at no such conclusion itself. Further, I suggest it is inconsistent with the hon. member's position as vice chairman of the committee to take this particular action. As vice chairman of the committee he is under an obligation to act fairly with regard to all sides.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hon. members opposite laugh at that, which must indicate a certain attitude on their part with regard to the chairmanship-


An hon. Member:: Smile when you say that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I notice the Leader of the Opposition laughed at that.


An hon. Member:: We are laughing at you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition has suggested from time to time that members of his group might be given positions of responsibility at the committee table, but there is some evidence in his conduct right now to indicate why we should hesitate to accept any of his nominees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is perfectly clear that the hon. member for Athabasca had no right as vice chairman of the committee to take this course of action. He had no instruction from his fellow members on the commit-

DEBATES	January 19, 1970
tee to do so; he is putting forward this motion merely as a private member and not in any official capacity.
The hon. member for Peace River has raised objection from time to time, both here and in the press, to the absence of consultation concerning the way in which the business of the House is conducted. But there was no consultation on his part with me concerning the kind of action-


Mr. Baldwin:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; on Thursday last I announced publicly in this House to ah who were here that I intended to file a notice of motion which would come up in 48 hours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Here again, we have an interesting illustration of the attitude of the official opposition with regard to consultation. If consultation on House business is to take place through public announcements or press releases we shall not get very far.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Who taught us that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the discussion on this matter might be limited to the procedural aspects of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was interrupted by hon. gentlemen opposite who perhaps were worried about the merits of their case. I would refer them to the Standing Orders, and may I refer in particular first to the fact that the House, in establishing the Standing Orders, considered the problem of conducting the business of the House in the light of the desirability from time to time of permitting private members to divert the business of the House in order to debate questions of substance which may be of interest to them.
We have several Standing Orders which deal with this question. The first, and perhaps best known, is Standing Order 26, which was amended as recently as last year, and which permits any hon. member to make a motion to divert the planned business of the House for the purpose of discussing a particular public question. As I pointed out, the rights of hon. members in that situation are very carefully circumscribed by the Standing Order.
January 19, 1970	COMMONS
They were the subject of very extensive discussions, and finally agreed to by the House last year.
Secondly, in the last year or so, we have had a proliferation of motions under Standing Order 43, which is a change in the practice of the House. There have been applications under Standing Order 43, which makes it perfectly clear that, with the unanimous consent of the House, the course of the business may be diverted for the purpose of discussing another matter of substance which has not already been listed as an item of business for the House.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are obvious reasons of good sense and policy for not permitting individual members in all parts of the House to divert the business of the House which has been proclaimed, and which has been the subject matter of consultation. When I refer to consultation I mean discussion in private with hon. members opposite and not announcements to the press or in the House. Consultation of that kind is the only effective way of putting the business of the country before the House. I may add that it is the responsibility of the government to put it before the House.
I do not contest the hon. member's right to put this motion under Private Members' Notices of Motions, but might I point out that the consequence of accepting the motion puf at this time by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) under the heading of "Motions" would be to make it virtually impossible to continue to plan the business of the House, to continue to plan the manner in which the House would deal with the business of the country, because one can foresee here, as has been the case under Standing Orders 26 and 43, that there would be a proliferation of motions by hon. gentlemen opposite to divert the House from the business already planned for that day.	_
The Standing Orders have provided for a number of situations in which hon. members may seek to divert the House from carrying out its announced business. Their rights in those situations are very carefully circumscribed by the Standing Orders, and I would argue that their rights having been so determined by the House in that way, then the rights of the House as a whole to deal with the business as put before it should not be derogated by this kind of motion. This particular precedent, therefore, should not be established.
DEBATES	2515
Motion for Concurrence in Report
I should like to deal with a number of instances in the past that have been drawn to my attention in which there have been motions by private members at the initiative of private members, as opposed to motions by, for example, the chairman of a committee. Here, I cite the example of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) who has a motion on today's order paper standing in his name, and who did not move it because, I believe, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) asked him not to do so today so that there could be further consultations in that regard. It has long been established that the chairmen of committees, who have instructions from their committees, may move concurrence in committee reports under the heading of "Motions". But I would suggest that we should not adopt, and there is no precedent for adopting, a practice whereby substantive questions would be raised for debate at this point rather than the other ways, under the rules.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)	'
I refer to two instances. The first was on May 23, 1932, a motion for concurrence by an hon. member in a report which stated that the price of gasoline was too high and recommended that the question be investigated by the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. I suggest the effect of adopting that motion would not have been that of stating an opinion on a matter of government policy. In fact, the motion was not adopted on that particular occasion because it was moved that the orders of the day be read, so the question was never brought forth for decision.
I would emphasize that what was involved was a procedural action on the part of the hon. member in that case. He was not seeking to procure a statement of the House on a question of substantive policy; he was raising the question of which of the particular bodies within this chamber should consider a particular question. As such, that particular motion is distinguishable from the kind of motion we have before us today.
The other instance which has been brought to my attention was on May 19, 1947 when the redoubtable former member for Temis-couata, Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot, at that time moved concurrence in a report which would have had the effect of referring a petition to a special committee on redistribution for its information. There again, the effect of the motion, which was related to the inclusion or non-inclusion of a particular geographic
251B
January 19, 1970

Motion for Concurrence in Report area in the member's riding, was not that of asking for a statement of opinion on a matter of government policy; it was again a procedural motion and, to give the committee an opportunity to discuss the matter, the motion was carried.
I argue that both these motions were of an entirely procedural nature. They did not involve the discussion of a substantive question, raising questions of underlying policy. On that basis, neither of the two precedents should be regarded as restricting you, Mr. Speaker, in your decision. I therefore argue that this being, if not the first time this question has been discussed certainly the first time in recent years, you should have an opportunity now to make a decision.


An hon. Member:: Shoot down the
committees.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I invite Your Honour to make a decision in favour of the House being able effectively to plan the way it will carry on business from day to day. I would therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that the motion put by the hon. member, being a private members' notice of motion, not be dealt with at this point but be transferred to the appropriate place under the Orders of the Day so that it may be discussed in due course.


An hon. Member:: There is not much support for that decision.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak to this point of order, which has been raised by the government House leader, because I think it involves a very important question for Your Honour's consideration.
I should like first of all to deal briefly with the whole question which has been adverted to by the minister from time to time. I think the point concerns the type of motion being made, and it relates to the type of report being considered. The hon. member for Athabasca, as a member of this committee, is entitled to base a motion on a statement contained in the report which reads:
Your committee recommends that the government of Canada indicate to the world, without delay, that vessels, surface and submarine, passing through Canada's Arctic Archipelago are and shall be subject to the sovereign control and regulation of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: That statement does not ask the government to involve itself in the expen-
|Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).]
diture of money; it asks the government to get off its iceberg and make a statement on what should be done about Canada's Arctic North. If we are not to move farther in the direction of a presidential form of government, members of the House, and particularly government members as well as those in opposition, must have the right to seize the initiative when the government has failed to do so and put certain types of motions. Because a very important principle is involved I should like to quote from the Standing Orders of the House, beginning with Standing Order 57 which reads
Whenever a resolution is reported from any Committee of the Whole, a motion to concur in the same shall be forthwith put and decided without debate or amendment.
I ask Your Honour to take note of the mandatory wording, "shall be forthwith put and decided". It may appear that if that rule were to be complied with there could be no debate. May I, therefore, also read standing Order 32(l)(b), which says;
The following motions are debatable:
Every motion:
(b) for the concurrence in a report of a standing or special committee;
Finally, to complete an examination of pertinent Standing Orders, may I read standing order 6500) which reads:
In a standing or special committee, the standing orders of the House shall be observed so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
Clearly, the Standing Orders indicate that in committee proceedings you apply the same procedures as are applicable in the House, so far as they may be brought into effect. Consequently, when the committee of the whole House makes a report, according to the Standing Orders of the House that report shall-not may-be subject to a motion of concurrence. I submit Your Honour must consider the Standing Orders I have cited in deciding whether or not a motion to concur must be put. That begs the question, of course, as to who shall be entitled to put the motion.
May I also refer Your Honour to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition, which provides at page 477 as follows:
It is the practice to move concurrence in the reports of committees in certain cases. For instance, the reports on printing are invariably-agreed to, as they contain recommendations for the printing and distribution of documents, which must be duly authorized by the house-Also reports containing certain opinions or resolutions are frequently concurred in on motion-
January 19, 1970	COMMONS
Illustrations are given dating back to the time of confederation which show that in our parliamentary history motions of this kind were put to the House. Unquestionably, the House has the right to decide and when a committee has made a report of this kind I submit it would be wrong for Your Honour to deny the House the right of considering any recommendation contained in that report. One cannot compel the government to accept the report because, if it does not like the report, it need only call out its troops to defeat the motion for concurrence. But, I submit our parliamentary history clearly indicates that motions of this kind ought to be entertained by this House. They should be the subject of debate and decision.
May I re-inforce my argument with one more point. Until this particular committee report has been the subject of a motion to concur, it is ini limbo. A motion to concur may be moved in this House. The House may also say that the report ought to be sent back to committee and changed, altered or amended. Until that is done there can be no conclusion to this most important report containing extremely important recommendations that are vital to our national security at this particular time.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I cite to Your Honour, from page 692 of Beauchesne's Third Edition, a decision of Mr. Speaker Lemieux:
The report ot a Standing Committee should be considered final only when it is adopted because the House can refer it back to the committee with instruction to amend it in any particular.
As I understand these three propositions, when read together, this report must be put to the House pursuant to the Standing Order. Until a report has been discussed and a decision made with respect to it, it is susceptible to change and referral back to the committee. No one knows where we stand on this matter. This is the situation which exists today. Practice and precedent of the past indicate that reports of this kind have, in fact, been put.
In so far as the right of the hon. member is concerned, I defy the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) or any hon. member in this House to indicate that it is the sole privilege of the chairman of a standing committee to put a motion to concur. As far as propriety is concerned, it would certainly be best if this were done as frequently as possible. But if there is a reluctance on the part of the committee chairman to put the motion
DEBATES	2517
Motion for Concurrence in Report because it may be embarrassing to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the government, I say that leaves a vacuum which can be entered by any member of the committee. I suggest to Your Honour there is no rule, practice or precedent which denies the right of a member of a committee to put a motion to concur when the chairman of the committee has failed to do so.
The President of the Privy Council said the committee decided it did not want to put the motion. Nothing to that effect appears within-the four corners of the committee report. If that was the decision of the committee, it probably would have indicated they were not going to bring in a report and the committee would have acted accordingly. There has been too much of this business of hon. members opposite being strong and bold in words, but weak and snivelling when it comes to action in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: It is about time we struck out and reinforced the right of a member of this committee to put this kind of motion to the House for a decision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the right of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) to make this motion at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: hear members across the way expressing surprise. I suppose it will also surprise them if I say that I rise to support the action of the Chair and the table in placing the motion on the order paper at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: listened with great interest to the non-political statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). When he began his statement, he said he was going to give us a number of precedents, Standing Orders and citations in support of his case. Being interested in this and being anxious to deal with any of these if I could, I look pen and paper in hand ready to take down all of these precedents, citations and Standing Orders. My sheet of paper is still almost blank.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
January 19, 1970

Motion jor Concurrence in Report


Stanley Howard Knowles: have noted 1932 and 1947, two years in which he indicated attempts to move motions something like this were not allowed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Your Honour. The hon. member may not have been listening too well. I said the exact opposite to what he just said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank my hon. friend for correcting me. He gave these two as motions that were allowed, but he tried to make the point that something entirely different was involved in them than is involved in the motion now before us. In the matter of citations from the authorities and Standing Orders, my sheet of paper is still blank. The President of the Privy Council just does not have any that he can give to this House.


An hon. Member:: It is another white paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
this area of the right of a private member to move a motion for concurrence in the report of a committee, our authorities say very little. At least there is nothing that I can find that denies the right of the hon. member for Athabasca or any private member of this House to place such a motion on the order paper and have it considered. As a matter of fact, I want by way of parenthesis to make that point, namely, that this right is open not only to the member for Athabasca, but that it is open to any member of this House.
Once a committee has made a report, that report has been given to the House. It is up to the House to decide whether it wants to adopt it or otherwise, not the chairman of the committee, not some individual member of the committee, not some government members of the committee, but it is up to the House to decide. The only way the House can decide is by having a motion placed before it.
I have attempted to chide the President of the Privy Council for not at least giving us one or two citations, so I better have some to offer on the other side. I draw Your Honour's attention to parts of citations 321 and 325 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I said parts, but before I am through I may read all of those citations. Citation 321 reads:
If it be expedient the House appoint the consideration of the report of a Select Committee for a future day, by a motion made on the presentation of the report, or by a subsequent motion for that purpose.

I submit that when the report was tabled on December 16, no motion was made then for its consideration. What we have now is a subsequent motion made by the hon. member for Athabasca. I continue with the citation:
The House may appoint the consideration of the report of a Select Committee for a future day by giving forty-eight hours' notice. It will then be taken up when "motions" are called at the commencement of the sitting.
This is as plain as it can be, Mr. Speaker. The member for Athabasca gave 48 hours' notice. Having given 48 hours' notice, where do the Chair and the table place the motion on the order paper? They look at citation 321 and see that it should be placed under motions. That is where it is, and I submit that is where it has the right to be.
I now ask Your Honour and members who are interested to listen to citation 325:
(1)	When the report does not contain any resolutions, recommendations or other propositions for consideration of the House, it does not appear that any further proceedings in reference to it as a report are necessary. Every session, Select Committees make reports of this description, containing a statement of facts, or of the evidence on the subject of enquiry; but as they do not contain any proposition which can be agreed to by the House, they are simply printed for the information of the members.
There are many reports like that, but that hardly applies to the report on Arctic sovereignty. I continue:
(2)	Concurrence in reports from Select Committees is, in non-controversial cases, moved when motions are called by the Speaker during routine business.
That often happens where a motion for concurrence is agreed to on all sides of the House.
If it be expedient, the House will appoint the consideration of a report for a future day. By a motion made for that purpose in the British House, the report of a committee presented during a previous session has been taken into consideration.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Paragraph (3) refers to Standing Order 41 which is now Standing Order 42 of our revised rules and it states:
-notice must be given for the motion for concurrence in reports of committees, said concurrence being a resolution of the House. If such a motion is brought up without notice, it can only be allowed to pass by unanimous consent.
There again is a clear instruction not only to the hon. member for Athabasca but to the Chair and the table. Here is a motion for concurrence in a report. Since it will not be
January 19, 1970	COMMONS
allowed to pass by unanimous consent it has to be given under Standing Order 42 and that is what was done.
Then paragraph (4) of Citation 325 reads: When a motion is made for concurrence in a Select Committee Report, it is competent for the House to adopt it, reject it, refer it back to the committee or decide that consideration of the report will take place "this day six months".
I thought since I referred to Citation 325 I should read the whole of it, but surely the crucial part of it is in paragraph (3) which gives the right, under what is now Standing Order 42, for a motion to be made and dealt with under motions for concurrence in the report of a committee. I emphasize that there is nothing in either of those citations, and I cannot find anything anywhere else, which says this right is limited to the chairman of the standing committee or says it is even limited to a member of a standing committee. It says the House shall make this decision, and every time there is any reference as to when the House shall make such a decision it says it shall be done under Routine Proceedings. It shall be done under motions, which is precisely where it is on today's Order Paper.
I submit, therefore, that in the absence of any prohibition against the hon. member for Athabasca making this motion at this point, and in the light of statements that this is the place to deal with motions for concurrence in a report of a committee, that the hon. member had every right to ask that his motion be placed where it is and that Your Honour had every right to see that it was put on the Order Paper in this place and that it be called at this time.
The other comment I wish to make is perhaps in the vein in which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) was speaking. At least, in a sense, it is in the same vein. He talked about the implications of this course of action in relation to the planning of the business of Parliament. I should like to talk about the implications of what he wants to deny to this House in relation to the professed aim to strengthen the work of our committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What on earth is the value of strengthening our committees, so they can make these strong reports and say the excellent things that are said in this report, if those statements are to die once the reports are tabled in the House of Commons? I do not have them in front of me, and perhaps it is a good thing I do not or I would be reading at length
DEBATES	2519
Motion for Concurrence in Report from the reports of one of our procedural committees back in November and December of 1968 when we went into this whole business of the work of committees and our desire to strengthen them. This is like motherhood around this place. We all support this. Committees are wonderful. They must be given more to do and more support. Private members on the government side welcome them because in committees they can speak their minds; they can pass resolutions and bring in reports and say something. To what effect is the result of all that if, when the report is presented in the House, it is printed not even in Hansard but in Votes and Proceedings, which not very many people see, and that is the end of it? If we are going to talk about implications let us talk about the implications of what we are trying to do for our committee structure and accept the fact that when a committee goes to the trouble of making the kind of report this committee did we should have the right to deal with it here in the House of Commons.
I recognize that there are not very many precedents for this being done. It is the usual and traditional thing for the chairman of a committee or for someone designated by the committee to make the report, but there is no rule under which such a person does it. There is no rule which says no one else can do it. In fact, as I have already said, I go so far as to say that any private member of the House should be able to make the motion. Supposing for example the hon. member for Athabasca had been removed from the committee after it had made its report, would he not still have the right to move the motion? And what about some of the rest of us?
In any case, because there are no rules against it, because this is in line with what we are trying to do to strengthen the work of committees, and because Your Honour and the table saw fit to put the motion where it is, I suggest it should be called and proceeded with at this time.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 51 of the House of Commons reads as follows:
51. Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is asking that you
January 19, 1970

Motion for Concurrence in Report consider the motion of the member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) as affecting the privileges and rules of Parliament and, therefore, that you reject it.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I rather agree with the two previous speakers. While I agree with their comments, I would like to put forward the arguments which, perhaps, they have not stressed enough.
Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is of paramount importance. In fact, the question is whether a member can influence in any way the proceedings of the House or its committees without violating the Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the motion or the point of order of the President of the Privy Council were accepted, the Chair would seem to favour force, instead of democracy. It seems to me that for some years, the successive majority governments have been tempted, because of their numerical strength, to impose their views on the House and the committees.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to recall that members of the Opposition have always been anxious to co-operate with the government with a view to speeding up the proceedings by agreement, as the President of the Privy Council said, among the various party representatives. But this has nothing to do whatsoever with the power or basic rights of a House member.
Mr. Speaker, an attempt was made to improve committee work. I would point out two precedents of the last session to show the government's negative attitude. It will certainly be remembered that the government disagreed on the contents of a committee report and that on another occasion, it was defeated through its failure to maintain a majority in this House. The Chair was made aware of the situation. Now, on those two occasions, the President of the Privy Council stepped in and succeeded so well in imposing his views on the dispute that the matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker, I would humbly submit that instead of accepting the proposal of the President of the Privy Council, the Chair recommend that the subject-matter of the dispute be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, since the rights of the members are involved.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this aspect is more important than is generally believed. It is agreed that

hon. members, the government, the opposition parties have rights.
But when we ask the ministers for information during the oral question period, we know what happens. Either we receive a haughty answer, or none at all. Hon. members cannot demand a reply, as at that moment Your Honour steps in to say that the minister can rightfully act that way. Even at the information level, the part of the private member is practically nil. It is the same within the committees. When a private member wants to say something, to put forward a motion, right away the majority principle is invoked and put in operation and he is defeated.
When a private member tries to bring in a motion giving rise to an expenditure of public funds, the Speaker says: "A private member cannot do this."
Mr. Speaker, since the adoption of Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c, the length of the debate is restricted and is determined by the majority in order to further reduce the part played by private members.
I suggest that this is a basic question of very great importance, and that the decision that the Chair may give shortly will protect the rights of the minority, those of private members, and not necessarily those of the strong.
In my view, some government members are really doing a good job in using their strength to crush the private members.
Now, if the part played by a private member is reduced to nothing, I wonder what we are doing here?
Mr. Speaker, you agree, I feel, that hon. members should fully and consciously do their duty, that they should take part in the discussions and bring in motions, in accordance with the Standing Orders and the practices of the house.
Hon. members are waiting for your decision, in order that their right to intervene, not to foist their views on the House concerning the order of proceedings, be protected. Hon. members honestly wish to carry out the business of the house.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a result of certain remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River, I feel I should clarify one or two points. Just before the Christmas recess the hon. member for Athabasca prematurely attempted to move a motion for concurrence
January 19, 1970

in this report. Because he had failed to give 48 hours' notice, I understand his motion was not accepted at that time. Immediately after that attempt to move the motion a meeting of the steering committee of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was held. At this meeting, which was held either in the afternoon or the day after the attempt to move the motion, the consensus was it was neither wise nor desirable for the committee to ask for concurrence in its recommendations. The reason for this consensus was that the committee did not want unanimity in respect of its recommendations contained in the report to be in any way diluted by any artificial divisiveness which might be the result of a motion for concurrence in the House.
In respect of the comment made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, surely the committee is the master of its own tactics. If it decides by making a very strong report that it can push the government in the right direction, then it should have the right to decide on the tactics to be employed. If it should be the committee's decision, as it certainly was in this instance, to deliberately not ask for concurrence, then surely it is in its power to take this position. I submit it should be obvious to everyone in this House that any kind of division in respect of this extremely urgent and important question could be misinterpreted outside the House and would not be in Canada's interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the point being made by the hon. member for Laprai-rie, but it would seem that if we are to continue the discussion at this time it should be limited to the procedural aspect of the matter. It would seem that we are getting more and more into the substance of the report. When there is a discussion today or later on in respect of the report itself, it would seem to me that might be the proper time to bring up the kind of argument being made now by the hon. member for Laprairie and perhaps by other hon. members taking part in the debate.
I realize how important this point is and I have no intention of limiting the discussion. However, I invite hon. members who take part in the debate in respect of the procedural aspect to limit their contribution to this aspect of the matter which is the procedural point raised by the hon. President of the Privy Council.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of referring to authorities. However, I wish to make two

Motion for Concurrence in Report very brief arguments. First of all, in complete answer to the hon. member for Laprairie, I would say that the report, having been presented to the House by the committee, belongs to the House and not to the committee. That is the short answer. The committee has reported to the House. It has presented the report. The report then belongs to the House and not to the committee. Therefore, whether the committee decides yea or nay with regard to continuance is immaterial. This is a decision for the House. This was amply pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and in the citations to which he referred.
The second point is that the situation in respect of the rephasing of the recommendations so-called, and participation of hon. members in the business of the House, is completely contrary to the situation in this regard as argued by the President of the Privy Council. When he suggests that this House must be subservient at all times for all things to the dictates of the cabinet, he misstates the situation. The situation is that the cabinet is responsible to this House. Let us underline that fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Somehow or other, it seems that hon. gentlemen across the way who occupy the treasury benches now have the idea that this House at all times will do everything they think fit. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. They are part of this House and are responsible to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no question about that. If there is to be any validity to the importance of committees, surely it is quite wrong for the government House leader to argue that it is the chairman, who is there at the behest of the government, who should move concurrence in the report. We have often seen examples where a chairman who was too independent was changed. Something was done or something happened. Perhaps he was just not reappointed. Pressures are brought to bear. Now, if a committee is to do its job it may bring in recommendations which are adverse to what the government is thinking. Well, the government does not have a monopoly on, shall we say, having the right conclusions. Goodness knows, this government makes more mistakes than any other group of mortal men. But here we have a House committee, composed of
2522	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report members from all sides, which makes a recommendation which may prove to be embarrassing and which may be critical. If the House and Your Honour should accept the argument of the government House leader, then any criticism can be stultified at the whim of the cabinet.
The report does not belong to the cabinet or to the committee. It belongs to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: True
enough, it is customary or at least it is a matter of courtesy that the chairman shall present the report and then ask for concurrence in it. But in his absence, it may be presented by the vice-chairman or by any other committee member on behalf of the chairman. It is not the chairman's motion- not at all. It is the motion of the member who proposes the adoption of the report. In this case, I would say everything has been done properly. I would say also that the strictures advanced by the government House leader are a reflection on the Chair and the officers who decided that the motion should be put where it now stands on the Order Paper.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Since it has been placed there, the hon. member for Athabasca has a perfect right to put his motion for the consideration of the House. I ask hon. members to accept this view, and trust I have persuaded Your Honour that it is the right course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: assure Your Honour that I shall heed your warning to speak directly to the subject and that I shall try to be extremely brief.
I make no apology for entering this debate.
I raised this question in the House when the so-called watchdogs in the opposition had not uttered a single yelp. They are interested in this subject very late. I am one of those who feel that the government of Canada has been dilatory in this matter; I believe it should have moved long before now. I am also one of the committee members involved in this report. To speak directly to the question at issue, I believe there is a difference between a recommendation from a committee as to a policy line, and detailed, close recommendations involving the expenditure of public money, acceptance of which by the government would not be merely the acceptance of a principle.

DEBATES	January 19, 1970
The hon. member for Peace River gave the impression-I do not suggest he was trying to mislead the House-that by accepting these recommendations the government would merely be accepting a certain principle voiced by myself and by a large number of other members of this House that Arctic sovereignty must be proclaimed and proclaimed soon. But a reading of the report does not bear this out. There is one paragraph on Arctic sovereignty, an extremely important one with which I fully agree, but there are others which involve the expenditure of money. On page 210 of Votes and Proceedings dated December 16, 1969, we read, for instance:
Your committee recommends that appropriate agencies of the government move immediately to conduct a search in the Arctic to gather information on the following-
Then a number of subjects for research are listed.
A little later we read a recommendation that further research studies be undertaken into the effects of pollution and so on. These are recommendations intended to influence the government, and I certainly hope they do, but I believe there is a fundamental difference between the expression of a point of view by a committee with the intention of putting pressure on a government, and the setting out of detailed policy which amounts, in effect, to a committee taking on the job of the cabinet by spelling out policy in detail- policy which the government would then be obliged to follow to the smallest particular.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: hope I may have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, while I draw to your attention a matter which cannot be allowed to pass without comment, and one which is disturbing me immensely. I refer to the fact that during the discussion this afternoon, for the first time to my knowledge in the 17 years in which I have had the privilege of being a member of this House, an hon. member-a member on the government side, it so happens-has seen fit while talking about a matter before the House, to disclose the discussions, consideration and decision of a steering committee of a committee of this House. This is a matter of the utmost importance.
A steering committee is appointed by a committee, and it reports only to the standing committee which appointed it. The disclosure to this House of the discussion, consideration and decision of a steering committee establishes such an extraordinary precedent that I feel obliged to draw it to Your Honour's
January 19. 1970	COMMONS
attention. If this practice is to be allowed in the future, Your Honour should make it known.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their learned and useful contributions to the debate during the last hour or so. All hon. members who have spoken have pointed out that this is a very important matter. The decision which the Chair is called upon to take is, of course, an important one.
As hon. members may have guessed, this matter has been under consideration for some days and it is as a result of this consideration that the Chair has come to at least the temporary conclusion that the motion of the hon. member for Athabasca should be placed where it has been placed on the order paper, that is, under Motions.
I doubt whether I can agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West that the raising of this matter as a point of order at this time is in any way a reflection on the Chair. I must say I cannot agree. If the proposed motion had been placed under private members' notices of motions, I assume the honourable and learned member for Peace River would have raised a point of order seeking to have it upgraded to where it is placed at the present time. I would think the intervention of the President of the Privy Council is quite in order in the sense that I fully expected that the points he has made would be made, and that the Chair would then be placed in the position of having to review the matter further.
The only two precedents which have been quoted in the course of the debate are those which go back to 1932 and 1947. It is of interest to note that in both instances a member of the House who was not the chairman of the committee concerned was allowed to make a motion of the type now standing in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca. In the absence of any precedent contrary to this situation in previous years it was felt by the Chair that the motion should be given the precedence which it has been granted on the order paper. I realized that it would be in order for the Chair to give the matter very serious consideration within the next 24 hours or so in order that a lucid, logical and understandable ruling might be made, because in a way this is a precedent setting situation-the two precedents which were referred to by the President of the Privy Council did not include a procedural discussion, so they are not finally binding on the Chair.
DEBATES	2523
Motion for Concurrence in Report
The direction which the Chair tends to take at the present time is obvious. It was as a result of lengthy consideration that the motion of the hon. member for Athabasca was placed where it is, and I would think this is the decision which should be reached. I shall not prejudice the matter, however. If hon. members will allow me to do so I will reflect further on the matter and give a ruling within the next 24 hours which I hope will be acceptable to the House.
There is a difficulty in the sense that if a decision were made tomorrow and if, perchance, the decision were favourable to the hon. member for Athabasca, he would be called upon to make his contribution-and perhaps subsequent contributions would be made to the debate-in conflict with the arrangement which has now been concluded to the effect that tomorrow would be an opposition day. I would not consider the hon. member's motion as an opposition day subject, but I would consider it to be a committee day, in a sense. It might be that discussions should be held between representatives of the parties to decide if, theoretically a decision were reached in the hon. member's favour, a debate on the motion might be postponed to a subsequent day in order to allow the House to devote itself entirely to the motion which stands on the order paper at the present time in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie. This having been said, I will postpone a decision until tomorrow, if hon. members will allow me to do so.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr, Speaker, I am sure there will be the usual willingness to co-operate, in consultation with the President of the Privy Council, as to an appropriate time when Your Honour's decision might be made.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I see you are
learning.


Gerald William Baldwin: What was that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I said, I see you are learning.



INVESTMENT COMPANIES


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-179, respecting investment companies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
January 19, 1970
Questions

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

Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	For the Liberal Convention held in Ottawa in April 1968, what was the total coverage given to the convention by CBC (a) English radio and television (b) French radio and television?
2.	What sessions of the Liberal Convention were broadcast "live" by the CBC radio and television and what was the total time of such coverage?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Since this convention was a leadership contest, extensive coverage was given on CBC English and French radio and television networks. Combined total radio and TV coverage which included live coverage of speeches, voting for leadership candidates etc., amounted to approximately 43 hours on the English networks and 24 hours on the French networks. Of these amounts approximately 31 hours on the English networks and 19 hours on the French networks were devoted to live coverage from the floor of the convention.


CBC COVERAGE, 1969 NDP CONVENTION
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	For the New Democratic Convention held in Winnipeg in October, 1969, what was the total coverage given to the convention by CBC (a) English radio and television (b) French radio and television?
2.	What sessions of the New Democratic Party Convention were broadcast "live" by the CBC radio and television and what was the total time of such coverage?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC as follows: The combined total radio and TV coverage of this biennial convention amounted to approximately three hours on the English networks and 1J hours on the French networks. While there were numerous actuality clips used during the period of the convention, the only live coverage in full from the floor was the hour-long closing address of T. C. Douglas on the English networks.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1


CBC COVERAGE, 1967 CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	For the Conservative Convention held in Toronto in September 1967, what was the total coverage given to the convention by CBC (a) English radio and television (b) French radio and television?
2.	What sessions of the Conservative Convention were broadcast "live" by the CBC radio and television and what was the total time of such coverage.


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Since this convention was a leadership contest, extensive coverage was given on CBC English and French radio and television networks. Combined total radio and TV coverage which included live coverage of speeches, voting for leadership candidates, etc., amounted to approximately 48 hours on the English networks and 20 hours on the French networks. Of these amounts approximately 40 hours on the English networks and 17 hours on the French networks were devoted to live coverage from the floor of the convention.


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Are any officers of any department of the Government of Canada studying the feasibility of the building, or in any way giving attention to a permanent crossing between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island across the Northumberland Strait?
2.	What was the estimate of Colonel Edward Churchill as to the total cost of such a crossing?
3.	On what date was such estimate presented to the government?
4.	Have the 4.98 miles of railway on the New Brunswick side of the proposed crossing been declared surplus material and, if not, what plans are being made for disposal of this railway spur line?
5.	In each of the years since 1962, what was the total amount expended on research and construction for the Northumberland crossing?
6.	Has the Government of Canada received any offers from private firms to construct such a crossing and, if so, from whom and what was the response of the government in each case?
7.	Has the Government of Canada any indication that any provincial government is giving consideration to proposals from private interests concerning the building of such a crossing?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. No.
January 19, 1970

2.	$176 million including prior expenditures as listed in Part 5.
3.	January 24, 1969.
4.	Yes. The rails and ties have been declared surplus and have been disposed of through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to the Canadian National Railway.
5.	Expenditure by fiscal years:
Fiscal Year
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70 (to November 1969)
Amount $	9,141
49,296 499,796 1,239,077 1,650,101 4,317,352 4,764,733 3,905,052 299,801
Total	$16,734,349
Note: The above figures include all payments relating to consultants, land acquisition and construction.
6.	A consortium of contractors represented by Northumberland Consultants Limited last summer presented to government officials an outline of the elements of a proposal to construct the crossing on the basis of private financing. Northumberland Consultants Limited was advised that a firm proposal, based on the outl ne discussed and supported by adequate assurances with regard to private financing, would be considered for presentation to the government. No such firm proposal has resulted.
7.	No.


RAILWAY TRACK RELOCATION GRANTS
Mr. Thomas (Moncton): In the last three years, have any grants been made from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund to cities, towns or municipalities for the specific purpose of railway track relocation and, if so, to which cities, towns or municipalities and in what amounts?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Grants from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund are made to railway applicants for track relocation only when the purpose of the relocation is the elimination of existing level railway-highway crossings. Two such grants were authorized by the Canadian Transport Commission as follows: (1) $500,000 to the Canadian National Railways, in October, 1967, for relocation of the Sorel Subdivision in the
Questions
Towns of St. Bruno-de-Montarville, St. Hubert and Boucherville and the City of Jacques Cartier in the Province of Quebec; (2) to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in January, 1969, for relocation of the Halifax Subdivision in the Town of Windsor, Province of Nova Scotia.


CAROLINE POST OFFICE TENDERERS
Mr. Thompson (Red Deer): 1.	How many firms tendered on the construction of the Caroline Post Office?
2.	What are the amounts of the tenders and the names of the contractors?
3.	What sub-contractors were not paid by the general contractor and what are the amounts?
4.	Other than a percentage deposit, what standards had to be met in order to tender on this contract?
5.	Does the previous record of a firm have any bearing on acceptance of a tender?
6.	If a firm fails to pay its sub-contractors, is its name removed from future lists to tender on
contracts?
7.	What protection does a sub-contractor receive when the contractor does not pay for the work he completed?


Arthur Laing: 1. Five.
2.	Contractors are: Dynacon Construction, Calgary, Alberta, $24,014; Bond & Leitch (Calgary) Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, $24,780; Jason Construction, Calgary, Alberta, $24,950; F. Avery Construction (Division of A.N. Holdings Ltd.), Stettler, Alberta, $26,488; W. R. Sand-quiet Construction Ltd., Red Deer, Alberta, $32,368.
After tenders were called, it was decided to make certain changes in the work. In accordance with departmental policy, the three lowest bidders on the original tender were asked to submit new quotations.
Two of the three low bidders submitted the following tenders:	Dynacon Construction,
$22,151; Bond & Leitch (Calgary) Ltd., $22,450.
3.	Sub-contractors claiming unpaid accounts are: Menzies & Herbert Ltd., Red Deer, Alberta, $968.00; Westview Plumbing & Heating, Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, $1,880.00; Dunrite Plasterers, Red Deer, Alberta, $450.00; Spruce View Co-op, Spruce View, Alberta, $14.40; Heathfield & Hilderman, Spruce View, Alberta, $493.50; V. R. Nielson, Spruce View, Alberta, $12.00; Bob Jorgenson, Spruce View, Alberta, $152.60; Revelstoke Building Materials Limited, Calgary, Alberta, $1,072.29; H. Kenda Agencies, Red Deer, Alberta, $209.50;
2526

January 19, 1970
Questions
Harold Ogilvy, Red Deer, Alberta, $180.00; The Red Deer House of Decorating, Red Deer, Alberta, $463.60.
4.	Government Contract Regulations do not require deposits on tenders under $25,000. Tenders must be submitted on forms supplied by the Department.
5.	Yes.
6.	Since tenders are mainly obtained by public advertisement, past performance on payment of accounts is a factor in determining acceptability of tender or alternately requiring the posting of a labour and materials payment bond.
7.	Clause 21 of the general conditions of the contract permits Her Majesty to discharge lawful obligations of, and satisfy lawful claims against the contractor or a sub-contractor arising out of the execution of the work to the extent that moneys are available to do so under the contract.


CBC &quot;WEEKEND&quot; PROGRAM-APPEARANCE OF JAMES HARDING
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was James Harding on the CBC Weekend Program on Sunday, November 30, 1969?
2.	How much exposure in time was he given on national television?
3.	What are Mr. Harding's credentials and, on whose behalf was he speaking?
4.	What was the purpose of Mr. Harding's television appearance?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	10 minutes, 45 seconds.
3.	Mr. Harding is considered to be one of the more prominent spokesmen in Canada for the "new left". He is a former teaching assistant at Simon Fraser University and was a guest speaker at the recent Liberal party conference at Harrison Hot Springs. He spoke for himself on the CBC program.
4.	The purpose of Mr. Harding's appearance was to provide a significant viewpoint about the Canadian political scene.


COST OF UNUSED DESIGN FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE BUILDING
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the total cost of the unused design for the Department of National Defence building which was to have been built in the LeBreton Flats area in Ottawa?

2.	What was the cost to (a) the Department of Public Works (b) the Department of National Defence (c) any other government departments or agencies?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. $1,355,885.95.
2.	(a) Cost to Department of Public Works, $1,355,885.95; Salary of D.N.D. personnel seconded to D.P.W. $10,458.00; Total cost to Department of Public Works, $1,366,343.95. (b) $372,576 for salaries and travel for a planning group which varied in strength from three to seven personnel over a five year period. $33,047 for consultant services, (c) Not applicable.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD RENTAL FEE
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is the National Film Board proposing to charge a film rental fee effective January 1, 1970 and, if so, will schools and other educational institutions be exempt from paying the rental fee?
2.	Were the budgetary implications of the new policy discussed with provincial departments of education before the announcement about change in policy?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the National Film Board as follows:
1.	The National Film Board proposes to institute a service charge for the use of its films, effective January 1, 1970. Schools and other educational institutions will not be exempt from paying this service charge if they wish to use NFB material.
2.	The budgetary implications of this new policy were discussed with provincial departments of education in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, before the change in policy was made known; elsewhere, provincial departments of education were consulted shortly after they received, in the third week in November, a letter intimating the change in policy.


&quot;THE FORSYTE SAGA&quot;-PURCHASE OF SERIES BY CBC
Mr. Broadbenl: Did the CBC consider purchasing the BBC production series, The Forsyte Saga, for the 1969-70 viewing season and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what are the specific reasons for not purchasing the above BBC program?
January 19, 1970


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC that it has purchased the series and plans to schedule it this spring.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT VIOLATIONS
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Did the Minister ol Finance receive complaints from ACEF of Montreal concerning violations by finance companies of the Small Businesses Loans Act and what is the date of each complaint?
2.	What companies were mentioned in these complaints?
3.	Did the Minister of Finance order an enquiry into the cases of violation submitted by ACEF?
4.	Have any sanctions been applied and, if so, what were they?
5.	Has the Minister granted the request of ACEF to exercise a closer control in the administration of the Small Businesses Loans Act?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: It
is assumed that the question intended to refer to the Small Loans Act rather than to the Small Businesses Loans Act. 1. Letters of complaint were received in 1969 by the Superintendent of Insurance from the Association Cooperative d'Economie Familiale. Copies of these letters were sent by ACEF to the Minister of Finance. The letters that contained direct reference to companies licensed under the Small Loans Act were dated April 11, 1969, April 22, 1969 and July 3, 1969.
2.	Beneficial Finance Co. of Canada, Household Finance Corporation of Canada and Niagara Finance Company Limited.
3.	The basis for the complaints was investigated by the office of the Superintendent of Insurance.
4.	It was considered that no violation of the Small Loans Act had occurred; consequently no sanctions were necessary.
5.	No such action was considered necessary since the administration of the Small Loans Act is, and has been, carried out in a satisfactory manner.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue use computer-operated machines to send out assessment notices to taxpayers and, if so, how much did the computer cost?
2.	How many assessment notices does it deal with daily?
Questions
3.	How many different types of letters is the computer programmed to send?
4.	Were any parts of the information supplied in answer to this question given by the computer itself and, if so. which?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Yes. The Department of National Revenue, Taxation, has two large and one small computer systems which are used for centralized processing of individual taxpayer returns, accounting functions in respect of individual taxpayers and payroll deductions as well as research projects and statistical programs. The processing of individual returns is done on these computers and notices of assessments are printed by printers which are part of these systems. The purchase price of these systems is $5,073,000.
2.	The 1969 assessing program has one or two "outputs" per week depending on workloads. At peak filing time in the 1969 program the output of assessments was over 600,000 per week-321,831 on the highest day.
3.	The computer is not programmed to send actual letters as such. In respect of assessments of returns, the computer is programmed to print up to four of 99 different messages in either English or French on notices of assessment. Where such messages do not fit typewritten explanations are sent. In the areas of other functions, forms in respect of individual accounts including instalment payments and payroll deduction accounting forms to employers are used on which various messages are computer generated. There are ten such forms.
4.	The information supplied re question 2 was obtained from computer generated statistics.


REPLACEMENT OF STORM WINDOWS, CENTRE BLOCK
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 747
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total cost of the replacement in 1969 of the storm windows on the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings?
2.	In what year were the previous storm windows installed?


Arthur Laing: 1. In 1969, four storm windows were replaced in Rooms 103A and 105A at a total cost of $280.
2. Various storm windows were installed during the past ten years as per individual Member's request and approval by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

January 19, 1970
Questions


PETITION RESPECTING CJCL-TV PROGRAMMING
Mr. Peddle: 1.	Has the Northern Service of CBC received a petition from Labrador City, requesting a change in programming on station CJCL-TV, to allow the showing of movies on Saturday night, and hockey rebroadcasts on Saturday afternoon?
2.	Will CBC accede to that request and, if so, when will the change in programming commence?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC that the Corporation has received a brief from Labrador City and that the broadcasting service provided to the area is presently being reviewed.


REMISSION OF CERTAIN TAXES FOR AIRLINE COMPANIES
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Under what Order in Council are Canadian airline companies eligible for remission of customs duties, sales and excise taxes on the purchase of aircraft and parts to be used in international service?
2.	Were companies with extensive international operations permitted to defer payment of taxes on the domestic portion of their operations until the year end and, if so, who made the ruling to permit such deferments and under what authority?
3.	Was permission for such deferments rescinded recently and, if so, by whom and under what authority?


John Cole: 1. Order in Council P.C. 1966-18/ 1495, dated August 10, 1966.
2.	Companies with extensive international operations were permitted to defer payment of taxes on certain aircraft used in a combination of domestic and international service until the year end. This deferment of taxes on the domes ic portion of the aircraft was necessary as the extent to which the aircraft was used domestically was not known until year end and an accurate calculation of the amount of sales tax to be remi.ted was not possible until that time.
3.	The application of the Order was suspended temporarily but was reinstated pending a new submission to Council to replace the present Order.


FARM IMPLEMENT PRICES COMMISSION
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What was the date the Commission on Farm Implement Prices was set up?
2.	When is a final report by the Commission to be expected?
IMr. Laing.l
3.	How many members are on the Commission?
4.	What is the total expenditure by the Commission to date?
5.	What is the anticipated total expenditure that will be made by or for the Commission by the time the final report is received by the government?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The Royal Commission on Farm Machinery was appointed by Order-in-Council 1966-978 on May 26, 1966.
2.	By mid-1970.
3.	One.
4.	$1,288,635 to December 31, 1969.
5.	$1,581,409.


COST OF BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM COMMISSION
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, has been the cost to date of the Bilingual and Bicultural Commission?


James Edgar Walker: Total cost of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to December 31, 1969, is $8,433,162.


UNION OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Robinson: To the knowledge of the federal government, have the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta discussed unity with the Northwest Territories and, if so, is the government prepared to consider this proposal?


James Edgar Walker: No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Which government departments have made arrangements either by contract or any other method with private public relations firms to publicize the work, the programs, the activities of each department or its personnel?
2.	How much did each department agree to pay to the public relations firms involved?
3.	Were the arrangements made following competitive bidding and, if not, what criteria were used in choosing the firms concerned?
Return tabled.
January 19, 1970


EXPO '70-COST TO GOVERNMENT
Mr. Howe: 1.	What is the total sum set aside by the federal Treasury to pay the cost of Canada's participation in EXPO '70, Osaka, Japan?
2.	What is the cost of the building programme, the musical and entertainment programme and the social programme?
3.	Have grants been made to individuals or organizations who have been invited to participate in this Exposition and, if so, what are the names of the individuals or organizations and the amount of the grant provided?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statements yesterday by the Minister of Finance I would like to ask the Prime Minister when is it the intention of the government to disclose the proposals it intends to make to the premiers of the provinces in relation to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: To disclose to the House?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, to the provincial governments.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not quite sure if I understand the question correctly, Mr. Speaker, but I have been in correspondence with the premiers of the provinces in relation to this conference and we are in the process of agreeing on an agenda and on a format for the conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But is it the intention of the Prime Minister to lay before the provinces, prior to the conference, the proposals that the federal government intends to make in connection with the agenda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For some of the items, yes, Mr. Speaker, the proposals will be put to them. One is in the form of a white paper by the Minister of Finance, and another is by way of a report of the Tax Structure Committee. There will be certain documents given to the participants in the meeting.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention that the agenda and these documents will be made public prior to the conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will follow the usual practice, Mr. Speaker. As regards the agenda, if the premiers want to make the agenda public we will do so. It will depend on whether the meetings are private or public, or partly private and in part public. I repeat that I am in correspondence with the premiers. Until there is final agreement on this I do not want to commit myself because, as the hon. member no doubt realizes, there is a great deal of consultation involved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government of Canada willing to make public its proposals to the provinces prior to the conference if the provinces have no objection to this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the conference is a public conference and when the documents are meant to be public, what we have done in the past has been to get agreement by all parties that any province, or the federal government, wanting to make its proposals public could do so on a date agreed upon by all parties, generally a week in advance. In this particular case the question is a bit hypothetical because, as I say, there is no final agreement yet, and I have not heard from all the provinces on the final wording of the agenda or on the format of the conference.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the remarks of the Minister of Finance dealing in particular with antiinflationary proposals that the government may wish to make. Is it the government's intention to disclose these to the provinces in ample time for the provinces to study them and engage in a meaningful dialogue in order to deal with the problem effectively at an early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, even there we cannot make any commitment because the course of the conference will in large degree depend on the results obtained by the Prices and Incomes Commission. As the hon. member knows-it has been said in the House previously-the Prices and Incomes Commission is aiming toward a date in late January or early February. Therefore I am not sure what time we will have between the two events to engage in what the hon. member

January 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry calls meaningful consultation. The purpose of the federal-provincial conference is to have meaningful consultation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question. Could it be that the Minister of Finance was misdirecting himself when he indicated during his remarks that the Prime Minister would be disclosing the proposals dealing with anti-inflationary measures to the provincial premiers prior to the conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to refer to the statement of the minister on that point. I am not aware of this particular statement, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the recently tabled report of the Barber Commission, which states that Canadian farmers are being charged excessive prices for farm machinery by multinational firms, can the minister indicate to the House what immediate action is being taken to make farm machinery available at lower cost to Canadian farmers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, up until the present, action has not been directed along that line. What I said on Friday was that an interdepartmental committee had already been established because there are some implications contained in Dr. Barber's findings and recommendations that deal with such things as anti-combines law, anti-trust law, and so on. He also recommends that discussion be held with counterpart officials in the United States and in the United Kingdom. This has already been initiated. I think it would be wise, and indeed fair, for the people who are affected by the findings and recommendations of the royal commission to have at least a day or two to look at the report, which has been in the public domain only since eleven o'clock or 11.30 last Friday morning.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I appreciate the minister's statement that the report has been in the hands of the government for only a short while. However, in light of the fact that for some time it has been public knowledge that tractors were being sold more cheaply to people overseas than to Canadian farmers,

would the minister act with all expedition to see that this situation is corrected as rapidly as possible?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As has already been pointed out, a number of actions have already been taken because as you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member will recall, there was a preliminary report or position paper written by Dr. Barber for the agricultural congress held last March. This indicated in a preliminary way what he has now substantiated by evidence. During the intervening period a number of actions have been taken and, indeed, last September I visited the tractor factory in Czechoslovakia that he referred to to ascertain whether or not they would be interested in expanding in a substantial way exports of this type of equipment to North America, particularly Canada.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture and I hope he will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the report describes tractor prices in Canada as being maintained at discriminatory, artificial levels, now maintained arbitrarily by a few large multinational corporations dominating the Canadian market, will the government use the same procedure as it has with the drug manufacturers and suggest that if prices are not reduced the government will seriously consider a definite program of its own?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the recommendations in the report. I think we should have a discussion with several ministers, such as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is responsible for anticombines legislation, and then have a discussion with the farm machinery and equipment companies named in the report.


William Marvin Howe: A further supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Would he consider referring to the Minister of Finance the possibility of a reverse dumping factor in order that there might be equalization of prices, as between the farmers of Canada and the farmers of England?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister of Finance is already aware of that recommendation in the report.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of this evi-
January 19, 1970

dence of price exploitation, would the minister consult with his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with a view to a rollback in the price increase announced by the major farm implement companies last fall?


Mr, Olson:: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is very well aware of the recommendations in the report, Mr. Speaker, and I have already had a number of discussions with him related to this matter.


Mr. John Burion (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister give consideration to the establishment of a buying agency to carry on the purchasing of tractors and farm equipment from other countries? Also, is the government planning to conduct any further studies, possibly through the royal commission, with a view to the reduction of manufacturing costs in Canada on the basis of the experience of firms now producing tractors in this country?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that is not one of the recommendations in the report, although perhaps it will be included in discussions of matters to be considered in order to remedy this unsatisfactory situation.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the minister's intention to refer the Special Report on Prices of Tractors and Combines in Canada and Other Countries to the Standing Committee on Agriculture at an early date?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We could do that, Mr. Speaker. However, I believe that the Standing Committee on Agriculture has one matter referred by this House before it which will take up most of the time available between now and February 17. There is also a further question of grain marketing on the Order Paper which will have to be taken into consideration as well.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture. In the minister's discussions in Czechoslovakia with manufacturers of farm machinery did he take the opportunity to point out to them the very evident savings they could make by shipping tractors to western Canada through the port of Churchill?


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Agriculture. Has he set a schedule for this interdepartmental study to be completed within the next two months, say, or does he intend to let it drag on as long as necessary?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this study is not going to start in the next two months or so; it started several days ago.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the minister understood my question. I want to know when it will be completed rather than when it commenced.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is either possible or proper to attempt to predict with confidence, when commencing a task, when it will be completed.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the removal by persons or persons unknown, of plates over serial numbers of tractors imported from England, would the minister say whether he would request his colleague the Solicitor General to have the RCMP investigate this cloak and dagger operation in order to determine the person or persons responsible?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think the police were informed of that some time ago.


Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members that we have had quite a few supplementary questions on this subject and it might be in order to move on to another subject and return to hon. members before the end of the question period if there is time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that during the weekend the great economist Robert Bourassa was chosen as leader of the Quebec Liberal party, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he plans to meet this talented man to discuss with him the steps required to check inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

January 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Roland Godin: Should I infer that the Prime Minister would rather fight it alone?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The inference should rather be that the question is not a serious one, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman granted a one-hour private audience to Mr. and Mrs. John Lennon during his busy schedule before Christmas, would he inform the House whether he was one of the 20-odd people who paid $1,350 for John and Yoko prints?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister indicate whether he will be able to make a statement soon in regard to his legislative intentions in line with the report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on the phasing-out of cigarette advertising?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that we are now giving consideration to the committee's report in the department. Our deliberations will then go to the cabinet and government for final determination. Subsequent to that time a policy will be announced.



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In keeping with the undertaking he gave at the close of the last session, is the minister now in a position to report on the examination of evidence by law officers of the Crown in accordance with the recommendations contained in the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry?	'


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker. We would not comment on the evidence except that, if charges were warranted, we would put it in the hands of the proper authorities. It is not the practice to comment on evidence one way or another.



IMMIGRATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the government considering any special arrangements to admit to Canada, under the classification of refugees, people who have been forced to leave Poland because they happen to be Jews?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, applicants coming forward from this group to our offices have been very sympathetically received and will continue to be received in this way.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How many people in this refugee category have been admitted or given permission to come to Canada as a result of our sympathetic plans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order.



ENTRY OF DANIEL COHN-BENDIT

Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the apparent entry into Canada of Danny the Red, can the minister state how this situation has come about when Cohn-Bendit, alias Danny the Red, is restricted by order from coming into this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration wanted to answer my question about Cohn-Bendit. After all, the man has come into this country illegally. I understand that his entry is restricted and I merely wanted to know why he had been allowed into the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It was my impression that the hon. member's question was asked in an argumentative way or implied argument. Unfortunately, I am not
January 19, 1970

familiar with the details of the situation the hon. member referred to. If it is a matter of immediate interest and does not relate to past circumstances, perhaps the minister will want to reply.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Cohn-Bendit has been admitted to Canada for a period of six or seven days. He is not a prohibited person so far as Canadian immigration laws are concerned and has therefore been admitted to Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I gave him notice of it. Is the minister or the Prime Minister going to accept the invitation to meet with Fathers Kevin and Michael Doheny in order to discuss the most recent developments in the former Biafran region?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no representations from Fathers Kevin and Michael Doheny, but I would be very happy to see them if they should ask to see me. I have had a telegram from Donald MacPher-son, Director of News and Features for the CTV network in Toronto, but I have not had any contact with these gentlemen.


ROSTER SYSTEM-ABSENCE OF CERTAIN MINISTERS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister prompted by the absence today of six ministers who, according to the roster system, are supposed to be present. The system, incidentally, is illegal and contravenes the provisions of Standing Order 5 of this House. Will the Prime Minister revise the present roster system or take disciplinary action against the ministers who are not present and thereby are depriving hon. members of the opportunity to discharge their duties responsibly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are thinking of taking disciplinary action against the flu virus.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


NIGERIA-ACCESSIBILITY OF WAR ZONE TO OBSERVERS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday last I asked the Prime Minister a question and he said he would ask the minister to consider it. My question is: Will the government 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?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I missed the key words in the question. What were the hon. member's opening remarks?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I said by way of preamble that I asked this question of the Prime Minister on Friday, but perhaps that is beside the point now. Will the government request the Nigerian government to enable observers to move immediately into those areas previously occupied by the Biafran forces where the greatest threat of starvation apparently exists?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we depend to a very large degree upon the observers themselves, and this applies not only to ourselves but also to the Secretary General of the United Nations and the governments of Sweden, Poland and the United Kingdom. So far there has been no indication that the observers have been denied access to any parts. Indeed, the observers have been in some of the most troublesome spots quite recently. In addition, many other observers are now appearing in the area-for example, newspapermen, representatives of the United Kingdom government and General Wrinch of the Red Cross. Therefore we ought to be most careful in making representations which would throw doubt on the good intentions of the Nigerian government.


NIGERIA-COST OF MILITARY OBSERVERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On two occasions last week I asked the minister to inform the House who is paying for the cost of the military observers

January 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry operating in Nigeria. He said on Thursday that he would answer the question when next he was in the House. Can he reply now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer is that Canada pays the salary and the normal allowances drawn by Department of National Defence officers assigned to overseas duty. We also, of course, cover the transportation costs of the Canadian observers to and from Nigeria. While in Nigeria the Nigerian authorities meet the local accommodation and food expenses of the team and provide transportation, although we are ready to provide transportation if the observers should request it. I understand that this arrangement applies both to Canadian observers and to the nationals of other countries comprising the observer team. The value of rations and quarters is placed at $36 per month and is deducted from the allowances paid to the officers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement that has been made to the effect that international observers admitted into Nigeria have not had access to the area surrounding Uli airstrip, the area in which there is possibly the greatest concentration of refugees, is the minister prepared to say that the observers have been given access to all of former Biafra or is he simply basing his position on the fact that no complaints have come forward from the observers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I make the assumption, which I hope the Leader of the Opposition makes, that as good Canadians our observers are just as interested in observing conditions and reporting to the Canadian people and the world as either one of us would be.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement of the United Nations observer on the team to the effect that they have not been able to go into any area except that close to advancing troops and that their reports to date were pointless?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this report.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secre-
[Mr. Nystrom.l
tary of State. It is prompted by the widespread interest of many established residents of Canada in the attainment of the right to vote and the right of citizenship. Is the minister giving consideration to bringing in an amendment to the Citizenship Act which would reduce the mandatory five-year residence period where that is now applicable?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this matter is included in the interim study pending publication of a White Paper on citizenship.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can he report now on the matter of the rentals being charged by the National Film Board, which libraries and other educational institutions have asked be withdrawn?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a final reply yet in this matter, in spite of the fact that the answer to the starred question gave the particulars as I had heard of them from the National Film Board. But as I said to the House before, this matter was studied by an impartial party appointed by me for the purpose at the request of the Commissioner of the National Film Board. The report was submitted to the Commissioner who then sent it to me. It is now being translated into English and I understand, from talks with the Commissioner, that he has certain remarks and comments that he would like to publicize concurrently with the report, which should be soon.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-St. Barbe):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the charge for films by the National Film Board is causing serious hardship in the province of Newfoundland where people cannot afford it and as it results in denying many thousands of students the right to this educational facility, will the minister investigate this situation and eliminate the charge in those areas where people cannot afford it?
January 19, 1970


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State. He informed us that the report of the person he appointed to look into the program of possible dismissals by the Film Board and the charges to be made for use of films is in the hands of the commissioner of the Board. Has the report also been made available to the employees' association at the Film Board?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the report is also in the hands of the department but it is being translated. As I said a moment ago, the Commissioner, to whom the report was given, wishes to add certain comments. Naturally, union leaders who feel involved will have the same opportunity. The report was given to all negotiating units of the Board.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In the meantime is the National Film Board proceeding with any further lay-offs or have the proposed lay-offs been suspended? I would also like to inquire about the status of the user charges which were announced prior to the Christmas recess.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have dealt with the matter of expenses incurred by those who will be using the National Film Board's films from now on and I have nothing to add in reply to this further question, which is the same as the one directed to me a few minutes ago. In so far as the report is concerned, it contains considerations on this matter.
Finally, I did not quite understand the other part of the hon. member's question. Oh yes, he asked whether there had been any lay-offs. No, there have been no further layoffs, and there will be none before the report is issued.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: My question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister indicate when his department will make a 21611-22J
Inquiries of the Ministry final disposition of the cases of the nine Polish seamen still in detention at immigration facilities in Halifax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Very soon, Mr. Speaker. The case is before me at the present time and I hope to deal with it very soon.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Because of the government's insufficient supply of operating capital to the Alberta Newstart training centre in Lac La Biche, Alberta, the school was closed about a month ago. The native people have become very incensed and have occupied the school for some three days. They plan to stay there until the school is reopened. I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that the small sum required to re-open the school will be available very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member is
making a representation he has to assume the suggestion he is making to the government will be considered.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My
question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that a December survey of calls from Ottawa to the Northwest Territories showed that only one in ten could be completed due to the busy lines, can the minister indicate to the House whether consideration is being given to the suggestion that the area rights of Canadian National Telecommunications be revoked?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion. In any event I think this subject, to the extent that it is put in the form of a question, ought to be placed on the Order Paper.


INQUIRY AS TO ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: My question is directed to the Prime

January 19, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman say This is the purpose of a white paper, so that when we may expect the report of the Royal it can be discussed before being put into Commission on the Status of Women?	legislative form. We intend to do this.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire. The commission, of course, decides its own timing and procedures. They may wish to tell me when they expect to report.


TAXATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the Prime Minister what is to be the scope of the supplementary white paper on taxation that the Minister of Finance has referred to? Is this supplementary white paper to be confined to certain aspects of capital gains taxation or is it to include other aspects of taxation' as well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not heard of the supplementary white paper, Mr. Speaker. I will confer with the minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I seriously direct this question to the Prime Minister, the head of the government, in the assumption that the Minister of Finance alone does not decide the taxation policy of the government. Has the government itself decided upon modification of the position set forth in the white paper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. We have published the white paper and we have told the Canadian public that we are going to wait for representations from them. Until we have heard from all interested parties, those who want to make presentations, we are not going to revise the white paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are we entitled to assume, therefore, from what the Prime Minister has said that the indication by the Minister of Finance is correct and that a supplementary white paper will be presented or a supplementary paper will be presented with modifications? I ask the Prime Minister whether this is necessarily so, and has any such decision yet been made by the government of this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Quite to the contrary. When we published the white paper it was the government's position that we were doing it in order to hear representations and, if necessary, to modify our views on certain points.
[Mrs. Maclrmis.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I suggest that the Prime Minister had better consult with the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -in view of the fact he also indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
John Leroy Skoberg: My
question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a television program last night concerning various types of children's toys being contaminated by DDT, will the minister indicate to the House what action he has taken to assure the buyers of all toys made in other countries as well as Canada that toys found to be contaminated with DDT will be banned from sale?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into this matter. I believe this would be an area of responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, on the advice of the Food and Drug Directorate.


ELECTIONS
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Was the President of the Treasury Board enunciating government policy when in a speech the other evening to the National Conference on Science and Engineering he looked forward to the day when politicians will not have to go through the "rather tiresome charade" of present-day electoral processes?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I regard this question to be of some considerable urgency because it appears
January 19, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
to be the beginning of the government's proc- is not in a position to give a detailed state-ess of bypassing the electorate in the same ment now, will he take the first possible way it now bypasses Parliament.	opportunity to make such a statement on
motions?


STUDY OF MEMBERS' INDEMNITIES, ETC.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Two hundred and sixty-four members of the House are interested in the matter but nobody seems to have the guts to ask the question so I will do so. Does the Prime Minister have under consideration the appointment of a commissioner or commissioners to study all aspects of salaries, expenses, research facilities, offices, indemnities and everything else with regard to members of the House of Commons and perhaps the Senate? If so, when does he expect to name the commissioner or commissioners?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has this matter under consideration and we hope to make an announcement in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I trust that "in due course" will be as long as it usually is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad we have the support of the hon. member on this very important question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Prime Minister knows he is misunderstanding me. He does not have my support.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was merely going to say that, before the Prime Minister appoints a commissioner or commissioners, in the interest of all hon. members perhaps he should consult with the hon. member for York West.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of the statement yesterday by the Minister of Finance that the government has some special programs to offset the forced unemployment in the Atlantic and other areas of Canada. Will the minister say what the nature of these special programs is and, if he


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is in order to the extent that the hon. member invites the minister to make a statement on motions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to make a statement when the circumstances justify it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Approximately two months ago I posed this question and the minister gave me the same supercilious and senseless answer. Approximately 20 per cent of the people of Newfoundland are unemployed and about 16 per cent are unemployed in Atlantic Canada. Surely to God there has been time for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to prepare a statement indicating what plans, if any, the government has to offset unemployment. This is a useless situation.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question related to the request just put to the minister by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. Will the minister also deal with the situation that is developing as a result of the situation at Fairey Aviation of Canada and indicate what is to be done to offset this unemployment? We have heard absolutely nothing or very little in this regard. What are the department's plans for rehiring and relocating these several hundred employees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will put a question onto the Order Paper I will be happy to give him all the details about departmental activities in this situation.
Mr. Forres! all: Is that going to put food in their stomachs or money in their pockets?




Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has left the House, but it is of such importance that the Prime Minister might deal with it. In view of the fact certain persons studying here

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
in Canada are returning to various parts of the West Indies and indicating that this country is racist, would the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other ministers give the required publicity and meet with the several high commissioners in order to impress upon them that this country does not follow racist policies and that it never will, so that the relationships we enjoy with these countries in the Caribbean will not be affected to such an extent that the faith they have in us now will be less?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will very gladly take up this important suggestion with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 16, 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. Speaker:: Last Friday, while the House was studying a motion for second reading of Bill C-144, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) rose on a point of order to call the attention of the House to a difference that existed at least on the surface between the French and English texts in the preamble of the said bill.
What the hon. member said is reported on page 2497 of the official report of House of Commons' Debates of Friday last. Several members took part in the ensuing debate on the point of order and it was agreed that a ruling would be handed down later on, so that the Chair could have a chance to study the contested point.
The French text of the preamble has this sentence:
Et considerant 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 gouver-nements provinciaux...


On the other hand, the English text reads:
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 co-operation with provincial governments-
It would appear that there is a difference between the two texts in that the French version uses the disjunctive form while the English text uses the conjunctive "and". It should be pointed out that the English text would not make sense unless the conjunction "and" were interpreted as being both conjunctive and disjunctive, so that in substance there may not be any real difference between the two texts. It seems to me that the difference is more one of form than one of substance.
At the same time, while the Speaker might be expected to know something about procedure interpretation he is probably not expected to be at the same time a grammatical expert. I suggest, indeed, that it is not the duty of the Chair to interpret the language of a measure when one text appears to be at variance with or different from the text of the other official language. The difficulty is compounded in this sense that if it were found that there was a real difference between the two texts it would be difficult for the Chair to rule on which of the two reflects the intention of those who have drafted the bill.

During the debate last Friday, it was suggested that the problem could be more usefully considered at the committee stage, when the question could be submitted to the minister's advisers. That suggestion seems to me both practical and reasonable. In fact, any amendment to the preamble or any clause of the bill at the second reading stage would be contrary to the rules.
Is it necessary to add that, according to many precedents, a private member cannot move an amendment to the preamble of a bill. In this connection, I quote May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, in particular the following paragraph to be found on page 548:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

Amendments may be made in every part of the bill, whether in the clauses or the schedules. Clauses may be left out and new clauses and schedules added. Amendments to the preamble and title are also admissible where amendments have been made to the bill which render them necessary.
January 19, 1970

It would seem that while a substantive amendment to the preamble cannot be proposed even in committee, a modification proposed for purposes of clarification or uniformity would not come under the prescription stated by May.
I would therefore suggest that the amendment, if any is required, should be proposed at the committee stage.

I hope that the hon. member for Lotbiniere will accept what I am suggesting to him, namely that the very valid question which he raised last Friday could be considered in a more logical, more practical and more efficient way when the bill is studied by the committee.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in order to place in some context the remarks I want to make this afternoon I should like with your permission to remind hon. members briefly of the inseparability of water as a resource not only for this generation of Canadians but for many future generations.
The measure now before us has been dealt with fully and the lack of what we would expect as being a meaningful suggestion regarding methods of controlling the pollution of waters in Canada has been pointed out. Most glaring of all is the fact that there has been no comment by a spokesman from the government side or from anybody else in the House during this debate or on previous occasions when water has been discussed, regarding the thousands and thousands of miles of contiguous and still fresh, pure water on both coasts and off the Arctic shelf. I have not been able to find any such reference. It is the lack of any such reference in the Bill before us that prompts me at this time to take part in the debate which will result in deciding whether or not the bill should be referred to the committee.
It seems to me, as I am sure it must seem to thousands of Canadians, that water whether it be salt or fresh is a priceless human resource. Four of the many things that live in water can be found in the waters contiguous to our country. This fact alone brings me to my feet in dismay over the failure of the government and the minister, even in terms of fresh water pollution, to establish guidelines and to bring forward a policy for a country which has one of the largest coastal lines in the world. Senator Claiborne Pell,
Water Resources
reporting in Saturday Review of October 11, 1969 under the title of "The Oceans, Man's Last Great Resource" had this to say:
After millenniums of exploiting and often destroying the riches of the land, man is now hovering acquisitively over the wealth of the oceans that cover three-quarters of the earth. In the no man's land of the seabed, a scramble for minerals and oil, for new underwater empires secured by advancing armies of technology-
He points out that people are concerned with and are desirous of tapping this wealth and establishing what he goes on to describe as moral commitments.
I suggest that the failure of the minister and his departmental officials in drafting this bill to establish the first national guidelines in recent times on the question of pollution of our waters is not acceptable to myself and certainly is not acceptable to thousands upon thousands of fishermen upon both our coasts. It cannot be acceptable to the thousands of people who during the summer must look out daily, for example, on the waters off Vancouver and off the beautiful city of Victoria and physically smell and see the pollution which is there. I cannot understand, in these first guidelines, why there was no reference to the contiguous salt waters of Canada, let alone waters such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, our great national harbours, the Arctic, Hudson Bay and many others. I cannot understand this and I am sure the constituents in our maritime provinces, as well as the citizens of Canada, cannot understand it either.
In his remarks in this debate the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) lamented the failure of the government to move effectively in respect of a national standard concerning water pollution and water control. I believe he was correct in making that observation. I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), when he replied to the minister, was right when he commented on the failure of the proposals in this bill to meaningfully attack or even approach the great problem involved in this question of pollution. One of the problems which perhaps the minister faced, and one that I can understand although I do not accept it and do not believe anyone accepts it, was the failure of the government and the draftsmen to make provision for minimum standards of water quality.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) spoke of the pollution of one of the great fishing areas of his native province of Newfoundland. He spoke about the failure of

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
the government to act under the authority contained in the regulations under the Fisheries Act. In connection with this point, I wish to suggest that I do not believe Canadians are afraid to spend the required dollars and cents in respect of water purity and water control, if those expenditures will mean that incidents such as occurred in Newfoundland will not take place in the future. Indeed, on the contrary, I think any national sampling of opinion would indicate approval for the immediate and urgent expenditure of money. I am concerned about the salt water immediately off both our coasts. I am concerned about the failure of the minister and the government to include any meaningful thoughts in their present bill.
It is rather interesting to note that the bill simply refers to water and does not define salt water or fresh water. I have not heard anyone imply that the bill is to cover salt water, so I am making the assumption that it does not and that the bill was designed to cover only inland fresh water systems. I am disturbed about this because even a casual study of the efforts of other maritime nations around the world with regard to the water over the continental shelves lying off their immediate coasts suggests they have a real concern and one which Canada has not begun to approach. We have a continental shelf covered with water to the extent of some 1& million square miles. That is almost half of Canada's total land area. The failure of the government to deal, in this bill, even in passing, with the danger to Canadians and to the world through pollution of these waters is inexcusable. It is very difficult to understand. Indeed, I suppose in many respects it displays a weakness of thought and unconcern with the question.
I sometimes wonder, because the pressure to do something about pollution has grown so rapidly in the last two or three years, whether there was a politically motivated fear that if the government did not do something that failure might be misconstrued. I suggest that if the government had any strong or moral convictions, it would have done something meaningful and useful for Canadians.
It is interesting to note that there has been no comment on this bill from large Canadian industries. I sometimes wonder whether they are just sitting back, keeping their fingers crossed, in the hope that nobody will find what they consider to be the glaring omissions from this bill.

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is not my desire to deal today with the inland or fresh waters; I wish to stay, if I can, with the subject of the off-shore waters, the salt waters. In recent years we have witnessed the failure of the federal government to resolve satisfactorily the question of offshore mineral rights. In this field alone there has been considerable delay in the application of applied research to methods of reaching the resources of the sea. This is simply a consequence of the government's failure or inability to resolve the more fundamental question. Today we are talking about water rather than minerals, but the connection is an obvious one. If we have failed to resolve so straightforward a matter as the ownership or right of interest in the mineral contents of the continental shelf, how in the name of the Lord shall we ever resolve the question raised by effective control over the quality of our coastal waters?
In the years ahead, life on earth may well depend on the quality of our water. In an age in which we talk about famine and starvation and when doubts are expressed as to the ability of the planet to feed mankind in the not too distant future, it seems extremely shortsighted to me that we have not turned much sooner in our development to the resource that is the sea. Some day we shall, and I hope that when this day comes our people will be able to look back to the closing years of the 20th century and say: Some Canadians were concerned; some people, at least, were beginning to protect the quality and the purity of our salt waters. Failure to do so now would represent an abdication of our responsibility and duty to future generations. If we fail to act now, what is there to show that the next generation will take the step we should have taken? If we intend to do something, let us do it today, let us do it this year-let us establish guidelines and enforce meaningful ways to control the pollution of our salt waters.
I am not one of those who believe we shall never clean up our fresh waters. I believe we shall. Significant work is going on now at Burlington, the inland centre for fresh water studies. But it is a damned shame nothing is going on at the Bedford Institute of Oceanology with regard to this question-as a matter of fact, it is inexcusable. If we do not find a way to approach our neighbours in the maritime communities around the world, if we have not by the turn of this century effectively established minimum standards for the protection of the quality of these salt waters,
January 19, 1970

I am afraid the task of cleaning up our oceans will make the task of cleaning up our fresh waters seem like the rinsing out of a wash basin or bath after a shower.
We can clean up our fresh water, and we shall do so. This bill, meagre and fainthearted as it is in its approach, is at least one step. I commend my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka and my hon. friend from South Western Nova for their restraint in dealing with it-they recognized, as I do, that this measure is at least a step-but I shall never understand the government's cowardice in not going all the way; I shall never understand the failure of the government to come to grips with the problem of pollution by big industry. By foisting this off on to the provinces it is saying there is no way by which federal standards can be brought to bear. This avoidance of responsibility is cowardly. This is not what Canadians want, at least not the ones I talk to. Constitutional issues be damned! The preservation of our fresh water is important. The cleanliness of our salt water is also important. If we are to wait until we see what the provinces do in terms of establishing quality control areas in order that the federal act can be applied, I am afraid we are only delaying the solution to these questions, nothing more.
The cleaning up of our rivers, lakes and streams will be a costly process but if we fail to do something of consequence soon, either unilaterally or on a multi-national basis to protect our salt waters, it will take hundreds of years and untold expenditure to remedy the damage.
There are dangers, and they are becoming increasingly evident. Three major explosions have occurred aboard oil tankers off the coast of Africa-inexplicable explosions which have crippled and sunk three 200,000 ton oil tankers. They were empty, thank God, but what would have happened if they had been full-if 200,000 tons of crude oil, or however many tons or barrels of oil their cargo represents, had been spilled into the ocean? I do not say that something is not being done. The oil companies concerned have moved swiftly; they have accepted their responsibility for trying to determine the cause of these accidents. They realize the long lasting effect of the breaking up of large supertankers on the high seas. All the world realizes the danger. We have all seen what happened in California. We have all seen what happened when the Torrey Canyon broke up in the Bristol Channel. Well, we in Canada, with one of the
Water Resources
longest coast lines in the world, have failed to include any reference whatsoever in this bill to what may be the greatest resource we possess-the waters contiguous to our three coasts.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I hope that when this bill goes to committee, the committee members will call before them people who will tell them about the danger of pollution to our salt waters, people who can speak with some exactness and on the basis of knowledge about the cost of cleaning up polluted salt water as compared with that of cleaning up inland water. For example, I would hope they would take a look at Bedford Basin, which is already dangerously close to being in a very serious situation. I have been told that a body of fresh water similar in size to Bedford Basin could be cleaned up in a matter of a few short years, but that Bedford Basin would require many years' work because it is salt water.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I lament the failure of the government to recognize the oneness of the resource that is water. I lament its failure to mention the oceans that surround us. I regret the failure of Canada to bring the matter of pollution before international bodies. This has lessened our international reputation. Certainly, we are concerned with and join international debates on the peaceful uses of the sea bed. We have great concern over the location of detection devices on our continental shelf, and over the strategic value of undersea weaponry.
Earlier today we heard one hon. member express concern about the report of a standing committee on which he serves. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, but I suggest it is only in a casual, superficial way. When it comes to translating our thoughts into action, we pussyfoot. We use every device known to us to avoid facing fundamental truths and facts.
I am pleased to belong to a party which would never bring a bill of this nature before the House of Commons, a bill which goes only part way down what is a very long road. That road is a two-way street. I hope members of the committee which will examine this bill will accept the responsibility of tidying it up, of making it worthy of our intentions to combat pollution not only of our fresh waters but of the oceans surrounding us, waters that are our greatest human resource.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in the discussion on

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
Bill C-144 I wish first to deal briefly with the situation in my province of Saskatchewan. Numerous comments have been made about the Saskatchewan River, which also flows into Manitoba, and all of the reports and observations we have read are far from what we consider adequate explanations of what [DOT] could be done to stop its pollution.
We have been informed that the North Saskatchewan River is polluted by the pulp mill that exists at Prince Albert. Spent acid and caustics are being dumped into the river. The water below the mill is black, and the foam markings on the river banks are an indication of the lack of pollution control. I have been told that enough caustics have been dumped into the river by that pulp mill to make any form of fish life impossible for many miles downstream.
Some provinces have regulations requiring that effluent discharges be treated by aerea-tion, but there are no such regulations with respect to this location at Prince Albert. Instead, all that is done is to provide settling ponds, and all hon. members know, particularly the minister in charge of this bill, that no effective type of pollution control can be achieved with only the use of settling ponds.
I am positive that if federal legislation were introduced that had teeth, the people of the nation would support it wholeheartedly because they are awake to the dangers of water pollution. No doubt certain power groups would lobby against the enforcement of such legislation, the adoption of which might cut into their profits, but the people generally, including those who work in factories, pulp mills and mining enterprises would appreciate the government taking positive action.
At present we have a hodgepodge of provincial regulations and authorities. A waiting game is being played. The status quo is being maintained. I believe the time has come for the federal government to implement positive legislation that will enforce pollution control.
A release by Canadian Press, which appeared a short time ago with reference to the Prince Albert pulp mill, stated in part:
The Prince Albert Pulp Mill is not contributing to mercury poisoning in fish in the North Saskatchewan River, Paul Naftel of Regina, said during the weekend.
Mr. Naftel, of the Natural Resources Department's Fisheries Branch, said although mercury was found in fish at the ferry below the pulp mill, it also was found in fish up river from the plant.
The Toronto Globe and Mail of January 19, today's date, contains an article headed, "Lack

of Information and Equipment Hampers Study of Mercury Pollution." It reads in part:
Investigators of mercury pollution in the Saskatchewan River, uncertain about the source of the problem, are hampered by a lack of information and research equipment.
Further on, it reads:
It isn't that the problem didn't exist until six weeks ago. Nobody had ever checked Saskatchewan River water for mercury pollution before.
This indicates to me that the federal government does not provide the necessary resources to the provinces to enable them to do the proper research into water quality. Unless sufficient funds are provided to the provinces to enable them to investigate the quality of their waters, nothing will be done to combat pollution until it is too late, and until fish have died by the millions.
I quote another press article as follows:
Grant C. Mitchell, Executive Director of the Saskatchewan Water Resources Commission, said Friday his department will deal next week with a plant at Saskatoon accused of polluting the North and South with mercury.
This investigation results from complaints from Manitoba. We should not have to wait for complaints from another province before launching such an investigation.
It has been said many times that there is no excuse for giving a licence to any company or individual to pollute our waters. This must be repeated time after time if we are really concerned about the over-all situation. I am sure that some members have referred to the Canadian Churchman, January issue, where certain comments appeared that I think should be put on the record. One article is written by Maurice Western, entitled "Ottawa Comment", and it reads:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In the session of 1960, pollution rated a few scattered questions, speeches by a pair of backbenchers and a private member's bill in the name of Bert Herridge. The bill received first reading and then consigned, as usual but unfortunately, to parliamentary oblivion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this pollution question has not just come upon us today. Here is a report, which indicates that as far back as 1960 the member had a private bill on the order paper but he accomplished nothing that would help mankind or animal life to survive. The article continues:
The complaining backbenchers are now gone from the Commons. What they said about dead birds, oil spills and ruined fishing grounds has since been abundantly substantiated. But nothing much happened to disturb Marx and Technology or to check the pace of pollution.
January 19, 1970

Now suddenly a floodtide of public concern is out-dating the plans of all governments before they have even taken effect.
It appears that the only time any government will act is when the public demands that something be done, regardless of which government is in power. In the following paragraph, Mr. Western states:
In addition, the government, following the Swedish lead, has clamped down on the use of ddt. It is under pressure to take similar action against other polluting products.
Again, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) about pollution and DDT on children's toys, I got the stock answer, "we do not know but we will look into it." Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. This government must take positive action today, not tomorrow, about pollutants which the scientists tell us exist, the facts about which are well documented beyond any reasonable doubt. The government could pass legislation or enforce the present legislation to ensure that the people of this country are not subjected to complete contamination by all pollutants. In another paragraph, the article reads: Unhappily, we are constitutionally handicapped as compared with other countries in committing ourselves to international co-operation. We have not ratified the 1962 Convention on the High Seas, which dealt with ocean pollution, and we have been unable to take advantage of the opportunities for co-operation in interstate and international waters created by the U.S. federal water pollution control act of 1956.
The reason is the inability of the federal government to enter into treaties which impose obligations on lower levels of government in Canada.
While we talk about being constitutionally handicapped, I again emphasize the fact that this government has the backing of the people of this nation. If the government of any province suggested that it would not agree to strong antipollution measures, it would never be re-elected.
As one citizen of Davidson, Saskatchewan, Mr. E. Laird, said:
My first concern is to have enough money to eat and my second concern is to be able to stay alive or survive in this pollution-riddled world.
Most people in this nation today, Mr. Speaker, are positive they will no longer be able to survive in this polluted atmosphere. The provincial governments of this country are still prepared to use petty arguments on a political basis in order to try to substantiate their condemnation of federal legislation. I think it is very very important that we find out at an early date what these provinces will
Water Resources
do, and if any of them object to strong federal legislation this House and the Country should be well aware of it.
I cannot understand why, as far back as 1962, the Convention on the High Seas was not ratified. As we look at the provinces standing in the way, it makes us wonder where we are going and how we are going to get there.
In the October, 1969 issue of Reclamation, there are comments on the new Canada water act as follows:
Toronto: Ontario's Energy and Resources Minister J. H. Kerr yesterday welcomed the proposed Canada Water Act and said Premier John Robarts is even more determined than I that we are going to cooperate with Ottawa in this. He hoped there would be no jurisdictional problems.
I will add "Amen" to that, Mr. Speaker. Victoria, B.C.: Ray Willison, British Columbia's Minister of Resources, said the province would cooperate with Ottawa but, in the manner one would "when someone points a revolver at your head."
That is a disgraceful statement by the minister in British Columbia and one typical of a defendant of the status quo. Any minister who stands up in the provincial legislative assembly and says, "We will co-operate when someone puts a revolver at our head" is not too concerned about pollution control.
Winnipeg: Natural Resources Minister Sid Green called the federal government "a move to dramatize the seriousness of the pollution problem." However, he expressed concern that the administrative body set up to govern pollution would be unwilling to enforce strictures against pollution.
At the same time, Health Minister Leonard Evans commented, "The federal government's intention is good, there is no doubt." Of course, intentions are not good enough, Mr. Speaker; it is action that the people of Canada are concerned about. Then, we move to Edmonton where Health Minister James Henderson said:
Ottawa's proposed Canada Water Act will not solve the problems of water pollution.
Here again, we can ask who is the Edmonton Health Minister concerned about? Is it the people of Canada and their health or is he concerned about sticking up for the status quo and making sure that the industries polluting the water in Alberta are not affected by antipollution measures?
Medicine Hat News: Alberta's Health Minister threw some cold water on Ottawa's proposed Canada Water Act. His grounds were poorly chosen. The minister, James Henderson, said the act will not solve the problems of water pollution because the major generators of pollution are population cen-

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
tres. His point about sources of pollution may be correct but this does not mean that industrial pollution can be ignored, it must be curbed.
I can add my thanks to the editorial writer in the Medicine Hat News for stating a situation as it actually exists.
Quebec: Paul Allard, Quebec Natural Resources Minister, was critical yesterday of the federal government's announcement of a federal-provincial water clean-up campaign. Mr. Allard chided the government for what he said was its failure to consult with the provinces before announcing a proposed Canada Water Act.
Once again, we are back to the constitutional question. Here are some examples, Mr. Speaker, of provinces that are not concerned about pollution but only about political gain by opposing federal legislation, even though that federal legislation in my opinion is very weak and was only brought forth so that the feelings of the provinces would not be hurt. Surely, these provinces could look intelligently at the over-all situation and not try to put roadblocks in the way of pollution control measures brought in by the federal government. Hopefully, then, in committee we will be able to make amendments to this legislation, Bill C-144, so that it will really mean something and help the people of this nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure it is a straight case of the government of this day looking at the over-all situation as elimination or survival. If any so-called constitutional legal experts attempt to use pollution to feather their nests then there can be only one answer, the tar and feather philosophy. Then, we will see how long they can survive when resembling a bird. We all know birds of a feather stick together. But the only place for opponents of the national pollution policy is at the end of a pipeline which is discharging untreated, contaminated effluent into our streams, rivers and lakes and they should be kept there long enough to know what pollution is all about. Unless we make these people realize what pollution means, then there is nothing we can possibly do about it.
We see that various governmental bodies are to be used to deal with pollution control. It is said that there will be a federal program co-ordinated by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources through an interdepartmental committee. It seems that the Department of Agriculture will not be involved in this matter and I hope that when the bill goes to committee, the views of the Department of Agriculture will be sought, because it can be most useful in over-all programs relating to pollution control. Also, I think the Minister of [Mr. Skoberg.l
Finance, (Mr. Benson) Treasury Board and the Prime Minis.er (Mr. Trudeau) himself ought to be drawn into these discussions. Unless those who hold the purse strings can be interested in a proposition for pollution control, no money for pollution control measures will be forthcoming. Although the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) appears sincere in his desire to curb pollution, little has come from the Prime Minister's office on the subject, except pollution in the form of verbiage.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As I see it, the bill before us expounds a philosophy but will do little to correct the present situation. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) representing Saskatoon-Humboldt and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, have asked members of the public to make representations to those repsonsible for pollution control. The public has been asked to participate in the discussions pertaining to this bill. There are many instances of people having tried to approach provincial or municipal governments on the subject of controlling pollution, but without success. In Moose Jaw, Mr. Gerry Hudson, first vice-president of the Moose Jaw and District Labour Council, made a survey of the incidents of pollution in the Moose Jaw area and presented his findings to council. Nothing was done about his report. Mr. Hudson and his assistants took photographs of surrounding waters and documented their findings. On November 18, 1969, they presen*ed the findings to council in the hope that the matter would go to the provincial or federal governments. The newspaper report in my hand regarding this incident reads as follows:
Gerry Hudson, first vice president of the Moose Jaw and District Labor Council, attacked city council Monday for not acting on a labor council pollution brief.
The article continues. Answering an aider-man who asked if someone could be accused of polluting something already polluted, Mr. Hudson expressed surprise and said:
'Surely, this could be characterized as the idiocy of the year' . . . 'The logic of the observation escapes us ... an analogy to this might be-if a woman is raped once would it be pointless to accuse someone if she was raped a second time?'
In essence, this bill says that because our rivers and streams have been raped, they will therefore continue to be raped again, again and again. They will continue being polluted.
I hope no one will say that just because rivers and lakes are evil smelling, our conclu-
January 19, 1970

sions that they are polluted are unscientific. In 1954, Moose Jaw city council had on its books a bylaw prohibiting the pollution of streams or rivers of the area. Unfortunately, no one enforced the bylaw. It is pointless having bylaws that are not enforced. I was as guilty as anyone for not making sure that our anti-pollution bylaws were enforced because at one time I was a member of city council. Unfortunately, I was as ignorant as the next man about the extent of our pollution. This shows how necessary it is for us to have strong federal laws if we are to control pollution. At the same time, I hope we shall not be accused of being unscientific if we say that evil smelling waters are polluted. Municipal authorities and those involved with pollution matters must make their views known, and we must therefore make certain that the members making up the committee to study this bill will not adopt an arrogant attitude and say that allegations of pollution are not being substantiated with scientific evidence.
According to the bill, it seems that the Governor in Council alone will decide whether the minister has made all responsible efforts to reach agreement with the provinces in this area. I do not think the Governor in Council alone should have the right to make this decision. I ask, after it has established a treatment plant in a designated water quality management area, how will the federal government collect revenues with repsect to that?
For the last couple of years, the federal government has only talked about pollution but done nothing concrete. Its approach to the problem is typified by saying it wants to help but that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no money available for pollution control purposes. We need water quality standards in Canada to apply especially to interprovincial waters. The federal government measures quantities of water throughout Canada; why could it not, by using the same staff and facilities, measure the quality of those same waters? Prairie Farm Rehabilitation engineers, who are the people on the spot in many instances, could do useful work in measuring water quality.
Replying to motion for papers No. 51, which I believe was in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that there are a certain number of municipalities which have done absolutely nothing to control the pollution of their waters. On the one hand, the government cut
Water Resources
the allotment in its 1969 budget for pollution control and, on the other, the minister has been going around the country expounding the philosophy that we must control pollution. Some municipalities do not even have adequate sewer or lagoon facilities. A few have lagoon treatment systems. Municipalities in need have asked the federal government for assistance, but they have been told there is no money. Question No. 107 on the Order Paper is in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West. It asks whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has announced that incentives for the construction of municipal sewage plants exist under the National Housing Act. Part 7 of the question asks, "If so, which cities and municipalities have been informed of this decision?" As I look at the list before me, I see listed municipalities in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, etc.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As I go down the list, there are many, many areas, including British Columbia, which intended doing something but which have been told by this government, sorry, there just is no money. The government makes the pretence of telling the people of these provinces that really they are prepared to help with pollution control, but there is no money. The provinces and municipalities cannot do this alone. They alone were not responsible for this pollution. There is no other way of looking at it than from the standpoint that they must receive assistance from the federal government if we expect to accomplish anything.
I noticed that the comments I received in one of the questionnaires I sent out could apply to the entire nation. A letter from Davidson, Saskatchewan, refers to the DDT in the tissues of all Canadians. In fact, there is more DDT here than is permitted in animals slaughtered for human consumption. DDT comes into the over-all picture of pollution, but not necessarily too strongly in the Canada water act.
Another comment I wish to put on record is from a gentleman in Moose Jaw. He says:
-Inflation and pollution are closely related. They have their roots in the profit system.
I think everyone in this House realizes that these people who are making the profits must also be obligated to erase completely the pollution we have in our environment. I now wish to put on the record a few comments with regard to pollution generally. The questions asked these people were, what action

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
they considered should be taken with regard to pollution and were they in favour of strong federal pollution controls? These are some of the replies I received:
By all means, any city or town should be compelled to control pollution at their own expense.
The sooner the better.
We need to keep a healthy and sanitary Canada.
No sewage should be allowed to run into any river or lake.
The problem can't be ignored.
As I look at this list, I see there are many other comments from various other parts of the area.
Definitely. Crack down on all offenders, big and small.
Should be federal laws on pollution so individual provinces could not sacrifice to get industry.
I believe this is one of the main points this government should realize. There must be strong federal measures or individual provinces may have to sacrifice pollution control because industries will not locate where they have to worry about pollution control. Some more of the answers are as follows:
It is long past time of being needed. It is most important now.
Emphatically and now.
It is becoming a serious problem and is vital to our survival.
T.N.T. today-not tomorrow.
Yes, and make the polluters pay for it.
More money is spent on less important items.
It has got to be done or we will all be poisoned eventually.
Hopefully it isn't too late.
Definitely. I am a strong conservationist and think Rachel Carson's book is not exaggerated.
It should be done now before it's too late.
National policy in this regard to date is a disgrace. Much more must be done and soon.
The people most responsible are often not too concerned-only for profits.
Strict control must be put into force immediately.
If they don't take firmer measures, the whole country will suffer and it would cost a great deal more and perhaps it would be too late.
Long past due.
It is long overdue.
Yes, especially raw sewage from cities and industrial waste from industry going into rivers, lakes, etc.
We wish to have clean air and water for us and our future generations.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) addressed a meeting in Vancouver on January 15, 1970. I wish to quote one short paragraph from his statement:
A national water quality code is essential.
We need to know what the performance standards for each industry are. We also must get each industrial association into the mood where their membership is prepared to carry out joint research and
[Mr. Skoberg.j
to recognize the public relations advantages of voluntary measures control.
Regional guidelines must also be drawn because each area of the country has its own requirements and may want to set higher standards still.
In my opinion Bill C-144 does none of the things the Minister of Fisheries mentioned. Later on, he states:
In industry we must keep the worst pollutants to ourselves.
I suggest that keeping the worst pollutants to ourselves refers to the industry or municipality that is polluting. It is not good enough to suggest that we will put in primary pollution control measures which in effect would only take the lumps out and that is all. As we look at the speech the minister delivered in Vancover, it makes us wonder. He talks about industry-hungry New Brunswick being able to see the river dying, and mining seriously affecting the Atlantic salmon industry:
The mining industry currently employs 200 men the year round; the fishery 600 New Brunswickers on a part-time basis. One, the mines, has a limited 15 year life. The other, hopefully, has an unlimited life.
I hope the minister will have some influence on his cabinet colleagues with regard to pollution control measures. I feel that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, is concerned about pollution controls. Their concern is to no avail, unless the resources are at their disposal to do something about this problem.
According to the statistics we have, it is absolutely impossible for this country to survive much longer unless money is made available to these various departments which are concerned. When this bill goes to committee, I am certain we will ensure that there are strong federal measures put into the bill so that the pollution control measures envisaged by the average individual in this country will be implemented by federal legislation. Provincial legislation will never be able to handle it. When this bill is considered, I ask that the cabinet reintroduce those loans under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which are directed towards pollution control so there will be some funds available to do something about this problem.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the
January 19, 1970

House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Housing-inquiry as to allowances; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski)-Consumer Affairs-alleged misleading advertising by Imperial Tobacco Company; the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)-External Affairs-Nigeria-Canadi-an action following ceasefire.
Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the appointment of a Special Committee of this House which shall have the power to hold hearings in various parts of Canada, take testimony and hire experts, with the following terms of reference: That it shall examine the role of the Senate within Parliament and in its general constitutional functions and report with recommendations on whether the Senate should continue as it has been and is, or whether it should be abolished (and if so, by what means) or whether some form of reformed Senate is worth while (and if so, what reforms).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having read the motion to the House, I feel it is incumbent upon the Chair to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a decision has been taken with respect to one of the provisions in this proposed motion.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
On December 16 last, the House negatived a mo.ion for second reading of Bill C-18, which bill proposed the aboli ion of the Senate. Having made that statement, I refer hon. members to citation 194 of Beauchesne's fourth edi.ion. I will read it in part:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.
In view of the provisions of that citation I will allow the debate to proceed, but it could
Senate Role in Parliamentary System be difficult for the House to reach a point where a decision might be taken. However, I think in all fairness to the hon. member and in view of the fact that in part his motion goes beyond the specific point, dealt with in Bill C-18,1 will allow the debate at this time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the decision which was made last month, I want to make it clear that as I move this resolution I am, have been, and will continue to be a believer in the abolition of the Senate. The reason I moved the resolution in the form in which I did was that I realized it was unlikely the House would approve a resolution calling for the outright aboli ion of the Senate. That being the case, it seemed to me possible that the House might be willing to approve a resolution which gave consideration to the appointment of a committee to study, not just the question of whether or not the Senate should be abolished, but how the Senate could be reconstituted to make a better contribution to the democratic life of this country.
Anybody who studies the evolution of the democratic system in society, whether it be in Canada, Great Britain, France or any other country, will quickly realize that second chambers such as the Senate or the House of Lords are actually the survivors of a predemocratic age. They are survivors of feudal institutions and constitutions which were in effect in medieval Europe before democratic systems such as we know them came into existence. The upper houses in most countries in early generations represented not faith in democracy but a hedge against democracy. The House of Lords in Great Britain was the bulwark of privilege and property, while the House of Commons was the protagonist of the rights of the people. I suggest that anyone who looks at the books which have been written about the Canadian Senate will come to the conclusion that the same is true of our upper house.
Robert MacKay in his book "The Unreformed Senate of Canada" said that of 308 Senators who served in the Senate of Canada from 1925 to 1963, 71 per cent were recruited from the realm of law, business and agriculture. Professional fields such as medicine, engineering, education and journalism, not to mention the very substantial percentage of Canadian people one can classify as workers or labour, have been grossly underrepresented in the membership of the Senate.
If one looks at the Parliamentary Guide and considers individual Senators, one can
January 19, 1970

Senate Role in Parliamentary System quickly see to what I have reference. I made no exhaustive study, but if my figures are wrong at all they are not wrong to any great extent. Let me give a couple of examples of what I have in mind.
Senator Hayden is a director of 10 companies in Canada. Senator Aird is the director of eight or nine companies Senator Molson is the director of eight companies. Senator Gelinas is director of 15 companies and Senator Thorvaldson is a director of nine companies. There is nothing illegal about this and I do not suggest that for a minute, but I do want to say that in a chamber which has the tremendous legal power which the Canadian Senate has, this could be and is a very dangerous situation.
Robert McKeown, who writes in Weekend magazine had a column on September 12, 1969 headed "Senators should be above suspicion-but they're not". He quoted from Section 53 of the rules of the Senate as follows:
No senator is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has any pecuniary interest whatsoever, not held in common with the rest of the Canadian subjects of the Crown; and the vote of any such senator so interested will be disallowed.
Robert McKeown goes on to detail how three bills dealing with bank charters were tied up for several weeks in the Senate Banking and Commerce Committee, the memberships of which included four directors of chartered banks and whose chairman, Senator Salter Hayden, was a director of the Bank of Nova Scotia. Senator Hayden did not consider that being a director of a bank meant he had a pecuniary interest in the matter before the Senate. Robert McKeown said, and I agree, that Senator Hayden's definition may satisfy Senator Hayden and some other senators but it should not satisfy Prime Minister Trudeau or the Canadian public. I do not believe it does.
The situation in the Senate is not new. Goldwin Smith said this about appointments to the Senate:
The Senate is a bribery fund in the hands of the Government.. . nor on its present footing will it ever be anything else-
Stephen Leacock, and certainly he was no flaming radical, said:
Liberals and Conservatives combined, we made our Senate not a superior council of the nation, but a refuge of place-hunting politicians and reward for partisan adherence.
I could not agree often with what Stephen Leacock said or wrote about public affairs, but I can agree with every word he said in
[Mr. Orlikow.l

that passage more than a quarter of a century ago because it is still true.
If we consider the appointments former Prime Minister Pearson made to the Senate in his five years in office, we find that he made 31 appointments to that chamber. George Bain has analyzed them and points out that five were appointed because of their devotion to duty in the backrooms of the Liberal party, five because of their uniformly distinguished service in the House of Commons, four for their tenacity in hunting down campaign contributions in the role of party bagmen, three were recognized because of valour in the face of unequal odds, their inability to get elected in the Liberal cause, and five more because of miscellaneous contributions of time and effort to the Liberal party in the provinces.
In my own province of Manitoba, I can think of one senator appointed by the former Prime Minister. His main claim to fame is that he was the campaign director for the Liberal party during two elections in Manitoba. In one they elected two members out of 14 and in the second they elected one out of 14. That may be too many, but it does not speak well for his organizational ability.


Mr. Osier:: You took over his policies.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


David Orlikow: We took over his policy-ha ha. I wouldn't mind taking over his financial status. However, this is the situation. Mr. Pearson will be remembered, and given credit, for a great number of things. He gave this country many years of distinguished service. One thing for which he will not be remembered and given credit is the calibre of the appointments he made to the Senate. Let me say, somewhat in defence of Mr. Pearson, I do not suppose his appointments were any worse than those of Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. King or Mr. Bennett before him. That is the way the system works. I submit that it is a bad system. Frequently, the Canadian Senate has been compared by those who would defend it to the British House of Lords. We must keep in mind, however, that the Senate, unlike the House of Lords, has a fixed number of members.
The British prime minister, if his legislation is threatened by the House of Lords, has a certain right. When Lloyd George, the Liberal prime minister of Great Britain in I believe 1908 or 1910, proposed to introduce legislation which was very progressive for that time he found that the House of Lords
January 19, 1970

threatened to block it and made clear that if the legislation were blocked by the House of Lords he would appoint sufficient new members to the House in order to get the legislation passed. No Canadian prime minister can do that because the number of seats in the Senate is fixed by our constitution. The House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are entirely different in respect of the powers they have to amend or reject legislation. I do not intend to outline the powers of the British House of Lords but I suggest that the committee might take a look at them. The power of the House of Lords to reject or even hold up for more than one session legislation proposed by any British government is very limited.
Our Senate has virtually unlimited powers which can be exercised. I suggest this is not consistent with a democratic way of life. In Great Britain, the House of Lords has no power at all over money bills. That again is different from the situation in respect of the Canadian Senate. A number of proposals have been made for the abolition of the Senate. I do not wish to speak about this in view of the vote taken last month. A number of proposals have been made in respect of reforming the Senate. There was the suggestion, for example, that Senators be appointed for a limited term of office. There has been the suggestion that the power of the Senate be limited much in the same way the British system has led to the diminution of the power of the House of Lords in that country. Both these suggestions have some merit. They could both be dealt with by the committee which I am suggesting.
Now, I should like to deal with one other suggestion which has been made. I refer to the suggestion made by this government in the document entitled "The Constitution and the People of Canada" which was presented to the constitutional conference called by the federal government which was attended by the representatives of all the provinces. This constitutional conference was held on February 10, 11 and 12, 1969. At page 30 of the English section, we find the following:
The Government of Canada feels that the Senate should be reorganized to provide for the expression in it, in a more direct and formal manner than at present, of the interests of the provinces. At the same time, the interests of the country as a whole should continue to find expression in the Senate to maintain there an influence for the unity of Canada.
The Government of Canada would therefore propose a new approach to the organization of the Senate to achieve this end. The Senate could be partly selected by the federal government and partly selected by provincial governments.
Senate Role in Parliamentary System
Later on, at page 32 of the same document, we see this:
-the provincial governments themselves- would get-
-a means of naming people who could give direct and clear expressions to the views and interests of the provinces-
Then, it reads:
We feel however, that a reconstituted Senate should have certain special powers flowing from its role as an important institution of federalism. It should have a new jurisdiction to approve nominations by the federal government of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, ambassadors and heads of cultural agencies.
I completely reject that proposal, because it would lead to more power for the Senate. What is even worse, I believe it would lead to more power for the provinces to do indirectly what they cannot do directly, namely block programs evolved by governments elected by the people of Canada as a whole. I believe this would be a very bad decision for the people of Canada to make. As I understand it, this proposal made by the federal government would require a change in the constitution and would therefore require the unanimous consent of the provinces. I wish to make clear that I have not discussed this matter directly with the present premier of Manitoba, my former colleague, at that time the hon. member for Selkirk, and I am not saying for a moment that I am speaking officially for him. However, I have known the present premier of Manitoba for a long time and I believe I know how he thinks. I am certain he would not agree to those proposals made by the federal government. That being the case, those proposals can be put into mothballs right now.
I shall close by suggesting to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that if he is not prepared to abolish the Senate, he might as well make the 12 or 14 appointments to fill the vacancies. I suggest that he make them in the usual way they have been made by former governments; that is, that he appoint well deserving political hacks from the Liberal Party. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles,) is not happy with my suggestion. I am not happy with it either, but we will be able to deal with the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: just wish Hansard would show the smile on your face.


David Orlikow: 
Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to express my views on this question.
I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who has just resumed his seat.
I have noticed that the hon. member has talked mostly in favour of abolishing the Senate, instead of insisting on the chief merit of the motion he was proposing to us, namely, the desirability of recommending to the government that a special committee be established to study the reorganization of the Senate and, perhaps, its abolition.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The abolition of the Senate is only one important point among several raised in his motion.
The hon. member begins by saying that he will always be in favour of abolishing the Senate. It is obviously his right to hold this opinion but what astonishes me is that, as far as I know, those who advocate most strongly the abolition of the Senate, of that institution which seems useless, backward, obsolete, a relic of the past, as he said, are precisely his own colleagues.
I am not sure of it but, a few years ago, was not one of his colleagues appointed to the Senate?
I am wondering whether the reason which leads the hon. member to fight with such frenzy for the disintegration of this venerable institution would not be that he feels disappointed and desperate about the improbability of his appointment to the Senate.
All of us speak more and more about evolution, but it seems to me that we could go too far when speaking of the evolution of our democratic society. It may be that the hon. member has exaggerated in saying that the Senate is a frivolous, pre-democratic and medieval institution.

There are still many institutions which we all find valuable and which date from the Middle Ages or from a still more remote period.
However, I commend the hon. member for having brought in that motion, because I personally feel that it would be desirable to reform the Senate. The term "unreformed Senate" struck me, because it is surely partly accurate.
When considering the reform of the Senate, we could envisage the possibility of a fairer representation of the various ethnic groups of the Canadian population. Bilingualism and biculturalism, for example, are realities in our country. Right-minded citizens from all groups are proud to say that Canada is a bicultural and bilingual country.
It was even proposed that senators be elected, a system which could well be applied in the future and which has its merits since some countries, the United States included, elect their senators.
That senators should be company directors or that they should have some money interests, as the hon. member said, there is nothing illegal in that. Besides, is it as dangerous as he claims? When a senator is appointed while he is well on in years, it is obvious that he has not been waiting all his life for this post and that he certainly had other activities in the past. That he should already hold important offices in business or industry seems normal to me.
If we want our senators to be practical Occasionally and to know how to join theory to practice, it is necessary that we should give them a chance to be realistic.
Having practical duties to perform in society could help them prove more useful to their country, I believe.
As concerns financial questions, they must be discussed, since we are all interested in them, including the hon. member.
When income tax or other tax matters are debated, we are all concerned, for we all have to pay taxes.
One of our past prime ministers, and others before him, came under fire for having made some political appointments. The hon. member said a while ago that the former prime minister had named 5 of the 31 present senators; it was their reward as party supporters, for having rendered great services to the party now in office. It seems to me that the proportion is not that great and, furthermore, who would blame those men for having
January 19, 1970	COMMONS
worked for their party? Would that prevent them from having the qualifications required to do their task properly as senators? Let us not forget that a member for Parliament belongs to a party and that as long as the present system of political parties last we will not be able to work without taking that into account. Is it not also a most honest game? And if it is played according to the rules, I do not see any thing wrong with it.
However, I do congratulate the hon. member for his motion, a very substantial one, in my view. Every one of its points is of great importance. Once again, I am surprised that the hon. member has dealt with only one aspect of it, the last but one, that is the abolition of the Senate.
I am convinced that the other aspects of his motion were well-founded and very objective, showing the way for concrete and effective ways to improve the organization of the Senate.
From another standpoint, I wonder, in spite of the soberness of the wording of his motion, if the hon. member has not submitted something that should be considered in reverse order, that is from the end to the beginning, if we are to deal with the matter in an intelligent, sensible and serious manner.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I wonder if we should not rather endeavour to tackle the matter of the abolition of the Senate, as well as other very serious related problems, in a more comprehensive and logical way, going right to the heart of the matter. I also wonder why we should not follow a practice that has been followed for several years within the Canadian government. That method has passed the test in spite of the criticisms of some people and it has been recognized by most Canadian thinkers and serious businessmen.
A few years ago, after 1960, task forces and Royal Commissions have been set up. I think they have shown their worth. To the best of my recollection, the Glassco Royal Commission on Government Organization finalized its work.
The members of this Commission studied the whole public administration system. The study was comprehensive and dealt with essentials. Later on other commissions examined administration in detail. Their approach was more concrete and more analytical than synthetical, which in my opinion should come first. These commissions studied secondary and less important aspects of the problem
DEBATES	2551
Senate Role in Parliamentary System that the Royal Commission on Government Organization had failed to analyse. I refer particularly to the Royal Commission on Taxation, to the Montpetit Commission which studied postal administration, to the Lauren-deau-Dunton Commission which made the extensive and very important survey on bilingualism and biculturalism.
I wonder if this process could not instead be the basis of a recommendation to the government to study our parliamentary institutions as a whole, including the Senate and the House of Commons, so that they be more efficient, more practical and more interesting for all Canadians.
For several years now we have come to believe again in the relative importance of the Senate. The Senate has some importance, but it might be a good idea to evaluate it once and for all. In many quarters, and this is the hon. member's opinion, people are under the impression that it is useless.
It is currently said that the Senate seems to rubber stamp all the decisions taken by the House. It is accused of inefficiency. However, for me, the Senate-as the House-is a body which confirms the freedom of speech of the Canadian citizens. That is therefore to the advantage of the Senate or the House.
Without being a traditionalist, because I am a Liberal, I would rather favour changes but provided safety is not jopardized as some people have been saying for some time in some quarters.
However, one can say, given the past, that since the world began, wise men of any nation have always been of great importance and usefulness.
Let us also refer to the old popular saying, which still is valid and practical, yet reflecting a spirit of youth and renewal: "If the young knew, if the old could".
Although the future is said to belong to the young, and although the trend is that even the present is theirs more and more, we must not lose all sense of proportion. The young have some value, but the old too. We must not forgot that. We must be able to draw a distinction between them and let them play their own role.
If I speak of elders, everybody will recognize that any Canadian citizen over 30 may be appointed to the Senate. Generally speaking, senators are old men, citizens who have already proven themselves often enough in the course of a fairly long career; in short, those we can classify in general among the
January 19, 1970
2552	COMMONS DEBATES
Senate Role in Parliamentary System wise men of the nation are the ones who are appointed to the Senate.
When it comes to drawing a parallel between young and old people, some verses from a great French poet may serve as a rather good illustration of the problem raised by the different set of values cherished by young and old.
I remember some verses from the poem: "Booz endormi" by Victor Hugo. Booz was sleeping near sheaves of wheat. Here is what Victor Hugo wrote:
Les femmes regardaient Booz plus qu'un jeune homme. Car le jeune homme est beau, mais le vielllard est grand.
If the young have qualities, but their elders have theirs also. And Victor Hugo said:
Et 1'on volt de la flamme aux yeux des jeunes gens-
It is true that as a rule young people are full of spirit and life, and that is as it should be.
But he added:
Mais dans l'ceil du vieillard, on voit de la lu-miere.
If we need the eager strength and enthusiasm of youth, we also need the controlled strength and enthusiasm, if cool at times, of those nearing the end of a life filled with many past achievements and efforts, which have after all borne fruit.
But in this matter-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat, I would like to congratulate the mover of the motion. Looking at its wording, one can see it has much to commend its being passed by the House. However, I cannot congratulate him on the speech he made, which was completely political. He was crying because there are not many members of the NDP in the Senate. The reason is that appointments are made according to the population of the country, and we have in Canada many more Liberals of ability than we have among the supporters of the NDP. However, we did have an NDP member in the Senate, and no doubt there will be other members of that party in it in the future.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I congratulate the member on what he said. As I understood it, he suggested that a com-
[Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski) .1
mittee be set up to investigate all aspects of the Senate. I agree with this, Mr. Speaker, because there is no doubt that we are the most over-governed country in the world. According to the last census figures there are less than 21 million people in this country; yet we have 102 members of the Senate, 264 Members of the House of Commons and 634 members of provincial legislatures. We have municipalities with councillors and aldermen, boards of education, public utilities and, in some areas, county councils. In rural Ontario it is a most unfortunate citizen indeed who has not six or seven bodies for whom to vote. In addition to these elected bodies we have the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces and the Governor General of Canada. Overriding the whole legislative system is the Queen.
I think I am correct in saying that as far as Canada is concerned, with all due respect to the Indians, we have far too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Let us consider some examples. The province of Saskatchewan has 962,000 people, about half the population of the cities of Toronto and Montreal, but it is allowed 13 members of the House of Commons, six Senators and 59 members of the provincial legislature. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to that great grain-growing province, that is simply too much government. There are in addition the municipalities, county councils, public utilities, etc.
My own province of Ontario is the most densely populated in the country, with about 7J million people. We have 88 members of the House of Commons, 24 Senators and 117 members of the legislature. There are also the Toronto city council, the metro council, the hydro commission and the public and separate school boards. One does not have to delve too deeply to appreciate that we are over-governed.
If the motion of my hon. friend would bring this state of affairs to the attention of the general public so that the Senate-and I give this only as a hypothetical situation-might be abolished or changed, or that the other governing bodies might be restricted, I would support it.
I had the privilege last summer of flying over the great and beautiful province of Prince Edward Island. It has a population of only 110,000 people, but it has four Senators compared with 24 for Ontario which has 7J million people, or Quebec with 6 million. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is room for change here. It is time the government set up a com-
January 19, 1970

mittee to study the Senate and all other governing bodies in Canada. Prince Edward Island has four members in the House of Commons and 32 members in its provincial legislature.
I agree with the last speaker that the Senate has done much to help this great country of ours and has brought us through many rough times and situations. But perhaps it should be changed or reconstructed. Perhaps the whole system of governing Canada should be changed or reconstructed in some way.
The province of Manitoba has less than one million people but it has 57 members in the legislature, six in the Senate and 13 in the House of Commons. It is a great province and will be celebrating its centennial this year, but I wonder if it has not too much government.


David Orlikow: Let's start by removing the Senators.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend says we should start by removing the Senators, but he does not say that in his resolution. As I read it, he suggests there should be a committee to examine the role of the Senate within Parliament. Perhaps the Senate should be eliminated. Perhaps my hon. friend's seat should be eliminated. I do not know about that; but there is too much government here, it should be investigated by a committee and something should be done about it.
It is not my intention to take up further time, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, for a country of 21 million people to have 634 members of the various legislatures, 102 members of the Senate and 264 members of the House of Commons apart from all the municipalities, etc., is simply too much government. I would, therefore, support my hon. friend's motion that a committee be set up to investigate the role of the Senate. At the same time, I suggest that the committee's terms of reference be enlarged to investigate the role of other governing bodies in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with much interest to the mover of this motion and I was surprised at the comments of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc). In fact, perhaps I paid more attention to him than to the mover because, first of all, he spoke in French and he brought up something new.
DEBATES	2553
Senate Role in Parliamentary System
As for the mover, since we already knew his position concerning the Senate, there was nothing unexpected in his remarks.
The hon. member for Rimouski surprised us a bit and much as I esteem him, I do not agree with some of the views he expressed. I would like to see opposition members show to an increasing degree the same open-mindedness as the hon. member for Rimouski.
I feel I should stress the fact that the mover of this motion has shown that he sincerely wished to improve the role of the Senate, and it is his privilege.
The motion itself is divided in three parts. First, it should be recognized that the Senate raises a problem which requires consideration. In the second place, if it must be established whether the Senate should be abolished, improved or modernized, the members should be informed through the findings of a committee.
In my opinion, the mover does not impose his views on the house, but rather expresses a worthwhile opinion, because it is obvious that the Canadian people are not satisfied with the Senate, and they would like that body to be more efficient, whatever its future might be.
I agree with the hon. member for Rimouski that the older people deserve our respect and I felt involved when he mentioned the old and the young. We, younger people, may be full of enthusiasm, but we must recognize that those who are no longer young have experience.
Although I am in agreement with the principle set forth by the hon. member for Rimouski, I must point out that appointments to the Senate are the result of political favours. Under any government, when an individual has served the party well, or when it is deemed advisable to get rid of a member who creates problems for the party, he is appointed to the Senate.
We are expecting appointments to the Senate in the near future, as there are several vacancies there. And once again it will be seen that appointments to the Senate are used as a reward for services rendered more to a political party than to Canada.
What is wrong with the Senate is that Canadians have no say in the matter of appointments. Secondly, Canadians have no say insofar as the fixing of their emoluments is concerned.
Thirdly, Canadians get no report regarding the business of the Senate.
January 19, 1970
2554	COMMONS DEBATES
Senate Role in Parliamentary System
Fourthly, it is rather unusual to see the Senate oppose the decisions of the House of Commons. I could go on and on.
Our parliamentary system is surely out of tune, because in spite of all possible good intentions, talents and goodwill, the Senate has become a club where are found people most of whom would be better off to get their old age pension and to remain at home, not because they can no longer serve Canada, but simply because their duties have been cut down to nothing, and under our parliamentary system, this is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Rimouski is made a senator and then, he will have to realize as we do-he who shows such devotion-that he will be allowed to do very little when it comes to formulating legislation. All he will have to do is get up and sit down, that is do as his leader does, and cash his cheque.
He will not really be able to give the Canadian people leadership. Nor will he give advice to the House of Commons.
I have been in the House long enough to know this for a fact. No senator has ever met with us to give us advice about formulating legislation or to go over certain matters they know better than we do.
I see the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon). I hope he is appointed to the Senate that he might also realize that when one is made a senator one can only bless the Prime Minister for the appointment, because it is a reward. I do not wish him the appointment to get rid of him, but rather to reward him because he serves well the interests of the Liberal party.
It is rather ridiculous to deal with such an important motion on that level, but I do because to me that is obvious. As a good Liberal, one should welcome such a motion which, in fact, does not impose views on anyone and does not ridicule anyone. On the contrary, I feel it reflects to some extent the views of Canadians generally who would like a review to be made of the role of the Senate within Canadian parliamentarism, that there might be complementary ties between the House of Commons and its counterpart the Senate.
If the Senate were to disappear overnight, it would be a good thing for all Canadians. There would be less patronage, fewer political appointments. Indeed, what do the senators contribute as legislators? They make inquiries which in the final analysis solve very little,

and whose recommendations are never implemented.
I could give several examples of inquiries conducted by the Senate. The reports usually gather dust somewhere, and are never studied. It seems to me that problem should be studied in depth.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches made in this debate and, in particular, to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The motion before this House would set up a special committee. The proposer of the motion went into some detail regarding his complaints about the Senate: he alleged that it does not represent the populace, that conflict of interest situations arise in it, and so on.
However, the proposer of the motion did not deal with the central issue of the procedure by which the Senate is to be amended or reformed. He read into Hansard proposals brought forward by the government of Canada at the constitutional conference. They included one that the manner of choosing members of the upper chamber should be discussed and reviewed with the provinces, and that the provinces should have the opportunity of naming some of the members of the Senate.
At least the motion before us is a little more sophisticated than the one brought forward recently by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). His proposal would have amended the British North America Act by a resolution of this House, and was a little more difficult for some of us to follow. The notice of motion before us is more sophisticated because it suggests another line of action or investigation parallel to that which has already resulted from discussions that have taken place in federal-provincial conferences.
Those of us who have watched the Senate have, I think, mixed feelings about it. We know the problems. Thirty-five years ago as an undergraduate-and I am dating myself with this remark-I studied Professor Mack-ay's book, "The Unreformed Senate of Canada". Nevertheless, those of us who have come here and watched the other place must concede that useful work has taken place in it. I am thinking of the studies of science policy under Senator Maurice Lamontagne as chairman of the committee, the special committee on poverty under Senator Croll and
January 19, 1970

Water Resources
the studies currently in progress under Senator Davies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, on the news tonight a United States Senator made the statement that we are polluting ourselves into disaster. The Canadian Labour Union indicated that lack of pollution control could be an item for decision on strike action some time this year. For years we have talked about the necessity of carrying out proper conservation procedures and methods. To my way of thinking, conservation is the practice of one generation looking after the heritage with which it has been endowed, passing on to future generations a heritage unsullied and in the same shape and form in which it was handed down. I am afraid that every one of us in Canada is guilty of breaking conservation practices. Every one of us at some time has thrown away a piece of Kleenex, a chocolate-wrapper, a gum wrapper or an empty cigarette package. By the same token, pollution is being effected by our big industries in the tailings of mines and the pollutants from vats which are being poured into our lakes and rivers.
Now we are advised that the chemicals that we thought were doing so much good for mankind contain elements which can have
dire effects upon ourselves and future generations. So that in fact, Mr. Speaker, we have not practised good conservation methods. In spite of all the programs of research, studies by commissions, discussion and debate in this House, we in Canada today are guilty of not doing as we should and we shall not be able to pass on to future generations-to our sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters- the heritage that was handed down to us.
Thus have fallen civilizations of the past, Mr. Speaker. Unless serious, thoughtful and considerate steps are taken, having in mind all the phases of this tremendously important question, we may soon-as some people have said-be wallowing around in our own garbage. We see this demonstrated on every hand these days, particularly in our rivers and lakes. We see the fish floating belly up; they are being washed ashore by the thousand due to the fact that life-giving ingredients have been destroyed by the chemicals we have poured into the lakes and rivers which were handed down to us in a pure state.
As I have said, there has been a tremendous amount of research carried out and a great number of articles written about the necessity of cleaning up our rivers and lakes; in fact, considering the whole question of pollution. I have been interested in this question for a great many years, Mr. Speaker, because in my own area in 1905 an engineer by the name of William H. Breithaupt walked from the source of the Grand River to its end. At that time he advocated some conservation measures, but it was not until many years later-1942, in fact-that the first conservation dam was built on the Grand River. This was the first effect of his advice given many years previously. Because of the water conservation bill that has been in force since 1952-53, two subsequent dams were built on that river. These were for flood control and to provide proper conservation methods. That conservation program has been of tremendous benefit to the whole area, and around each one of these lakes there has been a tremendous growth of summer colonies which have attracted tourists to the area. This program has been well worth the money spent on it.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Let me say something about the conservation measure that we are removing from our statute books by this bill. It was a good measure whereby municipalities, the provinces and the federal government took part. As a result of the union of these three forces, a great many conservation programs were started in

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
the province of Ontario. I do not know about the other provinces, but I know the areas along the Grand River and the Saugeen River have been improved tremendously as a result of efforts by the municipality. The people interested in their areas were able to get into the act and do a tremendous job of providing conservation programs.
That was not enough. We knew there was need for more teeth in a bill to make it possible for law enforcement officers to bring to task those who unwittingly or knowingly pollute our rivers and are responsible for their condition today. The bill now before us was introduced with great fanfare. After talking about this situation for many years, we now have Bill C-144 which, as it says, is an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research, planning and implementation of programs relating to conservation, development and utilization of water resources. When we consider the various parts of the bill that begin with the word "whereas", it would seem that this might be the perfect bill. Considering the high-sounding phrases and window-dressing by the minister in introducing the bill, the people of Canada should expect great things from this measure.
It is rather difficult to understand why some of the agencies we have had in this country have not done a great deal to correct the situation. Rather than a bill with all this window-dressing, we should have a bill that would co-ordinate all the government agencies involved in this question. Had that been the case, we might have found some substance in this bill. Let me mention some of the government agencies that are involved. There is nothing in this bill about correlating all the services we have, and there are a great many.
In the federal government alone we have the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; the Department of Agriculture, which takes in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and its administration; the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, which takes in the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and its administration and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. We also have the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Evtemal Affairs and the International Joint Commission.

Let us consider the federal government agencies. We have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which makes loans for sewage-treatment plants, the Municipal Development and Loans Board which makes loans for water treatment, the Atlantic Development Board and the National Research Council with its committee on water pollution research.
We must also remember the international bodies. There are the International Joint Commission, boards of control, engineering boards, advisory boards on pollution, the Council for the International Hydrologic Decade, the International Committee on Irrigation and Drainage and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.
We should also keep in mind provincial agencies. In every province we have agencies set up to deal with conservation and the pollution of our rivers and lakes. If this bill is to be of any advantage to areas which require assistance, we should establish an organization with this end in mind, rather than all these local agencies. Perhaps we could correlate all the provincial, municipal and federal bodies into one tremendous organization that could attack this problem and find the solution so urgently required in our nation.
It is interesting to note that the bill points out that for a fee one can pollute the waters of this nation. This measure is not aimed at stopping pollution; it is aimed at licensing pollution. This situation should be rectified. We have been discussing Canada's water resources for years. We must continue to discuss it. We must make sure that this is the best possible bill and that it comes to grips with this great national problem.
I have in my hand the report of the Special Committee on Land Use in Canada which was handed down in 1963. One recommendation of that committee was the following;
That the work of various agencies in the study and management of our water resources be expanded-specifically that work relating to drainage and erosion problems, irrigation, levels of water tables and present and likely future water requirements.
That report was published in 1963, yet in 1970 we are discussing a Canada Water Act. I also have the report of a study made by the University of Toronto, Great Lakes Institute, entitled "The Great Lakes and their problems". This study was conducted in 1965. In its introductory remarks, with reference to our Great Lakes it is stated:
The Great Lakes constitute the largest single reserve of fresh water in the world and although
January 19, 1970

Water Resources
we can say this very proudly it soon becomes apparent that the very size of the lakes can work to their disadvantage as well as being their strength. Because of their size it has been assumed that they will always be here with the same quality and quantity of water and there is nothing that man might do in the way of use or abuse that could change the natural regime.
We have seen what has happened to Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair because their lakes were not big enough. The report states further:
This was the thinking that motivated our forebears when they carried out their onslaught on the seemingly unlimited resources of this continent. It is not necessary to remind ourselves of the results of the wanton destruction that took place, but we should keep this image before us and realize that we are at present committing a similar monstrous destruction of the last large resource left to us in this area. We must also constantly remind ourselves that the Great Lakes are a natural resource which is far more vital to us than any of those which were destroyed in the past.
We have a great fund of knowledge and material in connection with problems confronting us in the field of conservation and the necessity of taking care of the great Canadian water resource. Anyone who wants to make a study of pollution should read this document which I have in my hand. It was published by the Department of Biology, McMaster University. It is entitled, "Up the Pyramid" and contains a passage headed, "Pollution as a road to nowhere". It states that the important question is not can man progress, but can we survive at all.
We have been warned about what we are doing. We have set up commissions, government agencies and bodies to study the situation; yet we go on and on polluting. This could be disastrous, as was said by a United States Senator. At times it seems that we are getting very close to disaster.
I suggest to the minister that before Bill C-144 is completely studied and reported back by the committee, he should call in all the expert opinion he can find. He should ask for interpretations and suggestions by the organizations which have made a study of this matter, including experts from the University of Toronto and almost every other university in Canada. Before the bill is brought back into this House, I sincerely hope a great many changes will be made to it. In this way, those who pollute the waters of Canada can be brought to task. I hope every step that can be taken will be taken to ensure that the waters of Canada remain pure and unpolluted.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, having read and listened to the contributions to the debate on the Canada water bill from various parts of this House, I think all of us recognize that the problem of the control, management and proper use of our water resource in Canada is not only of concern but is of urgent importance to all Canadians.
Members from each corner of this House have expressed in their own way, sometimes effectively and at other times not too effectively, how they feel about the use and management of our water. Hopefully, as the bill moves into the committee stage all those who have spoken out so strongly and effectively will make their views known before the committee, which body will have the responsibility of coming back to this House at the report stage with the best possible Canada water bill that can be devised.
After listening to the various members who have spoken, it would seem that there are two or three areas in respect of which I might devote a little time this evening in an effort to clear up some of the misunderstandings which may exist at the moment. I believe I can leave to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) some of the specific answers to questions which have been raised by members. However, there are two areas with which I intend to deal at the moment.
The first is the question of national standards. There is a feeling among members in the House that there should be a national standard for water and in respect of water pollution. I think we might say briefly that this bill is intended to be designed for the management and use of our great national and natural resource-water. Although it is not so intended, it will no doubt be used as an anti-pollution measure.
I must emphasize strongly that it simply is not an anti-pollution bill. A bill framed to combat pollution alone would miss the point that we must seek a balance among all uses and all benefits. If one were to write a bill that would simply combat pollution, it would not be any more effective than one to control flood alone. Therefore, we have spoken of water resource management, comprehensive planning and water control management to indicate the breadth of this approach.
One of the facets of this broad management approach is, indeed, the setting of water qual-

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
ity standards. These standards must be the best possible for the river or river basin in question. They must be compatible with the nature of the river, the resource base of the region, the growth rate of population and industry and the variety and concentration of uses of that river. I think we seek to analyse and plan each river in detail and set the best standard.
The standards will be for full protection of human health and aquatic life and for the preservation of recreational values and scenic beauties as well as all other benefits. But to set a common denominator that suits both Lake Louise and Hamilton harbour is entirely inappropriate. Since all waters can never be entirely pure, we would have to set a standard for the nation that would be less than pristine purity. That being the case, anyone without stricture could pollute our finest waters down to the national standard.
I would ask members of this House whether that is the proper way to treat our purest water resources. My opinion, which I am sure is shared by most, is that it would be a licence, and a free one at that, to pollute. Yet that is precisely what a national standard would do. We want to improve the quality of polluted streams and keep those that are now beautiful and clean in that ideal state. This is why we say there should not be uniform standards but optimal standards. These optimal standards will not be set by local agencies. These agencies are only empowered to analyse, plan and recommend. The two senior levels of government are jointly responsible for the final decision, and hopefully, in the unlikely event that there is not co-operation at the provincial level of government, this bill will provide the federal government with the tools to move ahead on its own.
One of the great attributes of the Canada water bill is that it represents a positive approach toward the management of this nation's vital water resources. By embodying all the forces at the command of governments, and by providing for the effective utilization of these forces, it avoids the chaos of constitutional issues which in the past have inhibited or prevented a sound approach to water resource management and development. In the conservation of our natural resources, particularly in husbanding our scarce and critical ones such as water, we must use all the tools at our disposal. Through education and information we can bring moral suasion to bear; through prohibition and penalties we can bring punitive

measures to bear, and through effluent discharge fees we can bring economic forces to bear. The bill before us incorporates all three.
I should like to devote some time to the discussion of the economic forces and the concept of effluent discharge fees which critics of this bill in their frequent reference to financing have somehow or other failed to comprehend or even note. One of the first principles of economics is that items of value have costs. These costs may be expressed in terms of money as determined by the market process. We are all familiar with the concept of the balance sheet whereby all the costs of doing business are totalled and compared with the revenue received from sales, which results in either a profit or a deficit. These are internal costs. But where costs are incurred, say, by another firm outside the framework of the balance-sheet, they are external to it and hence not considered in the accounts or in determining the value of production, the processes used or the combinations of labour and capital. The social costs of pollution are analogous to these external accounting costs and, indeed, include the costs of treating polluted water for downstream use.
By far the larger costs of pollution are borne by downstream users in the form of health defects, depressed land prices, closed recreation areas and destruction of our fish, wildlife and aesthetic resources, all of which have been brought forcefully to the nation's attention, through the public information media, by conservation groups and by this debate. Yet up to the time of this bill there existed no mechanism whereby these social costs could be integrated into industrial and municipal decisions; one had to rely upon moral suasion and the corporate image concept. While there have been some outstanding examples of social responsibility, these have been isolated and weak and have varied from industry to industry and from company to company.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Alternatively, one could choose to rely solely upon standards and penalties, but these punitive measures come into effect only after a plant has been built, after it has operated, and after the damage has been done. The cost and time required to determine the source of pollution, and carry through court action, mitigate against the use of these instruments for the day-to-day control of millions of tons of wastes.
January 19, 1970

Water Resources
Punitive measures do, however, have a place where flagrant and persistent violations are committed, or where tangible damage has resulted. National standards induce people to deposit harmful wastes to degrade water down to that standard and, as has been mentioned several times during this debate, general or national standards cannot possibly take into account the many special factors which apply to individual river basins or regions. I do not wish to be interpreted as saying that these punitive instruments have no place in pollution control. Clearly they have, but taken alone they have proved historically ineffective in maintaining and improving water quality.
The concept of effluent discharge fees embodied in the bill, to my mind, is one of its boldest and most imaginative features. It takes into account:
1.	That there are social costs in the form of pollution resulting from many productive processes
2.	That these social costs vary, depending upon the nature of the pollution, its aggregate volume, the characteristics of the receiving waters and man's use and enjoyment of these waters
3.	That the contribution to pollution which industry makes is specific to the industry or plant; and
4.	That there are a number of alternatives open to the firm or industry such as a change in production processes, recirculation, reclamation of waste and advanced forms of waste treatment.
The operation of the effluent discharge fee system would be straightforward. With the designation of water quality management areas and the constitution of the water quality agencies as provided for by the bill, a schedule of fees would be devised based on waste loadings, the characteristics of the water quality management area and the use of the water resource. These fees, when approved by government, would be levied on the firms and industries within the area for specific discharges and volumes.
The effluent dischargers would thereby be given a discreet and tangible incentive to undertake alternative courses of action such as recycling, advanced waste treatment, recovery of byproduct or a change in the production process. Fees could be used by the agency to undertake construction of treatment facilities for the effluent if it deemed this course of action advisable. Periodic 21611-231
review of the fee structure would ensure that water quality was maintained and, over the longer term, substantially improved.
I hope that without going into economists' jargon about "internalizing external economies and diseconomies," and so on, I have succeeded in drawing the attention of hon. members to at least one important aspect of the bill. Land, forests and minerals in this country were once in the category of free, or almost free goods which were open to exploitation or misuse. Over the decades this situation has changed, until today they are conserved and husbanded; it is recognized they have a value and a cost.
I believe this principle should be no less applicable in the case of water quality. Those who claim the fees which put a price on quality constitute a licence to pollute, miss the point. These fees are a penalty. They constitute an incentive not to pollute. They are a preventative force. On the other hand, standards and fines alone do give a free licence, with full legal and moral support, to pollute down to that standard. The record, expert opinion and commonsense all say they are not enough.
As to the bill now before us, the House has an assurance from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that when it is in committee amendments will be considered, and if they are in the national interest and compatible with the principles of the measures, they will be accepted. I hope that as we continue the discussion this evening those who wish to express their opinions on the bill will not hesitate to do so, and that the legislation will then be sent to the committee as quickly as possible.
Contrary to the opinion which has been expressed on more than one occasion in this House, I believe there are many in this country who will wish to acquaint the committee with their views on water management in Canada. I hope that people across Canada who are concerned with the maintenance of this resource and its preservation in the best possible state for Canadians of this and future generations will come forward.
I have sought to deal with two or three of the objections which have been raised by members of the opposition in respect of this bill. I hope that when the committee meets, those who have expressed their concern along these lines will make their views known once again to the committee. I can give the House an assurance such as which the minister himself will give later-that the matter is still

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
open. We are prepared to discuss these things and do our best to come up with the best possible water management bill for the people of Canada.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, while the problem of pollution is not a critical one in the area from which I come, it is a current crisis in many regions of Canada. I feel this measure is of great importance to us all because it is becoming increasingly evident, at least to all who keep themselves up-to-date on world affairs, that if we do not get worldwide pollution and rising birth rates under control in this decade, our civilization may well not last beyond the year 2000.
We human beings, with all our great intelligence and initiative, are much like common rats in this regard; if left to our own devices we shall pollute and breed ourselves out of existence. I do not think it would be fair to point the finger of blame for pollution in any one direction. Government and industry are both blamed from time to time. But I do not think it is as simple as that. Every human being contributes to pollution to some extent. Every member of this House has, over the years, made his or her contribution to pollution.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Another trait which is common to man is the compulsion to bite the hand that feeds him; to share responsibility for pollution and then to blame government or industry for the results. We all appreciate the standard of living that a profitable industrial complex affords us, while criticizing it as though it were completely responsible for all the pollution that has occurred. If there were ever a matter upon which we need complete cooperation among all parties in this House, among governments, industry and business at all levels, it is the whole area of pollution.
We cannot segregate and classify one type of pollution that might come under the Water Act because all pollution is tied together-air pollution, land pollution, soil pollution. One progresses to the other. They form a pollution chain and eventually will have to be dealt with under one agency. Industry must realize the futility of growth and profits if within a matter of two or three decades our once great civilization lies as quiet as a lunar landscape because of pollution. Governments, not just ours but all governments in the world, have their heads in the sand if in their governing they believe that matters like ideology, lan-

guage and culture are of any real significance. These are matters that should be used only as talking points for people who are otherwise unoccupied, because the real battle-the battle that, if lost, will effect the eventual demise of many of the younger members of this chamber

is the battle to keep man from polluting his environment to an uninhabitable level.
Citizens, men, women and children should all be made to realize the futility of material success, the futility of almost everything upon which we put value today, if there will be no tomorrow. I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that worldwide pollution is one of the greatest problems facing mankind. I will not mention the individual instances and problem areas in the country that are concerned with pollution. Members who have preceded me have done a more than adequate job in citing examples. Likewise, the shortcomings of the bill have been stressed many times.
In summary one might say that the bill will make no effective change in our pollution control. As several hon. members have pointed out, we have the power under several other acts, the Navigable Waters Act and the Fisheries Act, to enforce many of the pollution measures, if not all, that are proposed in this bill. But what worries me is that we might tie ourselves to so many regulations and red tape, and establish so many agencies, boards and petty empires that we will be in the same position as we are now with our grain marketing system. There we are so sorely overloaded with red tape, regulations, commissions, agencies and boards that we can do nothing but present claims and counterclaims, and in the final analysis we are storing half of the world's wheat, with the storage and handling charges eating away at the total value of the product.
In conclusion, I say to the minister who will be in charge of anti-pollution measures, "Yours, sir, is by far and away the most important portfolio in the government, for it is in this area that the continuation of civilization will depend." It would be the tragedy of this Parliament, even the tragedy of the century or of time, if any politician for the sake of expediency were to court the popular vote or the industrial establishments at the expense of pollution control.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate many of the speakers who preceded me in this debate because the concerns which they expressed about the water resources of the country are concerns
January 19, 1970

Water Resources
that I share. As I look at the title of Bill C-144, the aspect of the bill which I would like to stress in my contribution is that which has to do with the management of water resources.
When the topic of water resources comes up, the people of northwestern Ontario become both interested and concerned, for this region of Canada has an abundance of the freshest water that is to be found anywhere in the world. I have had the personal pleasure of travelling in small craft along such rivers as the Winisk, the Severn, and the Attawapiskat, which flow northwards into James Bay. It is possible for one to dip a cup into these rivers and enjoy the sweetest, purest water imaginable; in fact, water that is safer to consume than that which you get from a tap in your own home. This is certainly not the place to tell fish stories, but there are in those rivers some of the largest and most enjoyable fresh water fish to eat that you can find anywhere in the nation.
We in northwestern Ontario want very much to preserve this precious resource of fresh water, along with as much as possible of the wilderness area that surrounds it. This is not for selfish reasons, not just for our own benefit and enjoyment, but rather for the enjoyment of those who live in what we sometimes refer to as the Great Lakes basin, an area that within the next 100 years will have a population of 200 million people. These 200 million people, living mainly in large, concentrated urban areas, will be looking northward for their recreation and for an escape from the rigours and tensions of urban living. We can offer them this in the region which I represent. It is therefore essential that industries, groups of people or individuals should not be permitted to pollute these valuable fresh waters or to destroy the recreational resources that we have in such great abundance.
It is always heartening to see industry respond in a positive way to the problems of pollution. Recently in the Thunder Bay area a major program was announced by the Domtar Company at Red Rock. The headline to the story indicated that Domtar was about to spend $18,300,000 on an expansion program, and that $7 million of that sum is to be used for pollution abatement. This company has been charged by the Ontario Water Resources Commission with polluting freshwater streams. I think the lesson is obvious-that corporations, like individuals, respond to good laws, and if these laws are acted upon, corporations as individual citizens will respond in a favourable way. My constituents and myself therefore applaud the federal government for introducing the Canada Water Act, which apparently is designed to permit the federal government to mount a systematic attack on water pollution problems jointly with the provinces, but unilaterally if necessary.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
There have been those who have described the Canada Water Act as mere window-dressing, or as a ploy to convince the Canadian people that something is being done about pollution when in fact very little action will transpire. Just from looking at Bill C-144 it is difficult for me to judge whether this is the case or not. The effectiveness of this act, I suppose, depends upon the determination with which it is implemented by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and also the degree of co-operation which may be forthcoming from the provincial governments. The other question is how much the government is prepared to spend in the implementation of this act.
It has been said that the management of Canada's water resources is a regional problem, requiring a regional approach. Under the new act, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) may enter into arrangements with the provinces and form joint committees for the purpose of consultation and development of programs and to coordinate their implementation. This could be established along national, provincial, regional or even lake or river basin lines.
It is said by the minister and his officials that where necessary regional-federal-provincial boards will be set up to take inventory of water resources, collect data on their quality, distribution and use, conduct research and direct a variety of programs designed to conserve and develop regional water resources to the full. Such a concept pleases us in northwestern Ontario, because we feel very strongly about regional development. We want a say in these plans and we want a say in government programs designed specifically for our region.
I think it is well known in this House that northwestern Ontario, a vast wilderness region in that rich province, has always been a little suspicious of governments, whether in Queen's Park or Ottawa. There is a strong feeling among the people I represent that they want to be involved and informed whenever important and far-reaching decisions are being made about our region and its

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
resources, whether we are talking about mining, the forest industry or our water resources.
This is not always the case, however. Frequently we are not consulted and are left in the dark, presented with a fait accompli when it is too late for us to offer any suggestions or have any input regarding these decisions. For example, from the year 1966 to 1970 the amount of money spent by the federal government on studies of northern Ontario water resources will amount to $2,203,000. This is the federal government's contribution to the Co-ordinating Committee on Northern Ontario Water Resource Studies which was established in accordance with announcements made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario in the early part of 1965.
I do not know what the provincial contribution to these studies is, but I assume that it will be on a shared-cost basis, 50-50. This means that about $5 million has been spent in the last few years to study water resources in northern Ontario. This information interested us greatly, Mr. Speaker, but to the best of my knowledge no one in the region has been involved or even kept informed of the purposes or results of these studies.
This situation has of course led to a great deal of fear and suspicion. There are rumours about ambitious plans to divert northwardflowing rivers southward into Lake Superior. Those who live on Indian reservations and settlements, people who operate as tourist camp outfitters, and many other citizens, have approached me for information. They do so in a spirit of anxiety. Some ask whether our governments are making plans for the massive exportation of water to the United States. My reply is that I do not know but I will endeavour to find out; I will make inquiries so that we know the purpose of the extensive water resources studies that are going on in our region. Some people claim that the American Corps of Engineers is involved in taking stream-flow measurements. They want to know what these people are doing there. The minister has assured us that to the best knowledge of the Canadian government such people are not involved.
Recently I attended a meeting at which a number of concerned citizens discussed questions of the diversion and exportation of fresh water. I think the announcement which went out indicates how citizens feel when they are not informed or involved when something

that affects them directly is going on under their very noses. This is what the letter said in part, Mr. Speaker:
We In the area have been made aware of a gigantic plan by our federal government and that of the United States, to divert huge flows of water now flowing north to flow south to the U.S. Many of us have viewed a detailed mapped plan of the project and are very much concerned over the scheme. The secrecy of the whole plan so far is certainly undemocratic and, according to the mapped plan, could he most devastating to our north country. This is all contrary to what we as Canadians fought for in two world wars. Surely we have a right to know what is going on and how it will affect the future destiny of our children and the country as a whole.
This meeting has been called to discuss this enormous plan and its effect on wildlife and many other aspects. We trust we may have the pleasure of your presence and your views on the project.
I went to that meeting, Mr. Speaker, and met citizens who were deeply concerned and quite disturbed. They had fears and anxieties that the balance of nature, the ecology of northern Ontario would be upset by the diversion of the swift, northward-flowing rivers. This turned out to be an organization meeting. What came out of it was an organization with the interesting name of KNOW, Keep Northern Ontario Water.
They wanted to know what I could tell them about this project. All I could say was that up to the present, eight progress reports had been submitted to the government of Canada and the government of Ontario and, more specifically, to the Co-ordinating Committee on Northern Ontario Water Resource Studies. I was able to acquire progress reports Nos. 6 and 7 through the courtesy of a member of the Ontario legislature. Looking through these, I found a statement of objectives prepared by the Co-ordinating Committee for Studies to be carried out separately by agencies of the two governments. This statement of objectives reads as follows:
With respect to waters draining into James Bay and Hudson Bay in Ontario, to assess the quantity and quality of water resources for all purposes; to determine present and future requirements for such waters; and to assess alternative possibilities for the utilization of such waters locally or elsewhere through diversions.
The latter phrase is the one that catches the eye immediately-"utilization of such waters locally or elsewhere through diversion." Responsibility for hydrologic and engineering studies required to attain these objectives has been divided between the Division of Water Resources of the Ontario Water Resources Commission and the Inland Waters Branch of the federal Department of Energy,
January 19. 1970

Mines and Resources. Economic Studies are the responsibility of the Economic Planning Branch of the Ontario Department of the Treasury and Economics and the Policy and Planning Branch of the Federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Other federal and provincial agencies are actively participating in this work.
This leads us, Mr. Speaker, to ask the question whether there really are plans in the wind to divert and export fresh water to the United States. Of course, I do not know whether there are such plans buried somewhere deep within the minister's department.
I do know, however, that in the United States there are people who are talking very clearly about the need for water to be imported into the arid zones of their country. Before the turn of the century the western United States may be using Canadian water to augment its meagre supplies. This is the opinion of Dr. Donald W. Calvin, vice-president of the Federation of Western States.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Denver water engineer Lewis Smith is also quoted as telling the July meeting of the Western States Water Council that the key to obtaining Canadian water was the understanding that the Canadian economy would benefit from any diversion program. Western gubernatorial eyes were also cast on Canadian waters during the recent meeting of the Western Governors Conference in Seattle, Washington. The Los Angeles Times quoted Wyoming Governor Stan Hathaways' apparent majority view as follows:
-many of us feel the real answer is to import water from Canada.
California Governor Ronald Reagan added the note, "We'll trade a university for some water." A question regarding diverting and exporting water to the United States was asked of the minister in the House on November 19. He replied that no such discussions are presently going on between Canada and the United States. Nevertheless, this entire question remains a pressing matter in the minds of many Canadians. I should like to read some of the views expressed at the Interprovincial Conference held in Quebec City last August. The views expressed are interesting and are worth relating to the House. I read from a report contained in the Globe and Mail of August 6, 1969. It says:
Premier John Robarts of Ontario put great stress on the need for information on water needs and resources. 'I would insist on a very, very, very
Water Resources
serious study before we sold a drop of fresh water and I don't believe that these studies have taken place.
'I am not in favour of flushing away somebody else's pollution with fresh water, Mr. Robarts said.
I believe that pollution has to be cleaned up at the source.
'But, if water were needed, the question would be where it would come from?'
The last question I believe can be answered. The water would obviously come from those areas that can supply fresh water. Manitoba Premier Ed Schreyer is reported as having said that who controls water will become a serious issue when proposals are made for the sale of water to others, especially to the United States. He added that he does not think water should be exported for industrial use; if it is to be exported it should be sold first as a developed commodity such as electricity. That is an interesting point.
One of my constituents said, perhaps in jest, "If we are going to sell water, we can do it one way only: bottle it, then sell it." Premier Schreyer advocates converting it in to electricity and then selling it. He added, however, that if there are large bodies of water in the northern parts of provinces, that cannot be used for any other purpose, it would be foolish to refuse to consider future sales of water beyond the needs of the Canadian people.
I would quote information as to how much water actually is available. There is some information about that, and I shall refer to it in a moment. I quote from a paper entitled, "The Rationale of Water Export and its Implications for Water Resources Research in the North," presented in 1968 by a professor of geography at the University of Alberta. The paper says in part:
The total water supply In Canada available for use in the future will probably not be much over
1	billion acre feet. At present we withdraw about
2	percent of this amount for use, consume 0.3 to 0.47 and temporarily damage through pollution dilution about 10 percent... By the year 2000 It is unlikely that we will withdraw more than 10 percent, or consume more than 2 percent of the available supply. With the help of our neighbours, in particular the Great Lakes region, we may pollute between 20 and 30 percent of the supply. The greater part of the supply will flow into the sea virtually unused.
One of the Premiers has suggested that any excess water flowing into the sea might be exported in some form or other to the United States. According to the Globe and Mail report, another Premier at the conference, Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan, said:
We most definitely oppose the sale outside of Canada until the needs of our province, such as in

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
the PalUser area, are met. In principle we are against the exporting of water and in particular we are against it from our part of the country.
The report also says that Premier W. A. C. Bennett of British Columbia was almost equally adamant, saying:
Under no circumstances would we sell fresh water to the United States. Where water flows naturally, we will do nothing to interfere. But water is a basic element of life- It is Our No. 1 resource.
When one talks about diversion schemes on the North American continent, Canada seems to figure prominently in the discussions. About eight large-scale, long distance water diversion schemes have been proposed on paper, but these are engineering schemes and are privately sponsored, having been promoted at water resource conferences where such schemes are discussed. One such scheme for diverting Canada's waters to the United States was discussed at a conference held at Sherbrooke, Quebec, in 1966. A very important man was present at the conference, General McNaughton, Chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission from 1950 to 1962. General McNaughton called the scheme for diverting our waters for export a monstrous proposal, saying:
The promoters would displace Canadian sovereignty over the national waters of Canada and substitute, therefore, a diabolic thesis that all waters of North America become a shared resource of which most will be drawn off for the benefit of the United States midwest and southwest regions where existing desert areas would be made to bloom at the expense of development in Canada.
These schemes for diverting our waters for export are really no more than academic exercises on paper, because apparently not all the water authorities in the United States have been convinced of the need of an international diversion of waters. One of the more thoughtful views on United States water management problems was given in 1966 by the Committee on Water, of the National Academy of Sciences. The report begins with these words:
This report is not prompted by a national shortage of water, for there is no nationwide shortage, and no imminent danger of one

This view is contrary to that expressed often in magazines and newspapers but must be accepted with some degree of confidence because of the body that expounds it. Some have suggested that the United States government is more concerned with increasing its efficiency in water use and in alleviating pollution levels. When asked whether he had any designs on Canada's water, former Secretary

of the Interior Udall made this decisive statement:
We've suddenly begun to realize in the United States that if we do the right job in pollution control, we are going to increase our water resources enormously ... we are not looking hungrily at Canada's water resources, we are looking at our own.
I think what interests those I represent and what ought to be of concern to Members of Parliament is the government's present position on this matter and what has been the position of preceding Canadian governments. If one looks through the records and summarizes statements made by responsible ministers and officials at both federal and provincial levels of government during the past several years, a number of points emerge which seem at this moment to represent Canada's policy with respect to its water resources. Six of these points are as follows:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
(1)	Canadian waters are not a continental resource; they are as Canadian as any other resource found within the national boundaries.
(2)	There is no identifiable market as yet for Canadian water in the United States.
(3)	Canada would be unwilling to negotiate any sale of water at present even if there were a market, because Canadian water supplies have not yet been adequately inventoried and Canadian water requirements into the future have not been assessed. Canada must satisfy its own requirements first.
(4)	An accelerated effort is underway in Canada to this end, but it will take at least several years to complete.
I assume the studies going on in northwestern Ontario are a part of this accelerated effort to assess our own resources.
(5)	Federal and provincial governments in Canada must both agree before international negotiations can begin.
(6)	Canadian waters will never be sold under conditions which would jeopardize their permanent ownership and their repatriation if and when needed in Canada.
If that summary of statements is the position of the present government, it is one that can be supported. It is said that the Canada Water Act, now being debated, will provide a multi-dimensional, co-operative approach for a dynamic, new attack on our water problems appropriate to today's concerns and according to today's concept of federalism. I would appreciate receiving assurance from the minister that local and regional interests will be consulted in all policies concerned with water resources, both their protection and utilization, and also that the regional water management agencies which will be established
January 19, 1970

under this act will enlist and use people who possess both knowledge and concern for the region that is involved.
If something so drastic as the diversion of rivers is actually to be carried out, we in northwestern Ontario are not concerned merely with the engineering feasibility and accomplishment of something that is as expensive and vast as this; we are also concerned with other important factors such as the ecological effects, the effect on the balance of nature. What would be the effects of major diversion and storage upon river scour and deposition patterns? Would micro and macro climatic patterns be changed? Would vegetative cover and wildlife patterns be affected, and would these effects be positive, negative or both? Would patterns of water development and land use in Canada be affected, and in what ways? Can the negative effects be reduced or modified, possibly to our advantage?
One of the disturbing things about the studies going on in northwestern Ontario is that apparently engineers are almost exclusively involved. Where are the ecologists and the social scientists? Should they not also be having an important input regarding a decision to radically alter the environment of a large and important part of this nation?
I understand that this is not the only country studying the question of diverting rivers. Apparently it is also being done by the Soviet Union. A few months ago there was in a daily newspaper a small item from Paris. It raised the interesting question of diversion of rivers. This article is entitled, "Diversion of rivers could 'brake' earth," and reads as follows:
A U.S. scientist warned Wednesday that proposals to divert large rivers in North America and Russia could slow the earth's spin or make it wobble.
Dr. Raymond L. Nace research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said proposed river diversions to supply water to thirsty southern areas could shift weight from the pole toward the equator and slow the earth's spin.
Not being a scientist, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whether that would be a bad thing or a good thing. It does illustrate, however, that many learned people realize that the diversion of rivers, a massive engineering scheme, would have drastic effects on our environment. If ever our fresh water is to be exported, we want to be assured that our future needs are given precedence, and that the region which I represent will benefit greatly from such exportation and will not be adversely affected. If this act succeeds in pre-21611-24
Water Resources
venting further pollution and restoring presently polluted waters to their original state, and if it provides for greater utilization of the great resources that we have, this government will have earned the gratitude of the people who live in the land of lakes and forests, namely, northwestern Ontario.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the minister on his excellent speech on November 20, at which time he introduced the bill now before the House. The minister is obviously thoroughly familiar with the problems of pollution and the devastating effect it is having upon our environment. The minister's way with words, his great oratorical ability, is all the more appreciated when one realizes that the bill he introduced to deal with this very serious problem is nothing more than window-dressing. The government's grandiose plan is designed to accomplish nothing.
One thing that can be said for this government-it is consistent. When it makes up its mind not to do anything, it does not do anything. I need only draw the attention of hon. members to the government's great plans to cure regional disparity, its promise of a just society and to deal with rising costs and unemployment. These are things this government promised to tackle. It promised them in the same vein as it now promises to tackle the serious problem of pollution.
A large number of people in my riding of St. John's West were seriously affected by pollution and the effects of it on their livelihood last year because of what happened in Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay. Their livelihood was affected, and indeed in many respects completely destroyed by the results of pollution. These people have first-hand knowledge of what pollution can do to them. They share my disappointment with the government's wishy-washy, meaningless approach to the entire problem. To say it falls short of the desired objective of such an act is the understatement of the year.
The people of this country were led to believe-and I speak with some authority for the people of my riding-that once enacted, this legislation would have the necessary teeth to prevent another Placentia Bay tragedy, and would in fact be capable of effectively dealing with the problems of our environment and its pollution, generally considered to be one of the major concerns of Canada, in fact North America, in this decade of the seventies. Instead of seeing presented

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
to the House legislation with teeth and able to deal with the problem effectively, we see legislation that is complicated and largely ineffective.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
For example it deals only with water and does not touch upon soil or air pollution. Even as it concerns water, it does nothing to improve the interdepartmental maze or sort out the federal jurisdictional problems as among the various departments of government. It does not make provision for the establishment of national standards for water quality, equipment or monitoring. It does, in fact, still leave it for one province or one area of the country to encourage industry, because of lower standards of pollution control in other parts of the country.
There is no indication that the federal government is going to put up any money for pollution control. There is no provision in the act for preventive measures. Areas not designated will apparently wait until their waters are polluted before receiving attention. There is no provision for equal treatment by the federal government of one water quality management area compared with another. In each case everything will be done by separate agreement. One of the other inefficiencies of this proposed legislation is the absence of criteria to justify the amount, or percentage, of federal involvement in each case; and as I mentioned before, there is no fixed cost-sharing formula. The measure provides for the setting up of water quality management agencies, dumping the problems of water management and pollution control on these agencies without giving them sufficient power to carry out their functions.
Some of the questions that should be answered by the minister during the second reading stage of this bill are the following: Will the local agencies have the facilities or knowledge to carry out what will be expected of them? Will they have the power to collect the fees they will be authorized to collect? How will they enforce collection, and are they taxes to be charged against the land? I believe these questions have a very serious bearing on this measure and must be answered before the bill is given approval by the House.
I mentioned at the outset that the minister did an excellent job of introducing the bill. He showed the House that he has a thorough knowledge of the problems of pollution, and expressed a need for immediate attention. I

am sorry to say that is where he stopped. It should be said, in all fairness, that the minister cannot be expected to perform miracles or wave a magic wand and have the problems of pollution disappear. After waiting patiently for this legislation, and having listened to ministers talk about its "all-cleansing power," the least we should expect is a measure that might provide some hope for our people.
For my part-I think I share the views of my colleagues on this side of the House-I had visions of a national department or agency being set up to co-ordinate pollution control efforts of all departments and to deal effectively with water quality as part of their over-all approach. I had visions of a bill that would deal with water quality as part of a national priority for pollution control, one which would commit the necessary funds from federal tax revenue. I hoped that the government would establish national minimum standards for water quality management, not just for special areas, and provide for pollution prevention on a national basis.
Getting back to the pollution problem experienced last year in the waters of Placentia Bay as a result of the establishment of the ERCO plant in that area, I see nothing in this bill that would have altered the course of events there had it been in effect at that time. I submit that the Fisheries Act gives the government a greater degree of authority to deal with pollution of our waters than anything embodied in this bill, that is, if the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is prepared to exercise his authority.
In the case of the pollution of Placentia and St. Mary's Bay, the minister was not prepared to act with the necessary haste because while he was pussyfooting, the waters became more polluted, the economic plight of those affected worsened, the destruction of marine life in the area continued and the cause of pollution became harder to remedy. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, not unlike his cabinet colleagues, has been heard to say on a number of occasions about the Placentia Bay episode, as well as on other occasions when the subject of pollution control has been raised, that the shortly-to-appear Canada Water Act would be the answer to the problem. Surely, the minister was not serious, nor did he expect to be taken seriously by the Canadian people when making such utterances. Surely, the minister must have been aware of the meaningless and ineffective attempt being made by the government to deal with the problem, at least as indicated by this bill.
January 19, 1970



The problems experienced by the people of my riding last summer were probably unique to all of Canada. All of us have talked about pollution and the dangers and serious effects it will have upon our environment; but the people in my riding were the victims of this terrible tragedy. A large number of them had their livelihoods affected. Indeed, in many respects their chance to earn a living from their trade and vocation completely destroyed.
A number of questions with regard to that tragedy have not been answered. I am now trying to get these answers from the government. This government had knowledge of the problem that would exist with the establishment of the phosphorus plant. It has been suggested that reports were exchanged by the federal government and the provincial government, the company itself and the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. I contend that the people of that area who suffered this injustice have a right to know all the facts concerning the pollution of their water, the cause of that pollution and whether it could have been prevented by the federal government and the provincial government. I hope the information I have requested will be forthcoming in the very near future because the people are entitled, as I am as a Member of Parliament, to it.
The House is entitled to this information. I ask the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the information which I am so anxious to obtain is made available to me. I consider it my duty as a Member of Parliament to join my colleagues on this side of the House in their efforts to have the Canada Water Act amended so that it will contain the anti-pollution measures needed to save Canadian waters. I am sure we have the support of all Canadians who, like us, are demanding an end to the continual corruption of our natural environment.
Our party has consistently demanded tough federal action to deal with pollution. The government has responded to our demands and the demands of the Canadian people with the Canada Water Act-a pitifully weak and wishy-washy bill which in my opinion betrays the hopes and expectations of all Canadians.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take a brief part in this discussion of the Canada water bill, I do so very conscious of the fact that the people in the part of Canada from which I come, the lower mainland of British Columbia, are perhaps more 21611-241
Water Resources
conscious and more concerned about the dangers of pollution in all its forms than the people in any other part of the country. In British Columbia we now have more than two million people. Over one-half these two million people live in less than one-half of one per cent of the land area of the province. I am speaking of the lower mainland area from which I come. There is a concentration of population comparable to that of many older industrial countries of Europe.
Through that area flows the Fraser River, into which over the years the waste from homes and industry has been discharged. The people of the lower mainland of British Columbia are extremely conscious, and daily reminded, of the problems and health hazards of pollution either by water or air. I should like to briefly cite three or four recent developments in this area in regard to pollution. First, a week or two ago the International Salmon Fishery Commission approved an investigation of the Fraser River to determine the level of the pollution and the extent to which the pollution there is responsible for the reduction of the fishing runs over the last several years.
Second, next year British Columbia will be celebrating the centennial of that province's entry into confederation. It has been seriously proposed to the centennial committe of British Columbia that a major project which might be undertaken would be the cleaning-up of the Fraser River starting in 1971, the year of our centennial of confederation. In the knowledge that the federal government has granted the province of Manitoba for its centennial celebration this year the sum of $6 million or $7 million, which I think is excellent, the people of British Columbia are looking for at least a similar grant for the purposes of their centennial celebration in this coastal province.
Another development of public concern with relation to pollution in British Columbia is the organization and spread of a voluntary, anti-pollution organization called the Society for Pollution and Ecology Control, in short SPEC. This group has branches in many parts of the province; the organization is growing almost each week. The concern of this organization is to find out how individuals can work to combat air, water and land pollution. I believe this organization is doing an excellent job and is setting a good example to the public authorities in British Columbia in this field.

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
I see that the minister responsible for piloting this legislation through the House is here this evening. I should like to refer him to a bulletin put out by the SPEC organization concerning what they are looking for from him. I believe they are too optimistic, but in any event this is what they say under the heading "Joe Greene is Coming to B.C.":
At the end of Jan. J. J. Greene Fed. Rec. Minister is coming to B.C. to meet with his provincial counterpart Mr. R. Williston. We are all aware of the complete lack of commitment in the area of pollution control on the part of the provincial government. We urge each and every SPEC member, their friends and associates to write Joe Greene in Ottawa immediately urging him to be tough in his dealing with Williston and Bennett. Many SPEC members say they want to do something. Here is their oportunity. WRITE: The Hon. J. J. Greene, Federal Recreation Minister, Parliament Buildings Ottawa Ontario.
1 hope the minister has noted what I said is expected of him. I doubt very much whether he will live up to the expectations of the people who put out this bulletin, but I hope he will. So far I have been speaking about the reaction to the water bill and to the subject of pollution by the people of British Columbia. However, the same feeling exists in a great many parts of our country. Pollution in all its forms is a collective problem. Private enterprise has not only failed to deal with this problem but is actually the chief culprit.
If one could express in a phrase what the people in my part of the country want from the government in respect of pollution control, I would say it is an all-out national war effort led by the national government against all forms of pollution. After looking at this bill which we are discussing, it would seem that instead of that we are getting from the government a sort of quiet diplomacy aimed at gaining a truce which would be acceptable to private enterprise or, in this case, big industry. The legislation before us is really too liberal and too late. It will add another administration in respect of water control. We have many such organizations now. The Glassco Commission some years ago pointed out that in Canada no less than 168 water control administration agencies were either federal or provincial. No doubt a few more have been added since that time.
The proposed legislation will create further legislation. At the present time I believe we have four or five federal statutes, a notable example of which is the Fisheries Act. If the government had the will to do so, it could really clamp down on water pollution across

the country with the authority it has. The proposals before us will mean the employment of more experts and the spending of more tax dollars for the purpose of examining the problem of pollution. But I am told we already have 13 or 14 government departments carrying on this work. This bill might have been good 10 or 15 years ago as a start along the right road, but today I am afraid it will further pollute or further muddy the waters in which pollution breeds.
There are several kinds of pollution in Canada, about which we have heard very eloquent speeches in recent days. There is water pollution, air pollution and land pollution. These are all evil and must be met by a collective plan led by the federal government. But there is another type of pollution which perhaps is equally injurious to the public. This is constitutional pollution. This type of pollution is with us and is growing through the years. We have the situation that in respect of many fiscal matters, either federal or provincial, the federal and provincial governments say that they cannot do this or that because of the constitution.
The constitution was made for Canadians; Canadians were not made for the constitution. I contend that if the present majority government had the will, it could control pollution under existing legislation. However, if it does not think it can, I would suggest that it has just as much a responsibility in this regard as it has for pollution by liquor in respect of drinking drivers. Action in this regard was taken recently under the amendments to the Criminal Code. I suggest that the government equally has a responsibility in respect of pollution of water.
If we can outlaw pollution by liquor, why can we not at the same level outlaw pollution by water? The federal government could rally the whole country behind it, if it would declare war on pollution of air and water. The public is sick of talk, delay conferences and workshops. The public is anxious, ready and calling for action at the national level for clean air and water. The people want a massive national attack on pollution. Having in mind what it did in respect of liquor pollution, I am sure that if this government gave the people of Canada the same kind of leadership in the area of pollution, about which so many thousands are concerned, it would do a great deal for national unity in this country.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It is at this level, the level of a common denominator among our problems, that the
January 19, 1970

federal government could really take the lead and rally the people of Canada behind it. Had it done so in this case, I am sure no province, no city, no industry could have withstood such an initiative. But the government has failed to take such a lead. It is a great pity, in the circumstances, that hon. gentlemen opposite should have missed the boat, thereby letting the country down.
The measure before it does not commit the treasury to any expenditure to help the provinces or the municipalities in their efforts against pollution. It fails to set national water standards. If passed it will simply add legislation to existing legislation. The onus is still left wi h the provinces and the municipalities. This bill is not good enough. It should be rewrit en with the 1970s in mind rather than the 1940s.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for some time for the opportunity to express the views of the Ral-liement creditiste on Bill C-144 and I have heard in the House well-researched speeches explaining the positions of the various par ies.
It seems to me that this bill is stirring up a debate such as we have seldom seen in the House. For once, all hon. members, on the government side as well as in the opposition, recognize with one voice the urgency of getting down once and for all, to the task of preserving Canada's natural resources, especially its water resources.
However, even though we rejoiced at first sight at the introduction of this bill, we do not approve of it unreservedly.
The basic principle of the water conservation policy is therefore to provide on the one hand, for a sound administration and on the other hand, for the most rational utilization of Canada's water.
The bill before us now rests upon undeniable facts, namely that we have in Canada huge water reserves but in view of the shameless waste of such wealth, the federal government is at last compelled to action.
We fervently hope that the measures the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has in mind do not come too late.
The federal government has decided to take action but, paradoxically, it does not say a word about how much money should be inves'ed to control pollution to any effective degree.
Water Resources
In my opinion, Bill C-144 is an excellent description of global policies but it fails to indicate, from the practical point of view, anything that might lead us to believe that the government is serious about this problem which, according to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should be given a priority.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we have shamefully squandered our wealth, in the past. And there is no doubt that we must do something now. But I doubt whether this is possible without money.
The minister makes no bones about saying this bill is a joint and global undertaking. Joint, because of the hope of ensuring the participation of the provinces, and global, because it aims at pooling all the conceivable initiatives, whether regional, municipal or provincial, in a huge program devised to eliminate pollution.
In consideration of what, if the provinces did not agree to support this pollution control, the federal minister would keep the right to act on his own. This is one of the privileges he secures for himself in the bill.
We are guilty of having squandered our water resources. We have invested a lot of money in industry and trade. However, we have lacked inspiration, foresight and wisdom; we are investing, on the one hand, to improve the situation while, on the other hand, we are squandering our wealth in the most shameful way.
We have completely forgotten our natural resources; our water policy was non-existent. A release published by the minister's office says that some order will be put once and for all in the bureaucratic and juridictional maze. I shall come back to this in a moment, but I suggest that we shall really have a basic problem to solve.
In the past everything was left to chance. When a provincial government was asked to help in the solution of a pollution problem, we got the following answer: This does not come under our jurisdiction. This belongs to the federal government. However, when the federal government was asked to solve the same problem, the answer was that it did not come under federal jurisdiction.
I have here the letters of a provincial minister and of a federal one which expose the problem created by pollution. The bureaucratic and jurisdictional maze with regard to water pollution is such a huge problem that Bill C-144, in my humble opinion, will not solve it.

January 19, 1970
Water Resources
During the month of November 1969, I had the opportunity to consult with the Quebec Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with the Quebec Minister of Game and Fisheries, as well as with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis).
It was about the problem of water pollution in the St. Lawrence river. Indeed, a fisherman of the Lotbiniere riding used to catch two eels a day on average after having invested $5,000 in fishing equipment. This situation is common in my riding.
When this problem is referred to various governments, because it has water pollution as a direct cause, they claim, in view of the bureaucratic and jurisdictional intricacies, that it is not their responsibility.
I would say that Bill C-144-and that may be its greatest failure-will not bring a solution to this problem. In order to call the attention of the minister to this matter, I will read a letter of the Quebec Associated Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr. Maurice Lessard, dated November 10, and I quote:
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The Department of Tourism, Game and Fisheries has referred to us your letter of October 20 concerning the fishermen of your constituency plagued with water pollution.
Water pollution is a major problem with which all governments are concerned; these last years, pieces of legislation have been introduced at all levels to control that plague and counteract its ill effects. However, some time will have to elapse before we can see their beneficial effects.
This means that the inconvenience about which the fishermen of the Lotbiniere constituency complain are similar to that suffered by a very great number of fishermen in the province of Quebec. We deplore such a situation, but no legislation at the present time provides for assistance to offset the Vj<yatvfmience that you outline.
I was then inquiring about the provincial government policy on water pollution and as can be seen, I did not get any reply.
I had also written to the Quebec minister of Tourism, game and Fisheries but I will not put the reply on record. However, I should like to call the members' attention to the other side of the picture, that is, what the federal government thinks about the problem. I have in my hand a letter from the minister of Fisheries and Forestry, dated August 14, 1969, and I quote:
Sir:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 14th expressing your concern about the fishermen and the fish likely to be affected by the pollution of the St. Lawrence, from Montreal to Quebec.
Unfortunately I must remind you that under an agreement, fisheries management in Quebec comes under the juridiction of the province, more speci-

fically under the Department of Tourism, Fish and Game.
In the event that such steps as you suggest should be taken, they will no doubt be prepared by that department.
Yours sincerely.
Jack Davis
According to the two ministers, this seems to close the matter. What do we see? The problem is still there and dead fish litters all the shores of the St-Lawrence. Moreover, swimming is prohibited. The water stinks. Our great river, one of Canada's matchless resources, has become a national disgrace.
Neither the provincial nor the federal government tries to find a global and joint solution, as the minister put it, to solve the problem. They pass the buck and say: This does not come under our jurisdiction, this is the responsibility of such and such government.
The minister claims that Bill C-144 will solve the problem.
I have here a communique issued by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which is entitled: A new Water Act designed to unravel the bureaucratic and jurisdictional maze.
What a problem! The department acknowledges itself the problem to such an extent that it set it forth in a press release.
It reads in part as follows:
Hon. Otto E. Lang, the minister responsible for energy and water resources, has stated that the proposed 'Canada Water Act just announced by the government is aimed at unravelling the bureaucratic and juridictional maze which so far has stifled all initiatives concerning control over pollution and conservation.
What high-sounding words to say nothing!
The people of Canada are increasingly worried by the failure to undertake a long term project and by the lack of co-operation at all levels of government.
The release continues, and I quote:
The federal government must take the initiative, in a concerted action-*
I dare anyone to find in Bill C-144 the excerpt which elaborates what the minister means by "take the initiative", and "a concerted action".
Under cover of a new piece of legislation, and with the help of the huge publicity machine, Canadians will be made to believe that the pollution problem is settled at last.
Also, we shall be made to believe that the provincial governments are in this fight till the end and that, right now, there is no longer any co-operation problem. Now, you will note that in the preamble-and this is
January 19, 1970	COMMONS
one of the problems I have raised recently- the minister takes the initiative and goes it alone in the fight against pollution.
What guarantees have we that before using this privilege he has granted himself, the minister has accepted to co-operate with the provinces so that it will be a total fight?
In the past, in this field as in so many others, the ministers, under cover of an act, have resorted to all kinds of reasons to avoid taking action.
Some may doubt my words, but if we consider how pollution control will be financed, we are flabbergasted and necessarily disappointed, since we cannot foresee any financing means.
In conclusion, may I say that the bill is in itself excellent, considering the government's slowness in taking action to control pollution in order to protect our very rich water resources.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express reservations with regard to federal-provincial, interprovincial and intergovernmental relations in this field.
, Finally, I suggest that the financing provisions of the anti-pollution program will merely contribute to an increase of Canada's indebtedness, since to finance these measures the governments through their various agencies, depatrments and corporations will have to borrow at exorbitant interest rates and thus put Canadians into greater debt.
The fight would be a truly serious project if the government adopted effective means of financing, in other words if it used the Bank of Canada, since this concerns the development of a natural resource which does not belong to the minister nor to any particular Canadian but to all Canadians. Considering that this resource is here and now public property, it seems to me that the financial instrument which belongs to all Canadians, the Bank of Canada, should be responsible for the financing of such programs. Then we could say the minister is really serious and that he is not misleading the population.
To conclude, I wish to say again to the minister how grateful I am for this bill, and I would like him, in turn, to acknowledge that the financing of sewage disposal programs by the Bank of Canada, at interest rates not exceeding management rates, would be most useful. We could thus finance sewage disposal plants and municipal projects in that field.
At the present time, this is a major factor of debts for the municipalities, and if the
DEBATES	2571
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion minister agreed to use this method, as proposed by the Creditistes, we would have a genuine solution to the problem of pollution, and we would not get Canadians deeper into debt.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker on Thursday, November 27 last, I directed a question to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing, with regard to housing allowances. This question was prompted by a submission by Mr. H. W. Hignett, president of CMHC, when he and his officials presented a brief to the Senate Committee on Poverty. In that brief it was suggested that a guaranteed annual income and system of housing allowances would help as part of a drive to provide decent housing for every Canadian.
In a report in the Globe and Mail of November 26, Mr. Hignett was quoted as saying that these steps were necessary, and they would have to be coupled with an expansion of the supply of housing for all income groups in both the public and private sectors. He also warned that exclusive reliance on private production and distribution methods to provide an adequate stock of houses would harden the dangerous trend to physical segregation of income groups in the country's big cities.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
He also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that if the trend were to continue that housing was determined by the income of the individual, we would have the segregation of homes based on the income of the occupants. He noted that cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver were prime examples of the segregation trend that was taking place.
With regard to housing allowances, Mr. Hignett said the system put forward by CMHC would mean an income supplement to families and individuals to acquire housing of
January 19, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion their own choice in the private market. Housing would have to meet a required standard and there would be limits on household income and rent. Mr. Hignett said that the advantages of the scheme are that it gives people a greater choice as to where they live and how they live than public housing, allowing for increased diversity and mixing of neighbourhood populations. He said:
It allows greater flexibility in helping those whose problem is not necessarily inadequate or poor quality housing, but rather the proportion of their income spent on rent which prevents them from properly providing for other necessities.
Finally it does not identify those in receipt of subsidy in the way that occupancy of public housing does at present.
He and his officials pointed out that this system has worked with some success in countries like England, the United States and Sweden. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the president indicated that CMHC predicted a rent reduction in public housing, that the six-year old scale with regard to rent geared to income was being reviewed and that in the near future changes would be made, with a corresponding increase in subsidies paid by the federal and provincial governments to meet operating losses in public housing projects.
Mr. Speaker, I recall that when the estimates came before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the former minister in charge of housing indicated that we would have some form of housing allowances in the near future. That was a year ago, and to date we have not had any. I welcome the statement by the president with regard to how CMHC feels in this important area.
Michael Wheeler, the former executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council, set forth in an article in "Canadian Welfare" for September-October, 1968, the pros and cons of a national housing allowance. On page 3 of this article he said:
The allowances could be used to advantage in conjunction with non-profit and co-operative sponsored housing and also with existing public housing; rents for these dwellings would be set at a level sufficient to cover debt charges and management costs without subsidy and the tenants would then be entitled to a housing allowance designed to ensure that their gross incomes were sufficient to pay an approved rent after deducting the cost of a defined level of consumption varying with size of family.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we would take into account the available income of a person and then try to determine the average basic

expenditure with regard to the necessities of a household and the number of people in it, not taking into account items like housing, and from that a housing loss would be determined.
In the Nevitt scheme which is available in England, for example, if the monthly joint income of the husband and wife is $360 and the monthly basic expenditure for a family with two children is $285, the amount available for housing is $75. If the actual gross then were $100, the housing allowance would be $25.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the many ways in which we could increase our supply of housing and lessen the burden with regard to heavy rents. I hope the minister will not refer to the housing loss as applying exclusively to private accommodation, but will apply it also to public accommodation. I look forward to his answer and I thank him for attending here this evening.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I return the compliment and thank the hon. member for his remarks which are, as usual, quite valuable. The president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was speaking before the committee in the other place and had reference to many options which we are examining in the search for better forms of housing for low income citizens. I have examined the transcript of his comments, and to set the record straight I think it should be recognized that it was a statement of options to be considered rather than a statement of commitment to any one at this stage.
It is an interesting concept, and the more sophisticated approach of giving people a free choice through income to seek their own type of accommodation intrigues me. However, I should be less than responsible if I said that that sort of thing will be brought in in the foreseeable future. I doubt very much whether it will be.
Touching on some of the other points raised by the hon. member, we are looking at revisions to the rent-to-income scale. We shall be talking to provincial governments very shortly about changes pertaining to the rent-to-income scale, and these will do many of the things the hon. member mentioned in his comments. We have offered the provinces a formula relating to housing allowances. As a matter of fact, we are negotiating with the Minister of Trade and Development of Ontario to see if he wishes to go ahead with the acquisition of existing housing units
January 19, 1970

which are now vacant in the city of Toronto. The houses would be taken on a prime lease of between three and five years and we would, of course, offer the federal subsidy as if these were newly-produced, public housing units. This would disperse the units throughout the community and would alleviate the shortage to some degree.
I am anxious to look into the public housing interim policy as soon as possible. I mentioned in a comment in December that this matter had taken longer than I had expected, mainly because of the very definite need to consult with the provincial governments. We have all their recommendations, the last one coming in just prior to the Christmas holidays, and I am hopeful that we can put before the provinces a composite recommendation. We shall keep the hon. member's comments in mind in any changes we hope to introduce at least in the 1970 program.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NIGERIA-CANADIAN ACTION FOLLOWING CEASE-FIRE

Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, on January 14th last, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) if he would address a protest to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. U Thant, following his statement that the UN would not tolerate or recognize a secession in Nigeria. Furthermore, I asked on what authority he took it upon himself to make such a statement and whether he had jurisdiction to declare that present boundary lines were immutable.
Moreover, immediately after U Thant's statement, the Russians found a valid excuse to ship to Nigeria powerful guns which crushed Biafran resistance. In my opinion, when the Secretary General of the United Nations makes a pronouncement without being authorized to do so he shows irresponsibility. The African countries inherited boundaries established by former colonial powers and a number of governments object to them.
Moreover, I know that the Secretary General of the United Nations was well aware that the rebellion of Biafra was the result of a series of assassinations and the Secretary of State for External Affairs also knew that England having some economic interests to protect had only to undertake some military operations on July 6, 1967, which were only supposed to be a march designed to prevent the Shell Company from paying to the Bia-frans 90 per cent of its production.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Secretary General of the United Nations answers that Russia was also an arm supplier. It is true that Russia supplied some arms. After the events of Prague and Budapest, we have nothing to expect from that country. Since we are making a stand against the communist ideology, we should not, in my opinion, consider as normal the strange alliance between Russia, Great Britain and the United States.
When the Cameroons wanted to recognize Biafra, the American delegate, Mr. Joseph Palmer, was sent to that country to say that American aid would be cut off if the Cameroons took such a step. This only appearance of Mr. Palmer on the scene of the Nigeria-Biafra conflict was a turning point. Besides, through its secretary John Foster Dulles, that country often declares: "The United States have no friends, only interests."
In this conflict, even Pope Paul VI expressed the fear of retaliation. He is against the massacre of unarmed people. It seems to me that if the United Nations did not intervene to promote a peaceful settlement of the war, they had no right to condemn the secession of Biafra. I ask myself the following: On what authority do the United Nations or U Thant act this way? The world is so full of areas of friction and conflict that such a clear-cut attitude appears provocative.
I conclude therefore that the United Nations Secretary General is at the mercy of English and American trusts, and his attitude will lessen what little regard countries may have had for his authority. Through such gestures, the UN wants to act as a world government which would have the right of life and death over all nations, and soon it will be said that the control exercised by the UN and its Secretary General represents an economic dictatorship and that without their permission nobody will be able to live.
Mr. Speaker, if the Rockefeller Foundation, Standard Oil, Esso and the Manhattan Bank supply more assistance to Lagos University than to seven of the poorest states of the American Midwest, because there is no oil in Kansas, we have a clear proof that U Thant is the puppet of those financial tycoons who do not hesitate to destroy a nation in order to protect their interests. To let 4 million people die to keep, in collusion with the United Nations, the control of the oil reserves of a country, constitutes in my opinion a criminal act.
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians are misinformed by the C.B.C., when the parliamentary secretary to the minister falls back on
January 19. 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the statement of the Secretary General of the United Nations, when he schemes to prevent the opposition from telling the truth, he is as responsible as U Thant who, up to now, has not shown the slightest indication that he was ready to ensure the shipment of relief as quickly as possible, in the hope of saving human lives.
It seems that the Charter of human rights states clearly that each man is entitled to life, freedom and security, that all human beings are born free and enjoy equal dignity and equal rights, that any individual is entitled to freedom of religion, speech, meeting and association, and that nobody can be held in slavery or bondage. It is added that any person has some effective recourse before the courts concerned, against acts that infringe upon the fundamental rights recognized as his under the constitution or the law.
Taking the rights of the individual into account, the Canadian government should strongly protest before the UN which has gone beyond its rights, to make sure that such errors will not happen again. Otherwise, the Secretary General of the United Nations should yield his post to a man imbued with social justice, for nowadays, many people speak of freedom, but very few concern themselves about it.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, accusation by association is an old tactic of Communist parties, and I am surprised to see that the hon. member seems to be using it with regard to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
In any event, I believe the hon. member intended to allude to the reply given by the Secretary General to a question put to him during a press conference at the time of his trip in Africa.
It certainly does not behoove me to interpret what the Secretary General has said, and all the less so because I have not had the opportunity of reading the text in extenso. In any event, I should like to refer the hon. member to paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations during its 15th session, on December 14, 1960, and I quote:
Any attempt towards the partial or total destruction of the national unity or territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations charter.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Tuesday. January 20, 1970