1970-03-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have on behalf of the government of Canada signed a protocol, extending for a further three years until April 17, 1972, the trade agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mr. M. R. Kuzmin, First Deputy Minister of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Trade, signed on behalf of the USSR.
This represents the fourth extension of a trade agreement originally negotiated in 1956 which has provided a framework for the development of trade between the two countries on a most favoured nation basis. The renewal of this important agreement is further evidence of the desire of both Canada and the USSR to maintain and strengthen the commercial relations which have been built up between the two countries.
In 1956 when the trade agreement was first negotiated the levels of our mutual trade were very low. In the 14 years which have followed, Canadian exports have amounted to $1.3 billion. In the same period the Soviet Union has been a major customer for Canadian wheat, purchasing in total more than 760 million bushels.
The Soviet Union has also been taking a range of other Canadian materials and manufactured goods amounting to $5.5 million in 1968. Soviet exports to Canada have increased from $1 million in 1956 to $21.6 million in 1968, the last complete year for which official statistics are available.

Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations, which preceded the signing of the protocol, the Canadian and Soviet delegations reviewed the history of our trade in Canadian wheat. This
trade has been mutually advantageous both in terms of Canadian capability to supply and recurring import needs in the Soviet Union. As regards the future, the leader of the Soviet delegation has provided the assurance that when the U.S.S.R. has requirements for the purchase of wheat, the Soviet buying agency shall, in the first instance, apply to the Canadian Wheat Board.
This ensures that the Soviet Union will turn to Canada as a preferred source of supply of wheat when demand arises. We therefore anticipate that the U.S.S.R. in the years ahead will continue to be a significant market for the sale of wheat. As hon. members are aware, the Canadian Wheat Board concluded a contract with Exportkhleb last December extending the 1966 master contract, which will provide for continuing substantial shipments throughout 1970.
e (2:10 p.m.)
In addition to these important discussions on wheat, the two delegations reviewed other elements of the trade between the two countries and agreed on the need to expand and diversify trade in both directions. As a result of the discussions the two sides look to growing opportunities to sell an increasing range of products, materials and manufactured goods in each other's markets. The protocol which I have signed indicates that the two governments will facilitate the exchange of goods between them within the scope of the laws and regulations in force in their respective countries.
I am confident that this extension of the agreement will provide the framework for an increasingly valuable trading relationship between Canada and the U.S.S.R. which will be of benefit to all segments of the Canadian economy and to the generality of our relations with the U.S.S.R.
Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to lay on the table copies of the protocol, in both official languages.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is pleasing that the trade agreement between Canada and the United States which goes back, basically, to 1956-
4302	COMMONS
Trade Agreement With U.S.S.R.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: The agreement is between Canada and the U.S.S.R.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is the Secretary of State for External Affairs who confuses me. Sometimes he says that our relations with the United States and the U.S.S.R. show little difference. It is pleasing for us to hear that the trade agreement with the U.S.S.R. has been renewed. It is also pleasing for us to notice that trade between the two countries has been growing. We all hope this will continue to be the case.
The minister referred specifically to the sale of wheat and the assurance of the government of the U.S.S.R. that Canada will be a preferred seller in the sense that Canada will be the first country to which Russia will turn.
I hope, however, that those charged in Canada wi.h responsibility for selling our wheat will not be content to sit back and wait for the authorities of the U.S.S.R. to come to Canada and order wheat. Instead, I hope that we in Canada will be on our toes and will be aggressive in selling wheat in that country and aggressive in ensuring to the best of our ability that the U.S.S.R. market for wheat continues to be very receptive.
I wish to raise one further point today. The minister stated that both countries have undertaken to facilitate trade with each other. This raises the question, perhaps indirectly, of whether Canadian subsidiaries of companies that are controlled from outside Canada will now be free to do business with the U.S.S.R. or whether there is to be an effort in some cases to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and control over the directions in which Canadian subsidiaries can trade. The undertaking that trade between Canada and the U.S.S.R. is to be facilitated raises the question of whether efforts to regulate the behaviour of Canadian subsidiaries are to continue.
This is a problem we share with a number of other western countries in which there are active subsidiaries of international corporations. We are reminded again how important it is to overcome this difficulty which will probably be overcome in association with those other western countries that face the same problem.
I am pleased that the agreement is being renewed, that trade is expanding and that we are being given some assurances with regard to wheat. Nevertheless I hope that we will not be complacent with regard to either wheat or trade generally and that we will do all we can to ensure that trade between the two

DEBATES	March 3. 1970
countries is facilitated, including the ability and freedom of all companies operating in Canada to engage in trade under this agreement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on having signed the protocol extending the trade agreement between Canada and the government of the U.S.S.R. for another three years. As the minister pointed out, this agreement has been of benefit to Canada, particularly with reference to the sale of wheat in that it has enabled us in the past 14 years to sell some 760 million bushels of wheat to the Soviet Union. I am sure the House is pleased that the Soviet delegation have agreed that Canada should have the first opportunity to meet any of the wheat requirements which the Soviet Union may have during the three-year period covered by this extension.
It seems to me that we need to approach the expansion of trade with the Soviet Union much more aggressively. There is no doubt in my mind that the economics of selling wheat to the Soviet Union, particularly for its needs in Siberia, are very real. I believe that Soviet Union economists recognize it is much cheaper to buy Canadian wheat shipped through the port of Vancouver for their needs in Siberia than to move wheat all the way across the Soviet Union which they could sell in their eastern European markets.
I understand that the main obstacle has been the imbalance of trade between the two countries. Our purchases of goods from the Soviet Union have been relatively smaller than their purchases from Canada. I hope the minister and his department are exploring every possible avenue to determine how we can balance trade in the hope that the Soviet Union, and other countries with whom we are trading, will be able to buy more Canadian products.
There are two fields that need to be explored. One is farm machinery. The recent report of the Barber Commission indicates that some competition is certainly needed in farm machinery. There will have to be some testing to determine whether Soviet farm machinery is adaptable to our needs and whether the necessary servicing can be provided. I hope the department will look into this.
The other is the supplying of power generating equipment, which the Soviet Union has done fairly effectively. We are quite a large
March 3, 1970

purchaser in this field. We are anxious to help the Soviet Union or any other country sell sufficient goods in Canada so that they can become greater purchasers of Canadian products. The Soviet Union appears to be a country with which we can increase our exports considerably provided they can obtain the necessary Canadian dollars to purchase Canadian goods. I hope the minister is going to expand his efforts even further in trying to increase the trade between our two countries.
* (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank sincerely the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who has been kind enough to send us a copy of his statement in both official languages.
Like those who preceded me, I am very happy to see that Canada has come to a rather important agreement with Russia.
I am also delighted at the quite considerable trade we have had with Russia since 1956, further to the agreements signed in 1956.
The minister mentioned that wheat accounted for an important part of our trade with Russia this last decade, and that we also exported machinery, including equipment used in asbestos mining. In my opinion, this was made possible through the 1956 agreements.
In company with my colleagues, I am pleased with the renewal of these agreements, taking into account the financial gains Canada derives from them, and I hope that our commercial links with Russia will help alleviate world tension and dissipate the cold war. I believe that these agreements serve both Canada and Russia.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in relation to the proposed voyage of the Manhattan, to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated yesterday, I believe, that Canada has acquiesced. I assume the Minister of 21701-62
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport has not yet drafted regulations governing this or similar voyages, but is the minister in a position to assure the House that in the event a disaster should occur his department and his officials or, indeed, any technology which may be available, would be able to prevent the resulting pollution from doing irreparable damage in that area of the north? Is the minister satisfied that the technology today is such that he can give such an assurance?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: That is a rather involved question, Mr. Speaker, and some of it, I suggest, is hypothetical. I will try to answer as briefly as I can. As far as we are concerned, the icebreaker assistance and escort for the Manhattan will not be provided unless there is agreement to comply with regulations which will be conveyed to the Humble Oil Company. In addition, I am sure it will be possible for us to carry out an inspection of the craft to make sure these regulations are, in fact, met.
So far as pollution is concerned, I am informed that the Humble Oil Company is a participant in the international voluntary fund and that this fund would therefore apply in terms of cost in the event of a possible clean-up.
On the final question, whether or not satisfactory technology exists, I think it has to be said that it does not exist in total form, as we have discovered. The main effort must be to make sure these spills do not occur. With the skilled people we have in our coastguard service and the experience they gained during the last trip of the Manhattan there is at least a reasonable expectation, one which I think is warranted, that they will be able to carry out this voyage successfully.
May I say finally that the voyage is not one through the Northwest Passage; it is confined to the eastern part of the passage and will not be as extensive as the original voyage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the first question was not hypothetical because the ability to deal with pollution is surely relevant to the policy decision. I should like to ask the minister whether he knows how much oil the Manhattan will be carrying and does he know how much oil the vessel was carrying the last time she was in these waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not have the precise gallonage. It is a considerable quantity, probably in the neighbourhood of three million
March 3, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry gallons plus, but I am not certain of the exact figure. It is not only for her own purposes but for the refuelling of the icebreaker during the trip. One of the regulations, however, that we will insist on is that the oil be carried in the most protected bunkers of the ship and as far removed as possible from potential damage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would agree, as a result of his experience in connection with the recent tragedy off Nova Scotia, that he will be completely unable to cope with any pollution in the north if in fact it does take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister presented Humble Oil Company with the conditions to which he just referred in his answer, and which he more specifically referred to in an answer of his reported on page 4021 of Hansard, to the effect that the qualifications that would apply would in fact be the same as if the legislation had been implemented?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the detailed regulations have not as of this moment been submitted to the Humble Oil Company because they are presently being drafted. The general basis of the agreement has been conveyed to the Humble Oil Company. The general regulations should be completed by the end of this week, and will then be submitted to them.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would agree that reassurance would be given if he were to arrange to table the documentation, the regulations and other details of his correspondence with the Humble Oil Company relative to this trip?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no objection to that proposal and I will be glad to consider it and make the regulations and other relevant documents known, if that is within my purview.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the questions concerning the subject of oil pollution and the voyage of

the Manhattan. It is directed to the Government House Leader. Is the Government House Leader now prepared to set up a committee of the House to deal with the subject of pollution as called for in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich which was unanimously accepted by the House?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would inform himself he would find out that the House has already set up the committee. I do not believe we have had the nominations from the other parties in this regard.



SOUTH COAST OF NEWFOUNDLAND-CHEDA-BUCTO BAY-REPORT ON PRESENT SITUATION

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or perhaps a related question. Has the minister had a preliminary report from his task force which is presently investigating the pollution off Nova Scotia and also the pollution that resulted from the oil slick off the south coast of N ewf oundland?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a preliminary report. The operation is going as well as can be expected in the very difficult weather conditions. I think the result of the task force's efforts has been to conduct a number of meetings with the fishermen and others, and also with various engineering people, and they appear to be making what I would be prepared to call reasonable progress.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to my friend the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister can say if in co-operation with the Minister of Fisheries any initiatives are being taken to minimize the effect of oil pollution on bird life on the east coast of Canada? If not, would he give consideration to this subject and try to minimize the effect and rehabilitate the birds already affected?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the projects group under Dr. McTaggart-Cowan has this as one of its projects. They have seconded to them officials of the wildlife division of the Department of Fisheries. They are doing their
March 3, 1970

very best to minimize these effects presently and also in the future. It appears that in respect of the birds which have been affected now there is not too much that can be done for them.


John Howard Lundrigan: Would the minister consider investigating the moves taken on the west coast of the United States where a similar situation existed and where teams were put into the field which did rehabilitate some birds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now making a suggestion which he should assume will be taken into account.

,[Translation]


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Does he intend to serve an injunction on Imperial Oil to pay compensation to those who have suffered damages?


Mr. Speaker:: That question has already been put.



POSSIBLE U.S. LIMITATION OF OIL IMPORTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received any intimation from the government of the United States that the committee set up a week or two ago by President Nixon is recommending that a curtailment of western Canadian oil shipments to the United States be imposed until such time as Canada is prepared to agree to an energy package deal?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have received no official notification, and certainly there is no indication in our conversations, of a cutback on the basis referred to by the hon. member. We have had discussions in regard to the short-term flow of oil into districts one to four. The very large quantities in January and February have made it very difficult for the United States to handle its own oil policy.
We have not to date been able to agree upon a figure which can be included within the program of voluntary controls, but certainly there has been no indication at any time in our discussions that any short-term determination by the United States was con-21701-62J
Inquiries of the Ministry tingent upon some longer term deal. The two questions are completely independent one from the other, as I understand it.



POLICY RESPECTING WATER EXPORT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of discussions taking place with reference to an energy package, may I ask the minister whether it is now the government's considered policy that Canada has more pure water than it can use and would be prepared to sell its surplus water for good hard cash?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is inviting the minister to state a question of policy or to make a statement of policy. I suggest that perhaps this ought to be done more normally on motions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase my question. I asked this question hoping to receive a simple yes or no answer on whether this is the policy which the government has adopted. May I ask the minister, in view of the great concern in Canada about a package deal for energy, what items may be included? Is the minister prepared fairly soon to make a statement on motions and, particularly, will he make a statement in respect of the Prime Minister's comment that we have a surplus of water that should be sold for good hard cash?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as of March of last year, if my memory serves me correctly, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister discussed the opening of markets for Canadian energy products in the United States. In respect of petroleum, natural gas, uranium and electricity we have very clear knowledge of the available supplies for Canadian use. There is a very comprehensive survey published


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I respectfully suggest that we are now entering upon a debate. My understanding of the question is that the hon. member asked whether a statement would be made. Perhaps the minister would indicate what his reply is to that question.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to state that the hon. member has misquoted me.
March 3, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister has risen on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I rose on a question regarding the Prime Minister's statement the other day as reported in the Toronto Star of February 25. The Prime Minister has not, up until now, denied that statement and the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter was raised earlier by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, as he has just mentioned, and I suggested at the time that this was a matter of debate. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the question which he had started to answer.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the long-term energy discussions with the United States on the substances I have referred to, we have a very complete review of the availability of supply from the years 1960 to 1990, as published in the Energy Board report last December. In respect of water, as both the Prime Minister and I have clearly stated we do not have that kind of assessment of the availability of resources needed by Canada, and until we do there can be none for sale. Both the Prime Minister and I have stated that very clearly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement that we do not have a surplus of water may I ask the Prime Minister whether he was correctly or incorrectly reported when he said, according to his statement to Carleton University students-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement on a question of privilege, is it the government's intention to set up a commission similar to the Borden Commission, which assessed our resources in respect of natural gas and crude petroleum, to determine the needs of Canada, both domestic and industrial, as far as water is concerned for the foreseeable future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question is being studied intensively now by the department concerned. There is no

commission to this effect. This is something we are obviously trying to assess.
On the matter of my statement it might enlighten the House to know that I was not referring to future potential the other day. I said there are hundreds of-I see you looking impatiently, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure I was not. Is the right hon. member for Prince Albert rising on a supplementary?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask him whether his department agrees with the policy of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as stated in Bill C-187, that a board be set up to study diversion of Yukon and other northern waters to the United States?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, this government always speaks with one voice.


Mr. Baldwin:: But with a forked tongue.


An hon. Member:: And with two heads.


Mr. Nesbitt:: One voice and two tongues.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he would be good enough to complete the statement he had started?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I did say was that there was a figure of 100 million gallons and more of water pouring into the sea every day. Obviously this is fresh water that we have no way of selling today. Before we contract in the future for the selling of any kind of water, if we decide to do so, we would obviously have to know what our inventory is, and our future needs and, if there is surplus water, how much would be surplus. The quotation which is ascribed to me concerns not our policy but a statement of fact and I would be surprised if the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands were to deny it.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would be prepared to make a statement on motions elaborating on the nature of
March 3, 1970

the study presently being undertaken in respect of future use of Canadian water, and also indicate what opportunity there will be for representations by interested parties in the provinces who obviously have a very large stake in the resolution of this question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot promise to make a statement in the immediate future because I have no way of assessing how soon we will be in a position to do so.



FINANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Does the cabinet intend to study a suggestion by the new Quebec Liberal leader, Mr. Robert Bourassa, to the effect that the federal government should pay back to each Quebec resident his share of the $200 million which the government of Quebec is requesting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is certain-and the statistics have often proved it-that the federal government pays in fact to the citizens of the province of Quebec for various programs huge amounts which substantially exceed the $200 million. If this is what the provincial leader of the opposition wishes, I will say that we have already answered his request.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister in connection with the announcement he made last evening in relation to Denison Mines Limited, Canada's largest uranium producer. Will he tell the House when he or any member of the government first became aware of the fact that negotiations were going on between certain shareholders of Denison and United States interests, and what communications the government had with the corporation? I will have a supplementary after I get this information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, ohl
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware there has been no official notification of such a transaction going on. I expect that members of the government knew about such happenings in a hypothetical way from what they may have read in the newspapers over the weekend. I do not want to say any more because I want to leave room for the supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that if we asked a supplementary question every time we did not get any information from the Prime Minister we would be at it all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That being so, when did the Prime Minister become aware of the situation that was developing so as to cause him to make so unusual an announcement at such an unusual hour? Did he just find out yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat that I had no official notification. I was told, I believe some time over the weekend, by people who do read the newspapers that this transaction was in the process of taking place. I was given to believe it would take place perhaps on Tuesday, today. That is why immediately after the weekend I had a group of ministers look at this subject and we made the decision I announced after the market closed last night.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did the Prime Minister not communicate with the company to find out the situation in view of the control the government of Canada has over the export of uranium? Without the government's consent there can be no export. Why was the company not communicated with? Can he say this? Is what is happening another example of being the fruit of the White Paper tree?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his statement last night with regard to Denison Mines Limited, a statement which I may inform him my colleagues and I support. Is the Prime Minister considering proposing amendments to the Atomic Energy Control Act immediately so as to prevent the possibility of foreign takeovers of all or part of uranium companies in Canada before the takeover threat appears?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was addressing myself yesterday to a particular
4308	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry transaction. I indicated that if necessary we would consider such amendments. It may be that such amendments are not necessary. It may be that other ways will be arrived at to achieve the same result, that is to say, to ensure that a substantial proportion of our uranium reserves remain under Canadian control. I might add that I intend meeting tomorrow with ministers and one of the principals involved to discuss this matter further.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, when he meets with his senior ministers, he is ready to consider such amendments to the Atomic Energy Control Act so that, instead of having to react in an emergency to a possible takeover of a particular company as he did last night, there will be legislation to prevent that happening in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before considering the introduction of general legislation this government would like to be able to state its general policy applying to the whole problem as it affects the Canadian economy. This is something we would rather do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the veto by the government with regard to the transfer of shares would also extend to the movement of the head office outside the country? I ask this question in view of a report that such a transfer of the head office is actually being considered by the two companies concerned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know this is a hypothetical situation. I have had no information from the president of the company to the effect that he wished to make such a move. But it is obvious that even under the Atomic Energy Control Act the Canadian government has a very large degree of control over uranium and uranium works. I do not know, once again, if such a hypothetical move is being considered, but obviously there would be various other ways to ensure Canadian control over uranium and uranium processes in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Surely the Prime Minister of Canada does not suggest he would make an announcement such as he made last night on a hypothetical basis. That surely is not in keeping with his responsibility.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know about it being in keeping with my responsibility, but the
[Mr. Trudeau.3
DEBATES	March 3, 1970
Canadian government was not officially notified by the company of any such happening.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not get in
touch with the company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hull.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me we have had quite a few supplementaries on this subject. I suggest that perhaps we should give an opportunity to other hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there are two pending supplementaries, one by the hon. member for York South and one by the hon. member for St. John's East. We will start with the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minister and arises out of one of his answers a few minutes ago. If I heard him correctly he stated that any future amendment of the Atomic Energy Control Act should wait until there was a general statement by the government concerning its policy with regard to foreign ownership. If I understood him correctly, may I ask the Prime Minister when we may expect such a statement with regard to government policy concerning foreign ownership of Canada's economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question I want to be clear. I was not indicating that the amendment we would have to contemplate under the circumstances to which I referred last night would be necessarily a particular amendment referring to a particular company. Therefore in that sense any amendment might be general anyhow. But if the hon. member is referring to a much larger overhaul of this and other acts in order to ensure that in all hypothetical cases there would be a preservation of Canadian ownership, it is in this reference that I am talking about a general statement.
With regard to the second part of the question concerning when the statement will be made, I do not know. The matter is being considered now by a minister and he will submit recommendations to cabinet within a month; but I cannot guarantee to the House at what time the policy will in fact be adopted by the cabinet.
March 3, 1970



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a double question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that two Quebec provincial ministers have officially forecast Quebec's separation for 1974, does the Prime Minister intend, first, to withhold the erection of federal buildings in Hull, set for April, and, secondly, to take right now the necessary action to amend section 16 of the Constitution, so that the generous Hull area might become an integral part of the Canadian national capital?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestions brought forward by the hon. member. I would agree they could be helpful only if the blackmail being tried on us should prove effective, but this government has one characteristic: it does not give in to blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In welcoming him back to the House from the fair city of Victoria I would like to ask him whether he can make an announcement about the result of the discussions 1 understand he had with the members of the cabinet of the province of British Columbia with respect to the establishment of a national park?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with the Minister of Tourism and we have agreed to sign the final agreement at the beginning of April, when I shall next visit British Columbia.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether, as a result of the agreement reached with the provincial minister in Victoria, the status of Indian reserve lands in this area has in any way been affected?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker. The lands that are within this territory are still reserved for the Indians. We have made representations to the various bands in the area to try to find a solution. We could offer them compensation or more suitable lands, or else ask them for suggestions.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would like the know from the minister whether, as a result of his discussions with his provincial counterpart in Victoria, stage three, the west coast Trail, will be included in the Long Beach national park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I told British Columbia's Minister of Tourism that if he did not make available to the federal government the third part of the park, that is the trail along the shore of the ocean, there would simply be no park.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether the government intends to adopt special measures to prevent the freight rate increase coming into force today and the rise to be implemented on March 15 as well as the increases announced by the officials of the Trucking Association from bringing about an increase in the price of the goods carried thus creating more inflationary pressure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must take notice of the question and see if I can give an answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to
March 3, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. Can he assure the House and the country that it is not the intention of the government to announce in the near future further cuts in Canada's contribution to the NATO alliance? I ask him to make this statement so that speculation regarding new responsibility for the Minister of National Defence will not be continued to be interpreted as a prelude to such a statement by the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not get the import of the question. If it has to do with further cuts in NATO, if it is a question as simple as that, there is no contemplation of such cuts at this time.



TAXATION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: It is always nice to be appreciated, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the government giving consideration to withdrawing the proposal to tax all corporate profits at 50 per cent, as this will remove the incentive necessary to induce individuals to go into business on their own, and also make it impossible for small businesses to obtain the capital they need for expansion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression the question is more in the form of a declaration. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree entirely with the conclusions reached by my hon. friend, and the Bullock-Stanfield campaign has not convinced me otherwise so far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Is the Minister of Finance not influenced by the hundreds of thousands of letters that have been pouring in from all parts of Canada during the last few weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's clearly stated concern over the conflict of interest problem as it affects Senators, Members of Parliament and certain other persons, I wonder if he would discuss with the Government House Leader the possibility of finding a bit of House time to consider Bill C-188 as a means of getting a discussion started on this problem?
As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister finds it difficult to answer that question, I wonder if can he tell us whether the government has any way in which it is going to bring this problem before the House? Otherwise I suggest that my bill might be considered.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker,, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the goverment's policy on minerals. In view of the fact that U.S. producers charge a minimum of 69 cents per pound Canadian for copper, while the London Metals Exchange price was approximately 83 cents last week, is it the intention of the government to subsidize foreign-owned companies with cheap copper at a fixed price of 59 cents per pound?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The question is a bit too complex for me, Mr. Speaker, but the government position on copper was announced last week. I said at the time that 23,500 tons a month would be provided for Canadian fabricators, at a price of 59 cents per pound irrespective of their ownership. If there are other things I should read in the question I will be delighted to consult with my hon. friend after the question period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the growing
March 3, 1970

dangers of world overpopulation, could the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It isn't his fault.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am getting so much help-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Could the Prime Minister explain why-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I will carry on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Could the Prime Minister explain why Canada is holding back her vital conti ibution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this question is somewhat serious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I will try once again if the competition will please pipe down. Could the Prime Minister explain why Canada is holding back her vital contribution to the 1970 birth control program of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to express some doubts whether the question might not be put in writing on the Order Paper, but the hon. member may have a supplementary.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask if the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues, would consider making a statement on this matter because it is of vital concern to the United Nations and our role in the United Nations? Could we have a ministerial statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to maintain the suggestion I made a moment ago. If there is urgency which is not apparent to the Chair the matter might be considered at the time of adjournment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on safety also but it is of a different nature.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Russell MacEwan: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has had an opportunity to look into the communications from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the United Transport Union regarding the matter of safety in connection with the lay-off of CNR maintenance of way employees.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a report from the Canadian Transport Commission subsequent to the last question asked on this subject. I have not received it yet but I shall make inquiries and get it as soon as I can.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government will shortly receive a study on urban problems in Canada with recommendations for development of new national policies respecting the cities, will the government consider drafting its conclusions in a white paper? Also, will the government consider setting up a standing committee on urban affairs to deal with the matter in view of the complexity of the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall await the advice of the minister concerned with housing to see if, in fact, such a report is forthcoming in the near future.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering the implementation of a national urban affairs council representative of the federal, provincial and municipal governments which would reorganize and co-ordinate, among other things, the government's role in its contribution to urban affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is not being considered at the governmental level at this time, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): I have a question for the Acting Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Could the min-
4312	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ister tell the House if there has been any improvement in the postal situation in Montreal and also if there has been any report on the second study session by postal sorters, which I understand is taking place in Montreal today?
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of arbitration proceedings put through on an accelerated basis yesterday, the non-reporting members of the Lapalme Company are now back at work and deliveries are being made in the regular way. In respect of the study sessions, I understand these have been called by the Union of Postal Sorters to explain to the employees the terms of the offer made by the government in respect of the current wage negotiations. These study sessions are not interfering with postal sorting.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On February 4, in reply to my question, the minister indicated that the federal-provincial committee on Atlantic transportation had met or was about to meet, and that he would ask it for some recommendations as soon as possible. I ask the hon. minister now, has the committee met and, if so, has it made any recommendations to him?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, no recommendations have come forward as of this moment. I understand they made a good deal of progress at the meetings my hon. friend refers to and that they are meeting again, I believe, on the 5th and 6th of this month. The provincial representatives have assured me that they will have some recommendations coming out of this two days of meetings.



ACTION ON RAILWAY FREIGHT RATE INCREASES

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister what action, if any, the government is taking with respect to the recently announced freight rate increases by all carriers in all parts of Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are procedures

DEBATES	March 3, 1970
established for dealing with these matters. They are not ones with which the government can involve itself directly.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of this matter does the minister not feel that, in conjunction with his colleagues, he should speak to the carriers or contact the Canadian Transport Commission about this increase announced yesterday and the frightful ones coming in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Although the question period has just about expired, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot on a supplementary.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In light of the government's proposed fight against inflation and its efforts to reduce costs, will he assure the House and the country that if the CTC is not prepared to roll back the announced increase in freight rates-and the minister has the jurisdiction to do this-he and the government will consider rolling back the announced increase in freight rates which will cause prices to increase?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I might argue with the claim that we have the power to roll back prices. In any event, the Prices and Incomes Commission has indicated that it will be investigating the freight structure of the railways and is going to use the mechanism of the Canadian Transportation Commission to accomplish that end.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-187, respecting Inland Water Resources in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago I had the pleasure of announcing a major step in the development of the resources in
March 3. 1970	COMMONS
Canada's North. That announcement concerned the federal government's decision to invest an additional $13.5 million in Panarctic Oils Limited. Today, with equal pleasure, it is my privilege to move second reading of the Northern Inland Waters Bill.
This Bill represents a major step in the protection and conservation of the ecology and resources of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. While pollution is a critical problem in many areas of Canada, we have it within our power to prevent the far North from being similarly damaged.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why don't you do it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This vast region, which contains more than one-third of both the land mass and water resources of our country, is still relatively free from pollution.
Major industrial development, especially in the mining and petroleum industries, is about to get underway North of 60. By acting now, this region can be spared the disasters of environmental mismanagement that now plague other parts of Canada. We are indeed fortunate to be able to profit and learn from mistakes made elsewhere in the past.
By acting with determination and decisiveness today, we may ensure that 20 or 30 years from now we will not be faced with settling another tremendous debt as the price of indifference and mismanagement of the water resources of the North.
I have emphasized the importance of dealing effectively with water pollution in the North. However, the Northern Inland Waters Bill is designed to do much more initiating comprehensive planning and management in developing our northern water resources.
The Bill has four main purposes:
1.	To provide for the equitable distribution of sharing of rights to use water in the North among interests with legitimate and sometimes conflicting claims on this resource;
2.	To ensure that the disposition or allocation of water rights is done in a manner that is consistent with immediate and long-term regional and national interests;
3.	To ensure that all works and undertakings planned for the use, diversion, storage or treatment of water are designed and constructed to acceptable engineering standards; and,
4.	To establish and maintain the principle that rights to the use of water are dependent on the users accepting full responsibility for
DEBATES	4313
Northern Inland Waters Bill maintaining its quality or restoring its quality to acceptable standards before returning the water to the natural environment.

Under the Northern Inland Waters Act, all property in and the right to the use of surface and ground waters in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be vested in the Crown. In other words, ownership of land does not involve any right to adjacent water resources. Inland waters in the North will remain for all time public property to be used, managed and developed in the interest of the region and the nation as a whole.
It also means that rights to the use of water will no longer be based on riparian principles but must be obtained from the Crown. This will be done through water licenses.
The licencing procedure serves a number of functions. First of all individuals and companies applying for water licences will be required to provide details of intended use, the quantity of water required, the locations of diversions and storage and details of the plans and designs of their proposed water development undertaking. They will aso have to spell out in detail the likely effects on water quality that will result from their proposed use of the water, and what facilities are planned to protect or restore water quality. All these details will have to be approved by the territorial water boards before a water licence is issued.
The licencing system also provides for the orderly development of northern water resources. Once a water board has issued a licence on a river or stream, they will not issue additional licences to the point where total demand exceeds available supply. This will eliminate problems associated with such obsolete systems of water rights as are presently contained in the Yukon Placer Mining Act, for example, which allots a share of water to all mining operations on a given stream, whether there is an adequate supply to meet all these needs or not.
I have already said that territorial water boards will be responsible for issuing water licences. One of the most important features of this bill is the creation of water boards located in each of the territorial capitals.
Up until now, various federal departments and the territorial governments have exercised whatever water responsibilities they had in a completely independent manner and with little or no co-ordination with each other. The result has been that water users in
March 3, 1970

Northern Inland Waters Bill the North are subject to a wide variety of rules, regulations and directives, many of which are definitely inconsistent. Northerners have long wanted a new water act which gives them a single water authority in each of our northern territories to carry out the total federal responsibility for northern water conservation. The bill does this by creating boards made up of the senior federal water conservation officials in each territory and officials from the territorial governments. When a board issues a licence, or sets water standards, all federal departments and the territorial governments are party to the decisions. Furthermore, co-ordination is built into the decision-making process.
The bill includes therefore provisions for the control of water quality, the issuance of licence for the use of water, co-ordination of government responsibilities regarding water and other aspects. Taken separately, these provisions deal with an important field of water conservation. As a whole the bill represents an effective mean of arriving at general planning of that important resource, the waters of the North.
Mr. Speaker, we can no longer afford to manage and develop our water resources in terms of single purpose planning. Water is a unique resource which is a vital constituent in the complete range of human activity.
Moreover, water does not respect political boundaries, private property or regions of influence.
This means that water planning and management can no longer be carried out in neat little compartments, one concerned with water power, one for industrial processes, one for domestic requirements, another for recreation and so on.
Water management today must be based on the concept of overall basin development. It must take into account all of the various uses and needs that the water resource will be expected to meet. What is done at point A on a particular stream will have an important effect on what can be done at point B on the same stream and the two must be considered together in planning river development.
This concept of overall planning is clearly reflected in the bill. There will be provisions which will govern exploitation of this resource according to the watershed line and other geographical particularities and there will be provisions for the issue of licences for the use of water during some defined periods in order to allow multipurpose planning and rational development. The bill permits agree-

ments to be made with provincial governments for joint planning on those rivers and lakes that cross the boundary along the 60th parallel. The bill provides reserving land adjacent to important bodies of water to protect the water resources where this is deemed advisable.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the requirements for water north of the sixtieth parallel, and ensures that it will be fully protected in the future.
The north will have increasing demand for water in the years ahead. Water will be needed for resource processing, industrial purposes and for hydro power. The bill protects water to meet these needs.
The economic life of much of the north and the tremendous oil exploration and drilling programs under way in the Mackenzie Valley and on the Alaska north slope are largely dependent on maintaining the quality of the water in the Mackenzie River System. The bill will protect this waterway.
The government has an obligation to protect the right to water of the indigenous people, since many of them depend on fishing and trapping animals whose habitat is the marshes, deltas, rivers and lakes of the north. Northern lakes and rivers are one of the main breeding grounds in North America for a wide variety of important bird species as well as being the home of a number of unique wild animals. This legislation will assist the Canadian Wildlife Service and other interested bodies in their efforts to protect the ecology in the north where the balance is more delicate than elsewhere. With the passage of this legislation, it is my firm belief that we will have all the tools we require for multipurpose planning and rational development of our northern water resources.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Finally, I would like to say a word on the relationship of the northern inland waters bill to the Canada water bill. As you know, the Canada water bill is intended to reflect the national interest in the protection and management of water resources throughout Canada. The Canada Water Act assumes that strong regional water authorities exist in the provinces and territories, and it is a means whereby the federal government can co-operate with provincial and territorial water authorities in the comprehensive planning and management process. The northern
March 3, 1970

inland waters bill provides just such a strong regional water authority, an authority needed for effective planning of those northern water resources that are or will be considered to be of national concern.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return briefly to the question of water quality. This bill allows the water authority to write conditions for water quality protection into every water licence issued in the north. Failure to live up to these conditions can result in the suspension or cancellation of a licence. In other words, you pollute the waters of the north and you get your water cut off. Moreover, the water boards can set standards of water quality for any waters within a water management area. Polluters violating these standards can be fined up to $5,000 per day.
The bill provides for water quality inspectors with powers to enter any plant, mine or other undertaking to investigate processes, take samples, examine production records, check abatement facilities and generally to collect facts on water quality management. We do not intend that the effectiveness of this legislation will be lost through halfhearted or weak administration.
Conserva ion in the north, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of great interest and concern to the present government. When I assumed responsibility for northern development, one of the first things I did was to ask my officials to tackle the problem of conservation north of 60. We had no time to lose. I indicated at the time that we must come forward with land use regulations and water quality legislation as soon as possible.
Much has been done since then, but more will have to be done. A broad program of land use and ecological research has been instituted by my department in co-operation with teams from various Canadian universities. Discussions are under way with industry and conservation groups on the question of environmental controls in the north. Also, during the last session of Parliament I introduced the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, and during this session, in addition to the northern inland waters bill, legislation will be forthcoming dealing with coastal waters as well as amendments to the Territorial Lands Act.
Historical patterns of development in this country, Mr. Speaker, have left us with one-third of our country relatively free of water pollution. We can and must prove to the nation and the world that we are willing and

Northern Inland Waters Bill able to prevent and control water pollution in the Arctic. Minimum standards of water quality must be established at this time. We cannot afford to wait. I ask all members of the House to give the northern inland waters bill their full support.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow me a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not agree that under Bill C-144, which has to do with Canada's water resources, the federal government can act alone without the assistance of provincial agencies, as provided under clause 11 of Bill C-144, as far as the management of water resources in the Yukon is concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, under the bill introduced by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) concerning the control over and the general policy on Canadian water resources, neither my colleague nor the federal government can act unilaterally in this field because many lakes and rivers are under provincial jurisdiction.
The bill I introduced today concerns the establishment, in the North, of an agency which will be empowered to control water use in these regions without having to deal with three or four different agencies. These boards will deliver permits in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and people will deal with a single agency in order to secure permits for using water. As I said in my remarks, all this will mesh with the overall policy on Canadian waters.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of problems raised by this bill and the speech by the minister which will be dealt with by my colleagues. However, there is one issue with which I want to deal and I hope the minister will take note of it. The bill defines the waters in question as being included in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories. What we want to know is what are the Northwest Territories? Do the Northwest Territories include the islands of the Arctic archipelago?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
March 3, 1970

Northern Inland Waters Bill


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to hear that. It is certainly confirmed by the Order-in-Council passed in 1918 which states the provisional District of Franklin, part of the Northwest Territories, is one of the divisions of the Northwest Territories. If this is the case, it poses a question which this minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have played around with far too long.
For a year, we on this side of the House have been asking for some clarification of the position of the government with respect to the Arctic archipelago and ownership of the waters. There are a number of authorities which suggest that the waters included within the limits of base lines drawn around the Arctic archipelago are Canadian waters in the sense that they are internal waters. The government has failed to answer whether this is so. I have asked the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to state their position, but I have not received a clear and positive statement. They have fumbled around and debated this issue. If this is correct, and there are many authorities which suggest this is the case, then the waters included within the limits of base lines drawn around the Arctic archipelago are inland waters.
I hope when the minister closes this debate he will state whether he includes these waters as inland waters within the definition section.
I ask the minister to give some thought to this before he concludes this debate. This is something this House and all Canadians want to know. It is very important in light of the fact the tanker Manhattan has now been allowed passage through these waters by the Canadian government. We cannot disassociate the question of pollution from the issue of the passage of this tanker and similar vessels through these waters. What is the position of the government? This matter has been raised over and over again, even as late as today. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and I have all asked the government where it stands on this issue. We have all asked the government: where do you stand? What is your position? What do you define as being waters under the jurisdiction of Canada? No clear and definite answer has yet been given. It is too important a question to be brushed aside, and it is raised directly by this bill.


[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In response to a question in this House as to the status of these waters, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he was not sure. He was not able to say. I asked whether these were inland waters or territorial waters. A great deal depends upon the answer. But though we have asked the government to respond on many occasions, hon. gentlemen opposite have been unable to do so. As late as today the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) failed to deal with this matter. There is every right under international law for a declaration to be made that these are inland waters-that they are internal waters and thus subject to the jurisdiction of this country. Even if they are territorial waters, this country has a right to lay down in precise terms regulations which will protect the north.
It is all very well for the minister to talk about ecological damage. We agree as far as the other waters in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are concerned. I want the minister to give serious thought to this issue because it is raised directly by the bill before us. My hon. friend from Oxford will be dealing more directly with this aspect as will others in this House.
I turn now to another matter, one which concerns me a great deal. I am shocked and amazed that in drawing up this measure the government and the minister should have failed to take into account the positions of the Territorial Councils of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We are dealing with a bill which is not of the kind commonly known as a money bill; there is no recommendation from His Excellency as to the expenditure of money. Despite this, provision is made for the appointment of two water boards and a number of officials. Obviously, if there is no recommendation from His Excellency, as provided by standing Orders, and the B.N.A. Act, any officials to be appointed in the Northwest Territories would be officials who are already on the payroll of the government. There can be no question about this, unless, of course, the minister has been able to find a large number of people who, for philanthropic motives, are prepared to serve without pay, allowances or expenses.
Clause seven of the bill says that two boards are to be appointed, to be known as the Yukon Territory Water Board and the Northwest Territories Water Board. Subsequent clauses make provision for the appointment of officials and staff. If they are not to
March 3, 1970	COMMONS
be paid, they must already be on the payroll of the government, and, consequently employees of the government.
I would draw your attention now, Mr. Speaker, to the proposed membership of the board. The government has been talking about extending the independence of these Councils and making the democratic process available to the Northwest Territories and to the Yukon by allowing for a larger number of elected members on the Councils. In these circumstances one might have thought provision would have been made in the bill for giving these bodies a say in these proceedings. Instead, what do we find? Clause seven says the boards to be established shall consist of not less than three and not more than seven members appointed by the Minister. Membership of each board is to include at least one nominee of each of the departments of the Government of Canada which, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, are most directly concerned with the management of water resources of the Territory and of the Territories, and at least one person nominated by the Commissioner of the Territory-who is an appointee of the federal government- after consultation with the Council.
As far as this government is concerned, we all know how limited is this conception of consultation. We have heard the minister's views with regard to consultation with the Eskimos in northern Ontario. We know what he interprets as being consultation. One nominee only is to be appointed by the Commissioner after consultation with the Territorial Council. This is a shocking insult. It is an affront to the democratic process. Here are two boards, their membership consisting of appointees of the minister, civil servants employed by this government, who will be free to dispose of the waters of these great Territories. Yet the Councils have only a very limited right of consultation as to the apoint-ment of one member of the board. I think this is an insult to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
For how long will these licences to use water be given? There is one provision in the bill which allows for an extension of a licence for 25 years. Mr. Speaker, before 25 years have gone by one or both of these Territories will perhaps have expanded its population and economy to the point of acquiring provincial status. Yet they will be faced with the consequences of decisions made by a minister sitting in Ottawa with the assistance of boards he himself appointed. It might well be
DEBATES	4317
Northern Inland Waters Bill that the minister, or his departmental officials, have failed to take this aspect into account. I hope that before the bill comes back to the House the hon. gentleman will take a hard look at this proposal and do something to purge this insult to the people of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon Territory.
I turn, now, to the major point I wish to make and in respect of which I intend to move an amendment in due course. Let us not kid ourselves. We are facing on this continent at the present time a situation in which the authorities in Washington have been talking about the continental sharing of energy resources. I know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) made a comment the other day in which he hastily disclaimed any intent on his part to include water in this package. The Prime Minister, however, has made statements in the past which indicate beyond any doubt that he feels a certain freedom on his part, when certain conditions are satisfied, to dispose of the water resources of Canada. Despite what he said today, the Prime Minister exercises great freedom in expressing his views outside this House, making statements and comments at universities and elsewhere which later we find becoming the principles which animate this government. For these reasons I believe the House would be derelict in its duty if we allowed the bill to pass in its present form, especially bearing in mind what we know to be the thinking of our friends to the south and what we know to be the thinking of the Prime Minister as conveyed in statements he made not so long ago when he was appearing before a group of university students in an interview which was televised.
Allow me to develop the basis upon which I make this statement. In clause two of this bill, the definitions clause, we find in subclause (2):
For the purposes of this Act, diversion of waters from a water course, whether the water course is seasonal or otherwise, and obstruction of any such water course shall be deemed to constitute uses of waters.
In other words, the diversion of waters is equated with the use of waters.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Clause 3 provides that no person shall alter or divert the flow of water except pursuant to a licence held by him. I do not want to deal with these clauses seriatim in discussing the bill; I simply want to build up my case in
March 3, 1370

Northern Inland Waters Bill order to indicate the reason for the amendment.
Clause 10 provides for the issuing of licences to a licensee who must satisfy the appropriate board of certain facts. Nowhere is it set out that the licensee must satisfy the board that he does not intend to export waters from this country. Nowhere in the bill is it suggested that export of water from this country is prohibited. I suggest that is a very serious omission.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: May I have permission to ask the hon. member a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I will be delighted.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Is the hon. member not aware that there is in Canada some legislation that prohibits the export of any kind of resource without the permission of the government?


Gerald William Baldwin: But this is legislation that the government is bringing in now, with full knowledge of that other legislation. It may well be that the government wants to involve itself in law suits at a future stage but if the government is so satisfied that this legislation is subject to the legislation to which the minister has referred, then why is this provision not included in the bill so that the position is made absolutely clear? If the situation is clear, then let the minister accept the amendment that I propose to offer to the House later on. If the government is of the opinion that the views put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) are the same views as those held by the government, then let the minister consider the amendment that I will propose.
We would be derelict in our duty if we were to allow the bill to pass without taking into account this situation, particularly bearing in mind what we know to be the fact in the United States, bearing in mind that there is an obvious division of opinion among the members of the government, and also bearing in mind that not so many years ago what was heralded as a great proposal, one given appropriate publicity, was put forward to gather together the waters of northern Canada that are referred to in this bill in a great public work, and to divert those waters through canals and rivers to the south-western United States. This proposal has not been abandoned.
I referred to the fact that clause 10 contains no prohibition whatever on the right to export water. I realize that this is not the

time to become involved with the minister and the government in an argument on the interpretation of statutes; but I do suggest that this bill, standing as it does, might well be held to supersede the other legislation to which the minister refers. As I say, if that is not the case, then let the minister think very carefully about the defect that appears in the bill and correct it.
Clause 15 provides for public hearings and for procedures for those applicants who want to use the waters of the north. One provision makes it possible for an applicant to ask for a hearing. This hearing is to be decided by this government dominated and government appointed board, without any public notice at all, which I suggest is creating a very dangerous situation. It may well be that the government's intentions are good; I do not know. I hope they are. But what government is going to succeed this one? What Prime Minister or minister of northern affairs will succeed the present incumbents? It is, therefore, our duty to make sure that any loopholes are closed, and in this regard I hope that the minister will consider it his duty to accept our suggestions.
At the present time I suggest that the House is free to lay down the principle that there should be no export of waters from this country. We are not able to speak for generations to come; neither are we able to speak foi future Parliaments. If the amendment that 1 am going to propose is accepted, it will mean that the government and future ministers will not be allowed, as they are under the provisions of this bill, which I suggest may well supersede any previous legislation, to provide for the kind of export that we worry about.
The minister may not worry about it, but I live in northern Canada and have many friends who live in the territories, and they are worried and concerned about a government that pays only lip service-as this bill proves-to the question of providing democratic representation for the people of the Northwest Territories.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What did you do when you were in power?


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister asks what we did when we came to power. We built roads to the north. We built railroads to the north and extended the frontier. We made the north a real name, and did so in face of the most stubborn and bitter resistance from the then Liberal opposition, who referred to it as a program of building roads from igloo to igloo.
March 3, 1970

As I say, we made the north the place it is, a great place for the people of this country. This government is doing everything in its power, despite our protestations, to undo the progress made by the previous government in northern development.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Delighted.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Is he aware that when the Conservatives were in power, mining production in the north was about $26 million a year? This year mining production will be over $200 million.


Gerald William Baldwin: Of course I am aware of that. For ten years prior to 1957 the people of the Northwest Territories implored the then Liberal government to do something about building a railroad to provide access to the north. Who was responsible for building the Mackenzie highway? Who was responsible for constructing the Pine Point railway? A large part of the mining production of which the minister speaks is the result of the construction of the Pine Point railway. This mine was put into production because this railway was built by the previous Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let the minister answer that.


John James Greene: What did Sir John A. do? Nothing.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the trouble with too many members of this government: they have their minds back even before the time of Sir John A. Let them bring their minds up to date. Let them realize that in the 20th century the Northwest Territories is a living, viable part of this country.


Mr. Ricard:: Give them a mind first.


Gerald William Baldwin: My hon. friend says there is some question about whether they have a mind, and I agree with him on that.
I did not intend to make a long speech, but I was provoked by the inaccurate questions and remarks made by both ministers. If the minister is of the opinion that it is not the intention of the government to leave any loophole with regard to the export of water, then he should have no difficulty in accepting my amendment. In order to ensure there is no doubt about the matter, I would move,

Northern Inland Waters Bill seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt):
"This House declares that the bill fails to enunciate the principle that the inland water resources of northern Canada and the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories ought not to be exported from Canada by licence or otherwise and the bill should not be proceeded with.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should raise a point of order or a point of procedure, but I do not think the motion is acceptable. We are not discussing exportation here; we are talking about the management of water resources in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon territory. It is not a bill relating to international markets or exportation. There is some legislation that provides for Canadians in such circumstances. This bill deals only with management of the water within the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I should like to point out to the Chair that this amendment in my view is not acceptable.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: On this particular issue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister has raised an interesting point. The Chair would be pleased to hear the views of all hon. members who can contribute to the enlightenment of the Chair on the point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on this particularly limited aspect, I would point out that in view of the clauses I have already read, this bill refers to the uses of water, and the uses of water are defined to include diversion of water. By any simple understanding of one of the languages that this House has adopted, a diversion of waters falls within that definition. Obviously, export would be a diversion of waters from the territories.
What I am saying is there is no limitation of the right to use water for diversion to places outside of the territories. A glance at the definition section, and those clauses which deal with rights and powers, would indicate beyond any shadow of doubt that the power is authorized to grant to applicants for licences the right to make use of these waters and to divert them for this particular purpose. How can the minister or any person stand in this House and say that those provisions are not wide enough to include any use at all? We are saying there is a gap; let's close it. If the minister is sincere, then I hope he will accept the amendment.
March 3, 1370

Northern Inland Waters Bill


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the point of order that has been raised by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
I suggest that he may have inadvertently made a good argument for the acceptability of the amendment. Let me come to that in a moment.
I want to say first of all that the amendment is not in quite the usual form that second reading reasoned amendments take. Your Honour has been justifiably generous in that respect. You have not been a stickler for the form and words, so long as the spirit has been clear. You have insisted that a reasoned amendment must state an alternative proposition and that the amendment must make it clear that those proposing it are opposed to the passing of the bill in its present form. Your Honour has rejected a number of amendments at this stage when they have attempted to have it both ways, but that is not the case with this amendment. I submit that the amendment, as I read it, clearly states opposition to the bill and gives a reason for that opposition,, namely the fact that it does not include the enunciation of a certain principle.
When I rose to my feet I said the minister had perhaps inadvertently made an argument on our side of the case. I meant by that, that he underlined the very fact the hon. member for Peace River suggests is not in the bill. That is exactly the point, as I see it, that the hon. member for Peace River is making. He is saying that because this bill, as it is now before us, does not contain an enunciation of the principle set out in the amendment, therefore he and those who agree with him feel that the bill should not be proceeded with at this time.
Most of us feel that it is more in the nature of a second reading reasoned amendment if it starts out by saying that the bill be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House such and such should be declared. As much of a stickler for words as I may be, I can see that the form is not absolutely necessary. What is important is that the proposed amendment be something that cannot be dealt with by way of an amendment in the committee. It should state the reason for the opposition of those proposing the amendment, and thus it should be against the bill.
As I say, the hon. member for Peace River has said in his speech and in his amendment that because the bill does not contain a principle, which the minister admits is not there,


the bill should not be proceeded with. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a case for the admissibility of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the views they have expressed in relation to the acceptability of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. The point raised by the hon. minister is, of course, very interesting. It is the kind of objection which is normally and usually made in respect of a reasoned amendment proposed to the House.
We know that such amendments have to be relevant. I believe that the precedents are to the effect that they should be strictly relevant to the bill before the House. The hon. member for Peace River, supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, states this is essential to a reasoned amendment because it indicates the reasons the bill should not be proposed or proceeded with. They claim the amendment as proposed is relevant to the bill now before us. I am inclined to agree with that proposition.
I might state that it is not absolutely clear whether the amendment is strictly relevant to the principle now before the House. At the same time I feel that when amendments are proposed, particularly reasoned amendments, some measure of leniency has to be exercised, particularly when hon. members feel that the proposal included in the reasoned amendment should be put to a test in the House, and that the reasoned amendment should be allowed.
In the circumstances, I think I should give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and say that the proposed reasoned amendment is relevant to the bill before the House and allow it to be put at this time. Before putting the proposed amendment I should point out that it is defective to the extent that the hon. member has left certain words out of the amendment as proposed to the Chair, namely "that all the words after 'that' be deleted and the following added-". In any event, I shall put the motion to the House which is as follows:
Mr. Baldwin (seconded by Mr. Nesbitt) moves:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following added;
"This House declares that the bill fails to enunciate the principle that the inland water resources of northern Canada and the Yukon Territories ought not to be exported from Canada by licence or otherwise and the bill should not be proceeded with.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the acceptance of this amendment does place some new dimensions on the discussion of this bill, and certainly as far as I
March 3, 1970	COMMONS
am concerned the amendment does highlight a matter that is very pertinent to the whole question of the water resources in the territories and, indeed, the whole of Canada. All of us who have been following such matters are well aware of the various proposals advanced from time to time which would involve major diversions of water resources in the territories, across the central provinces of Canada and down into regions as far away as southern California and New Mexico, well beyond the territorial borders of our country.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
For this reason, my colleagues and I welcome the fact that the official opposition has seen fit to introduce this element into the consideration of the proposal we now have before us. This element is one which obviously is pretty difficult to ignore within the context of what has been happening. At the same time I believe the speech of the minister in introducing the bill raises certain other very important issues, as indeed did the speech of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I have looked at the bill. In some ways it is a rather complicated bill. I think there will have to be considerable discussion in the committee before one will be fully aware of the exact meaning of all the clauses.
I might raise the question of whether the Dominion Water Power Act or this bill will take precedence in certain situations. One might go on, of course and refer to the old mining acts of the Yukon Territory in this connection. These are questions which can be dealt with in detail if the bill, including the principle proposed in the amendment, according to the decision of the House, gets into the Committee of the Whole.
One thing which concerned me was the rather flowery way in which the minister opened and closed his contribution to the debate on the bill. If I may say so, his speech was like a sandwich, with some meat in the centre of it, enclosed by two slices of a rather floury and fluffy substance. He went to great lengths to suggest this bill is the end-all and be-all of meeting the problem of pollution and the dangers in respect of the ecology in the more northern reaches of Canada. I may wish to say something about these aspects of the minister's speech before I conclude my remarks. I should like to refer to one or two matters raised by the hon. member for Peace River. He raised a matter which is of concern when he made reference to the question of the islands of the Arctic archipelago. I thought.
DEBATES	4321
Northern Inland Waters Bill either inadvertently or perhaps with a bit of ingenuity, he confused the question of internal and inland water in his discussion.
"Inland water" is a very specific term and "internal water" is also a specific term in respect of certain waters of Canada. One ought not to be confused with the other in any discussion we have in this House. To this extent, I must take issue with what I consider to be a rather specious argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River in this connection. I do not suggest that the subject matter with which he was dealing is not an important one, and one of great concern to members of this House. But I suggest that the bill really is deficient in the sense that the proposed jurisdiction is restricted to the inland water of Canada. I suggest that the jurisdiction in this bill should be extended to include the internal waters of Canada. I think perhaps I may make reference to what I consider, in many ways, to be a companion bill, Bill C-144, even though at the moment it is being considered by a committee of this House.
If I understand it correctly, the proposed Canada water bill makes no similar restriction. It does not deal only with the inland water of Canada. It is a bill which concerns the management of the water resources of Canada. My understanding is that under the terms of the Canada water bill it would be possible for some management to be exercised over the internal water of Canada; in other words, the adjacent coastal areas of the country. It seems to me this is a point which certainly should be considered by the House. Already, on second reading, an amendment has been proposed. I do not think I could move at this stage an amendment to the amendment which would be in order. Certainly, however, this is a question which should be considered if this bill goes to the committee; that is, whether or not the bill should be expanded to include not only inland water but internal water.
I say this advisedly because what happens in respect of our adjacent coastal water may be just as important as what happens in respect of the water of our lakes and streams. The question of the management and control of the quality of this water may be very important to the ecology of the water, and to some of the other natural resources of the country, with particular reference perhaps to the fishery. I suppose I am particularly aware of this sort of thing as a result of living in a part of Canada where there is a close rela-
March 3, 1970

Northern Inland Waters Bill tionship between the inland water and the internal water because of the various forms of fishery in the area, particularly the salmon and shellfish fishery. One need think only of the interesting fishery resource of the north, the Arctic char, to realize that water quality management-if that is what we are to be concerned about in relation to the Arctic char-is important not only in relation to inland water but certainly also the internal water of Canada.
In conclusion, and without indulging in a repetitious argument on the broader question raised by the hon. member for Peace River, I submit that the question of jurisdiction over the water lying between the islands of the Arctic archipelago is one which is important and very relevant to this bill, and one which I hope the minister and his departmental officials will consider very carefully before this bill proceeds beyond the committee stage.
There are one or two points in relation to the broader aspects of the bill which I should like to raise. I refer to the rather extravagant claims made by the minister in the opening paragraphs of his speech. He claimed that this bill, in effect, will solve the problem of protecting and conserving the ecology of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. At the outset he made some reference to his pleasure in having announced something potentially dangerous in respect of pollution, and in the next breath that certain steps will be taken to clean up the mess caused by oil in the Arctic.
The minister is much more extravagant in his claims in respect of this bill than his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) was when he introduced the Canada water bill in so far as it being an anti-pollution or pollution-control measure. I submit that basically this bill has the same failings the Canada water bill had in terms of pollution protection. The fact is that we are dealing with an area where constitutionally there really is no division in respect of the control of resources. Therefore one could argue that in the introduction of this kind of bill in relationship with, and in my view as a companion piece of legislation to the Canada Water Act, we have a unique opportunity of doing something which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources might argue is difficult to do under the Canada Water Act, because of constitutional problems. I am talking about the setting of standards.


[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In both of these bills what, in effect, we in this Parliament are saying is that we are going to turn over to bureaucratic control and direction, to the people who have narrow technical expertise, the whole question of deciding, what are going to be the standards of water quality, with no general terms of reference.
There is a clause in the bill, as there is in most bills, which gives the Governor in Council power to make certain regulations. One part has to do with regulations concerning:
-prescribing water quality standards for water management areas that are not, or are not included in whole or in part within, a water quality management area designated pursuant to the Canada Water Act;
There, Mr. Speaker, we are adding two more to what was formerly at least ten dimensions of water quality standards, you might say, because conceivably under the operations of two separate water boards there could be different standards in the Yukon as compared with the Northwest Territories.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Just for information purposes I would like to point out to the hon. member that the minister has power to establish standards through Order in Council, and these standards will apply to the both territories. So, it is not a question of duplication. It is mentioned in the bill that we will conform with the standards or regulations of the Canada Water Act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what is the standard set under the Canada Water Act? That is the whole point we have been arguing since that Act was introduced. It makes no provision for standards that are uniform across Canada. This is the whole argument with the minister's colleague.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There would be standards in the north through regulations.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: All right. The minister says there will be standards in the north through regulations, but they may be different from the standards of water management in the province of Quebec or British Columbia. This is the argument. There is no yardstick. There is certainly growing evidence of public interest and concern in this field. The citizens of Canada should have a yardstick somewhere by which they can measure the performance of these various boards and bureaucracies that are going to be set up, whether in the north or other parts of Canada.
March 3. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4323
This is the whole point. The average Canadian citizen may not be able to understand all the complicated chemistry that is involved, but the average Canadian citizen is becoming increasingly knowledgeable on these matters. Most people you talk to now have some idea what you are talking about if you mention the ecology of the north, to use the words the minister used in his speech. I know that in my area people who are teachers of the biological and chemical science courses in the secondary schools are taking an interest in examining and discussing these questions. These kinds of people, as well as the general citizens, should have something to which they can go to determine whether or not the water quality management board in their area, whether it is in a territory or part of a whole province, is adopting acceptable standards.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it would be a case of the tail wagging the dog if we were to spell out in the bill the kind of standards which should, in the opinion of Parliament, be acceptable all across Canada. I would like to come back, Mr. Speaker, to the suggestion I made in the House before, that what we need is an independent body somewhere. I made a suggestion, when I spoke on this several years ago, that this independent body should be set up and work in close connection with the National Research Council, in much the same way that our building standards code is constantly up-graded according to the findings of the research division of the National Research Council.
Apparently, the thinking of many people in the present government is against that approach, but I think that sooner or later experience is going to demonstrate the need for that kind of independent, forward-looking body. Then, the citizens of this country, whether they are in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia or Newfoundland can judge the performance of the various boards that may be managing the water areas in their part of the country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the hon. member would permit me to make a remark, I would like to say there was that kind of yardstick-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that this procedure is a little unorthodox. We are not in committee of the whole. Much as the exchange between the minister and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is interesting, we might avoid this until we get to committee stage.
Northern Inland Waters Bill


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the minister asking a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister wants to ask the hon. member a question, that is all
right.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can ask it in the form of a question. Is the hon. member aware that on the question of the land and other resources in the north my department has formed a tripartite committee with people representing the conservationist interest, another group representing the mining interest or the oil interest, and the department, all working together to analyse these problems?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of all the details of the activities that the minister has in the north, but certainly the point he has made is not one with which I would quarrel. This is really bulwarking the argument I am attempting to present, that when these various committees, advisory committees, tripartite committees, or what-have-you are working we should have some kind of yardstick by which they can go. For instance, how are they to know what is the proper quality of water management for a given purpose?
I have had discussions with the minister's colleague, both formal and informal, with respect to the act that is to apply generally across Canada. And his colleague, erroneously I think, assumes if you are talking about pollution standards you are talking about something that is fixed and rigid in every circumstance across the country. This means that the quality of water in Hamilton harbour would have to be the same as the quality of water in Lake Louise. This is obviously nonsense, and nobody is suggesting anything like that.
All I am saying is that we are developing all these various management areas but we are not setting up any kind of independent machinery to keep them all pulling together instead of pulling and pushing in different directions. Whether one is talking about dog teams or horse teams, it is usually useful to have them all pulling in the same direction. In my view this is one of the deficiencies in this bill, as it is in the other one, that there is no provision made for that kind of thing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is no point in my pursuing this matter because it is very much the subject of discussion in connection with the other bill in the name of the
March 3, 1970

Northern Inland Waters Bill Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. But I think it is important we should realize that the same questions are involved in this one.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Peace River did touch on a matter which I think is of some significance and that is the question of participation by the people living in the territory. This bill, as has almost any piece of legislation that has come before us dealing with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, brings up the question and the right of the people to self-government. I must say in this connection that I agree with the position suggested by the hon. member for Peace River. I suppose one could welcome the fact that there is at least a gesture in the bill towards consultation with the council of the territories.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The board is to be located in the north.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This is another gesture and none of us would quarrel with it. Quite properly, the board should function in the north and in each of the respective territories.
Before the bill goes much further I think the minister should consider whether it would not be wise to allow the council to pick one member, so that they may feel they have someone of their choice on the board. This would be a fairly modest proposal compared to some of the suggestions heard from the people in the north. As the bill is worded, the only requirement is that the commissioner, who is an appointee or agent of the minister, merely has to consult with the council about an appointment to this board.
If one reads some of the literature about the gradual involvement of the north, the Carrothers Commission report and so on, it seems to me that acceptance of the idea of at least one of those people being an appointee would not be going a bit beyond being realistic in meeting the desires for self-determination of the people of the north at this stage.
There are, of course, many aspects of this bill that one could seek to develop at this stage but I have attempted to touch on one or two that appeal to me as being of significance in the broad discussion. I have tried to relate my remarks to the question raised in the minister's speech and also in the speech of the hon. member for Peace River who preceded me. Having said that, I am prepared to resume my seat and let other members who wish to participate in the debate have their say.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I have examined Bill C-187 quite closely and I want to tell the minister that if I am being critical it is not a personal attack on him but rather because, as
I	shall point out, I feel that this bill is redundant. I have come to this conclusion as a result of the hearings before the committee, of which I am a member, studying the Canada Water Act.
I should like to begin my remarks by simply asking a question: what is going on with this problem of water management in Canada? We have the Canada Water Act, to which amendments have already been proposed, and we are assured that an Arctic pollution bill is coming up. Last week the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) proposed a clean air act. Then, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) speaks of amendments to the Fisheries Act and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) talks about a bill to control oil pollution. All these departments are talking about water and the pollution of it. We have the Agricultural Department banning pesticides in order to control our polluted waters and we are assured of legislation or regulations to ban phosphates. Now we have the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development getting into the act.
According to my research, Mr. Speaker, there are at least 15 departments or Crown agencies or research councils etc. concerned with water and the pollution of water. What is going on? There is no question in my mind that Bill C-187, an act respecting inland water resources in the two territories, is an anti-pollution bill. If it is and it deals with the waters of the territories, then I say it is a redundant bill because the Canada Water Act already covers the same ground. Section 9 of this bill provides for the conservation, development and utilization of the water resources in the north. The stated purpose of the Canada Water Act also provides for the conservation development and utilization of v/ater resources of all of Canada. Section 9 of Bill C-187 and the title of Bill C-144 which reads, "An act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources", are identical and that is why I say the bill is redundant.
Does the Canada Water Act, Bill C-144, include all Canadian waters? Does it? Section
II	of the Canada Water Act to-
March 3. 1970


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: To educate.


Mr.   Corneau@: -to educate the members, a good suggestion by the member for St. Hya-cinthe, reads:
11 (1) Where, in the case of any inter jurisdictional waters,
(a)	the water quality management of those waters has become a matter of urgent national concern, and
(b)	the Governor in Council is satisfied that all reasonable effort has been made by the minister to reach an agreement under section 9 with the one or more provincial governments having an interest in the water quality management thereof, and that those efforts have failed, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, designate such waters as a water quality management area and authorize the minister to procure the incorporation of a corporation without share capital-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
To me this means that the Canada Water act gives jurisdiction with respect to the territories, because it is concerned with all waters of Canada and the government, under that legislation, can act unilaterally in the control or management of our waters. It authorizes the Governor in Council to exercise pollution control over our federal waters, and there is no necessity for federal-provincial consultation. I, therefore ask the minister again, can the government under the Canada Water act not act unilaterally in the management and control of Canada's waters? If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has authority so to act under Bill C-144, why do we need to introduce Bill C-187? Clause 3(1) of Bill C-187 makes it clear that the waters of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are federal waters. But these are also federal waters according to the provisions of Bill C-144. What, then, is the purpose of introducing Bill C-187?
In speaking on second reading of Bill C-144, the Canada Water act, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that act is to be the basic policy instrument relating to all federal water programs. His remarks are recorded in Hansard of November 20, 1969, at page 1043. This is what he said in part:
The Canada water bill is put forth as the basic policy instrument for all federal water programs, and I think hon members will agree that we must assure ourselves that by our best efforts here in this House, and in committee, we bring forth the best legislation we can conceive in this complex and often highly technical field.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources clearly thinks that the Canada water bill, when passed, will apply to all federal waters. Since, according to clause 3 of Bill C-187, the waters of the territories are

Northern Inland Waters Bill federal waters, there is no need for Bill C-187. Does the bill give new authority to the government? Does it give the government authority it does not already possess under other legislation? I do not think so. I do not see the necessity for this bill, and particularly for those parts that purport to deal with pollution. Again I ask, what is the purpose of the bill?
I do not wish to be too critical of the minister but to me it appears simply a political gesture on his part or his department's, in order to let the territorial governments participate in pollution control matters, especially since they were disappointed with the constitutional changes of last fall. If the purpose of the bill is merely to give the territorial governments a voice in these matters, I submit that it is redundant. If this matter is not spelled out clearly in the Canada water bill, an amendment may be introduced to it to give those people the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned about a voice in these matters.
Further, this bill is redundant because it seeks to do exactly what the Canada Water Act was designed to do. Of course, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development probably has some reservations about the Canada Water Act, as my party has and as many olhers have. That could be a valid reason for introducing this bill. Probably the minister does not believe that the Canada Water Act will be effective in managing the waters of the territories. Another valid reason for introducing this legislation might be his opinion that the Canada Water Act is inadequate, inefficient and too cumbersome to be effective in controlling water pollution. Perhaps the minister feels that only by introducing this bill can the waters of the north be protected.
Clause 2(2) of this bill deals with water diversion. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says Canada's waters are not for sale; however, the Prime Minister has been saying that we should not be too possessive with our national waters. Who is right? Are we really speaking with one voice, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources suggested today? The question of water diversion comes under the heading, especially with respect to northern waters, of a water quality management program. This program is the essence or root of the Canada Water Act which is concerned about the quality, quantity and management of our waters. As 1 say,
March 3. 1970

Northern Inland Waters Bill that exactly is the purpose of the Canada Water Act. I therefore ask again, why is this bill being introduced?

Here again, I have nothing to say against the minister on that matter but the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) has no confidence in Bill C-144, concerning water management. It is obvious now that Bill C-144 regarding the management of the water resources of Canada cannot cope with all the problems in the North and the complex problems of Canadian waters. Here is exactly the position adopted by our party in this regard. The only reason I can see why the minister introduced this bill is that he places no reliance on Bill C-144, no more than the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry for that matter.

The definition of water, according to clause 2(1) is as follows:
"waters" means waters in any river, stream, lake or other body of inland water on the surface or underground in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
Does this pertain simply to fresh water, or does it include any waters inside the boundary lines, as suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) the other day? The bill is poorly drafted, because it does not say what it means. Is this bill supposed to be the one dealing with Arctic pollution? Obviously, the government does not know how to tackle our water management problems, including that of pollution. Look at the bits and pieces of legislation this government has introduced! We have objected to that during the past five months. Look at all the amendments to existing legislation that will have to be considered. Obviously, government members do nothing during the summer recess except go on holiday.
The problem this bill seeks to deal with has been with us for a long time, but the government is not making a concentrated effort in this field. Instead, it is simply bringing in bits and pieces of legislation. The government has not looked at the total problem of pollution and water management. It acts on impulse. One matter after another comes up. If a bill dealing with pollution is defective, an amendment is brought in. Now, the government is concerned about phosphates; soon it may deal with other forms of detergents. At present we are concerned about the north, and so it goes. Why does the government not do a good job and do it once? I, therefore, say that this bill
[Mr. Comeau.l
is redundant; it is useless and we will oppose it. Furthermore, it is an insult to the efforts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much of the time of the House discussing this piece of legislation before us today. However, I would like to say I welcome the initiative of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) in bringing forward this inland waters bill relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories.
I believe, contrary to the emotional outburst of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that the bringing forward of this piece of legislation is a recognition on the part of the government that the northern territories, both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, some day in some way will develop into provinces of this country.
This bill is the other side of the Canada Water Act. It complements the Canada Water Act. It provides in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory implementation of the Canada Water Act in the same way as we would in Ontario through provincial legislation. In this respect, there are other regulations and legislation which apply exclusively to the two northern territories. I am thinking now of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act passed by the House last year; the Yukon Placer Mining Act and many other acts which affect the resources of northern Canada.
As I read this inland waters bill, it is not intended primarily to examine the question of sovereignty because it applies to the waters within the mainland of the Arctic islands. We have all expressed our own views with regard to the issue of sovereignty. However, I see no way that this piece of legislation is related to the question of sovereignty over the waters of the Canadian Arctic.
By virtue of introducing this act, and bringing it into effect we will be able to control the use and development of the water resources of these areas in northern Canada. I acknowledge the minister's initiative in this respect because, in the past, these waters could have been subject to misuse had there been economic development. We have the example of Yellowknife Bay where the people were concerned every spring because of the arsenic run-off from two gold mines in the area. As Yellowknife grew, there was a need to find a new supply of water in co-operation
March 3, 1970	COMMONS
with the territorial government and the mining companies concerned. Fortunately, a water supply was found not too far away. This is an example of what might have happened on a large scale had there been more economic development than has existed up to this time. The bill w'ill provide the vehicle to ensure that the question of social benefits, the control of the ecology and economic development all go hand in glove and that they work to the benefit of the people who live in the north and to all other Canadians.
I wish to comment on one aspect of the bill which was referred to by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that is the form in which the proposed boards are established. I agree with the hon. member when he says there is no money provision in the bill regarding civil servants. I like to think there is a room in a water planning board to include people from outside of the Civil Service, be it federal or territorial. I hope when the minister is replying to the members who have spoken on this particular bill he will be able to give us some indication of his thinking. In my view, it is important to include a private sector in planning for the use of our water resources.
In my opinion this bill is long overdue. I hope the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development will study this bill and recommend to this House that it be passed with a minimum amount of delay. As our water resources in northern Canada are brought under development by this bill, it will be an example to the rest of Canada for the appropriate use of the waters of our nation.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments regarding Bill C-187. It seems that this House suffers from a situation where we have a constipation of ideas, a diarrhea of words, and an effluent of bills. Recently the Canada Water Act was passed, a national water act. Surely, this act applies with equal force in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The bill did not exclude the Northwest Territories or Yukon. Now, we have another bill being presented. I wish the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Green) would explain why we need this bill. In what particular area do we need this bill? What do we need to cover that is not covered in the Canada Water Act? Was the Canada Water Act not properly drafted to cover this particular area? It is of great concern that bureaucracy after bureaucracy is being built up. Parkinson's and inter-
DEBATES	4327
Northern Inland Waters Bill national law find the money and you will find a way to spend it.
It is interesting to note that both the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the two boards are going to be appointed by the government and that civil servants will be sent to that area to administer this act. This is a build-up of a complete dictatorship. What takes precedence: the Canada Water Act or Bill C-187.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Read the bill.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have read the bill, Mr. Speaker. I think if the government had studied the bill more carefully the minister would not be bringing it forward today. It is redundant and is just adding more expense and confusion to the whole situation.
I was interested to hear the minister talking about what past governments had done and about the great production in the gold mines. Those of us who have been in the House long enough remember how the liberals of that day had us sliding from igloo to igloo. It was the vision of the Diefenbaker Conservative government that brought in the Roads to Resources program and built the Pine Point railway which brought mining to the point where the minister can quote figures today of $30 million production. The north is opening up and is taking on greater importance. The record should be kept straight. It was the Pine Point railway, the Roads to Resources program and other things which have developed the north.
I agree that water in the north is a very important matter. If we look at a map of Canada we see that nearly all our waters flow into the Arctic. All of our main rivers flow north, even from the United States border. They all flow into the Arctic Ocean or Hudson Bay. It is a great resource area containing oil, water and minerals which must be developed further. We must take stock of those resources and we must take stock of pollution of those waters. If we pollute those waters we will not have pure water for our own use. Selling water, of course, would then be out of the question.
There are different problems to be faced in the north. There is perma-frost and the disposal of waste is not as easy as in areas where a bulldozer can scoop out pits and septic tanks can be installed. This is a difficult problem in the north. Ground pollution does not run away or, if it does run away, it runs into the lakes and rivers and pollutes them. Again, I return to this question: why does not the Canada Water Act cover the
4328	COMMONS
Northern Inland Waters Bill situation? Indeed, I wonder why there should he any need for two boards to be set up. Why set up two boards when the necessary machinery already exists under the terms of the Canada Water Act?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I will ask the Minister of Mines,, Energy and Resources a further question: when the government sets up a designated area and makes a grant to industry there, is any inquiry made beforehand into the nature and extent of the effluent which the industry is likely to discharge? Or does the government go ahead and grant money without taking this factor into consideration? I shah be interested to hear the minister's reply, because I think this is an important point.
Another interesting facet of this situation is that rivers in the Arctic flow from south to north, and the centres of population decrease in size as one travels north. If the water flow is reversed, what measures, will be taken to deal with contamination? I hope all these points will be considered in committee because they are of great practical importance.
Again, I confess I cannot understand the necessity for this bill. Sitting here in the House of Commons year after year we see a multiplicity of bills put forward for consideration. We see them brought in when other legislation already on the statute books could cover the situation, or be made to cover it with the addition of one or two clauses. Surely, the Canada Water Act could have covered any need which may arise in this case. Why set up a new branch of bureaucracy within the government when machinery already exists to accomplish the minister's purpose? I agree that this bill should get a hoist until we are able to go into these questions in greater detail, and think them out. For these reasons, I believe the amendment to be worthy of support.
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford!: Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out by a number of my hon. friends that this bill appears to contain several shortcomings. On the face of it, the measure seems to be innocuous. Some of us, bearing in mind the provisions of the Canada Water Act, do not understand the purpose of it at all except for one possibility which has been mentioned by my hon. friend from Peace River.
What bothers people who have been around here for a little while is this: to those who
[Mr. Rynard.l
DEBATES	March 3, 1970
take these innocent-seeming measures at their face value, we say "You don't know Nellie like we do." At any rate, the minister seems to think the bill is important enough for him to attend personally in the House, and this being so some of us begin to think there must be a fish hook in it somewhere. My hon. friend from Calgary North asks which minister I am talking about. I am referring, of course, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). This bill, which appears so innocuous, is not, I suspect, so innocent. The National Parks bill, which appeared to me to be quite important, was evidently not regarded by the minister in the same light.
To return to the bill itself. The government proposes to establish two appointed water boards, one in the Yukon and the other in the Northwest Territories, to provide for the conservation, development and utilization of the water resources of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. Either of these boards, together with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, may recommend to the Governor in Council that certain waters be designated as water management areas and that for these areas priorities of water use and standards of water quality and management may be prescribed. The bill goes on to forbid anybody to dispose of any waste in waters of the Territories except where regulations under the Act permit it, or licence for such water use has been granted by the appropriate water board or where authorization has been given under the Canada Water Act. The minister may appoint inspectors to see that these rules are complied with. All this, as I say, appears to be very innocuous. One cannot see why the House should have been troubled with it, taking into account the legislation which has already been put forward.
In his remarks a little while ago the minister made a brief reference to the reason for this bill in relation to the Canada Water Act. He was kind enough to send me a copy of his speech, so I can quote him with some accuracy. He said: "As hon. members know, the Canada Water bill is intended to protect the national interest and protect water resources throughout Canada. The Canada Water Act assumes that strong regional water authorities exist in the provinces and the territories, and this is the means whereby the federal government can co-operate with provincial and territorial water authorities in a comprehensive planning and management process." That is fine. We do not disagree. The question which
March 3, 1970

was asked by my hon. friend from Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) remains. Why is there any need for this bill? There is nothing in the Canada Water Act which does not cover the situation except for one little item later on to which I shall refer in due course. Perhaps the law officers of the Crown can tell me, through the minister, why the conservations boards could not be set up under the present statutory provisions covering the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-Economic Council-Reduction of permanent secretariat; employment of outside consultants; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Grain-Advice to rapeseed producers respecting markets; the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan)-National Defence-Condition of fall-out shelters.
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 Public Bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: that Bill C-27, to amend the Criminal Code (Young Offenders) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, of all the speeches I have ever delivered in this chamber and, of course, I have delivered quite a few, I do not think any has given me a bigger thrill than the opportunity, after a number of years, to recommend to the House the bill standing in my name with reference to the amendment of the Criminal Code.
I might say in passing, as an introduction, that I am still convinced, and I hope I am 21701-631
Criminal Code
right, that the environment of our young is just as important as heredity. On a personal note this is probably the reason part of my family was adopted. I believe home environment is very important. That is why we must set the proper tone.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If I may come now to Bill C-27, I am proposing to amend section 12 of the Criminal Code and also section 13, and to add a brand new section 13A. The amendment to section 12 will raise the age at which a child may be charged and convicted from seven to 12 years. Section 12 of the Code presently provides:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
This section means that any child seven years of age or over can be convicted of an offence. Surely, no child under 12 years of age should be convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code. The new section 13 that I am proposing will provide that no child between the age of 12 and 16 years shall be convicted unless he was competent to appreciate the nature and consequence of his conduct, and, above all, to appreciate that it was wrong. The onus of proving that is on the crown.
My new section 13A, which I should like added to the Criminal Code, would abolish the incarceration of children in penitentiaries at the tender age of 12 or 13 years. The section would provide that no person under the age of 16 years can be sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary, but should be sentenced to a term at an industrial school or rehabilitation centre.
As late as December 31, 1963 there were in Canada 45 children 16 years of age or under in our penitentiaries, and there were 386 under the age of 18. The latest statistics published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics show that there were two people in prison at that date of 15 years of age, 16 of 16 years of age, 136 of 17 years of age, 236 of 18 years of age, and 364 of 19 years of age. The next group of figures show there were 1,898 people in jail between the ages of 20 and 28 as of December 31, 1968. As I say, these are the latest figures available from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
What was the recommendation made by the report submitted by the Department of Justice committee on juvenile delinquency which was set up by a former minister of justice,

March 3, 1970
Criminal Code
the Hon. Davie Fulton? From the summary of the recommendations in the report I wish to quote recommendations 7 and 8. To save time, Mr. Speaker, I will summarize them, but they appear at page 284 of the report. In effect, they endorse the amendment that I have now put before the House. I take some pride in having placed this bill before the House prior to the committee's study of the subject and the submission of its report.
Perhaps I might be permitted to add recommendations 7 and 8, and also paragraphs 118 and 119 of the summary, to my speech, because they will confirm what I have said. This is in an effort to save time, as I understand many members have asked to speak and I want to keep my remarks short. I would, therefore, ask the consent of the House to add as part of my speech recommendations 7 and 8 and also paragraphs 118 and 119 of the report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The procedure suggested by the hon. member has never been encouraged by the Chair for many reasons. First, because of the length of certain texts and also because of the translation problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In 1964, after some years of research and, indeed, anxiety about the youth of the nation, I put a number of questions on the order paper, and these were answered at page 4282 of Hansard for June 15 of that year. I asked:
1.	When will the construction of the Drumheller penitentiary (institution for young offenders) commence?
2.	Will this institution be especially designed in every regard for the purpose of rehabilitating young offenders and, if so (a) what is the plan in this regard, and (b) what program will be followed?
3.	From what provinces will young offenders be placed in the institution?
4.	How many young offenders, under 21 years of age, are now incarcerated in penitentiaries in Canada?
5.	How many are incarcerated under 15 years of age?
6.	What age is the youngest prisoner in Canada?
I might say at this point that it was the Conservative government under the present right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that started this project of rehabilitation. I think I can take some credit for it as I made many speeches and representations to the then Minister of Justice and Prime Minister of this nation with regard to a new penitentiary or rehabilitation center at
(Mr. Woolliams.]
Drumheller, nicknamed "Eldon's House" by a very able lawyer in Calgary, a cousin of the Horner brothers, Milt Harradence.
The answers to my series of questions were as follows:
1.	The construction of the Drumheller institution is expected to commence in October 1964.
2.	The Drumheller institution has been designed specifically in every regard for the purpose of rehabilitating young offenders.
(a)	The plan is to construct an institution of medium security based on the principles of the most up to date concepts of the correctional process, which will incorporate the required facilities for young offenders from western provinces and certain selected adult first offenders.
(b)	The program will be based on the principle of individual attention, using diagnostic processes from social, medical and psychological points of view; and will include the following elements: education, vocational training, religious observance and spiritual guidance, social education, (citizenship training), physical education and recreation, cultural activities and hobbycrafts guidance and counselling.
This institution is now doing a wonderful job rehabilitating people who are on day parole.
At the time I asked the question there were 1,091 inmates under 21 years of age incarcerated in penitentiaries in Canada. One inmate was under 15 years of age; and the youngest prisoner in jail at that time was a child of 14.
The next question we should ask ourselves is: What is the criminal responsibility of children under the law at the present time? In this regard do we have to wait for the law reform commission proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to make recommendations? This relates to my proposed amendment to section 12. I have raised the age from seven years to 12 years; and my section 13 raises the maximum age to 16 years, rather than 14 years, and provides that the child must be competent to know the nature and consequence of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong before such person can be convicted. The onus of proving this is on the crown.
I have prepared a brief on the Criminal Code of Canada, part of which deals with pages 27 and 28 of Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada. I should also like to add these pages as part of my speech because there the law is clearly set out. The onus is on the crown to prove guilty knowledge in cases where a juvenile or young offender is charged with an offence. Therefore, I should like to add these paragraphs extracted from the Criminal Code of Canada to my speech.
March 3, 1970


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I shall have to repeat what I said to the House, in the other official language namely that the procedure suggested by the hon. member is one that has always been discouraged by the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, in view of the nature of this bill I ask for consent of the House to my request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I understand there are several reasons for this reluctance, among them the length of the extract in question, and also the problem of translation.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It would take too long to read, but the extract does set out the responsibilities. This to be found at pages 27 and 28 of Crankshaw's Criminal Code and is there for anyone to read. I do not want to go into the detail of this; it is merely a statement of the law.
The Code provides in section 139 that no child under the age of 14-there are exceptions which I want to make sure are understood-can be convicted of rape, attempted rape, the seducing of a female between the age of 14 and 16 or seducing a female who is of previously chaste character. Sections 136, 137, 138 and 142 prohibit any person under the age of 14 from being charged with the commission of an offence.
Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, made this statement:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.
What is prison like for young people? I think I could describe prison life for young offenders in the words of Byron's great "Sonnet on Chillon", one of my favourite sonnets which I know by heart. This is particularly relevant in these days when our young people are running afoul of the law in their use of drugs, which constitute a serious social problem. Byron, that great poet with a great heart, said in his sonnet:
And when thy sons to fetters are consigned- To fetters and the damp vault's day less gloom. Their country conquers with their martyrdom, and Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Pierre Berton put it in a nutshell in his article on "Canadian Justice'', in the Star
Criminal Code
Weekly magazine of July 18, 1964 when he said:
One by-product was homosexuality. Since young offenders were often dumped into prison compounds with old and hardened men, it was almost axiomatic that any youth entering prison (and there were children as young as 13 in Canadian penitentiaries in the 1960's) be forced into a homosexual alliance that could scar him for life.
The same system of mixing the young and the old, the novices and the veterans, which was prevalent in many parts of Canada as late as 1964 made it easy for youths to learn the fine points of criminal technique before they were once more dumped, with few resources upon an unforgiving society.
Although we have legalized homosexuality, let us not legalize homosexual seduction of our youth.
Again in the Weekend magazine of February 23, 1963, Bill Trent, staff writer, wrote a story with information supplied to him by Allen J. MacLeod, Commissioner of Penitentiaries. Like the head of the Parole Board he is a real spirited public servant of our nation. I have referred to this article before in the House of Commons, and it refers to a boy called "Henri". It states:
There are many sad stories about children in prison but the case of a twelve year old boy who will be referred to as Henri has gone down in penitentiary history as a classic.
Henri had all the cards stacked against him. He was the product of a shiftless father and a prostitute mother, who had separated. In his short lifetime he had been in all sorts of trouble. He had been sentenced to reformatories and at one time had even been committed to a mental hospital.
Then one night, during a period of freedom, he walked into the House to find his mother sleeping with her landlord. Furious, he picked up a can of tomatoes and hurled it at the man, striking him in the head. He was charged with assault.
This lad was convicted and sent to the penitentiary. This is a sad story particularly when you consider that this young lad could not be held in prison because he was so small he could squeeze between the bars at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. The officials tried to hustle him away to protect him. They even took up a fund to buy him a scooter, a toy construction set and a fleet of toy trucks.
This article really got me excited. Allen MacLeod described one warden as saying it was heartbreaking to listen to the children cry at night. Mr. MacLeod said they have no right to put children in the penitentiaries. He heads the committee on juvenile delinquency in Canada. He also says the right to put children in the penitentiaries is guaranteed by the Criminal Code which says that a seven year old child can be imprisoned if convicted of a criminal offence.

March 3, 1970
Criminal Code
Since my attack in the House on this situation, and since I read this statement by Bill Trent in the House, quoting from his interview with Allan MacLeod, children have been, to some extent, removed from penitentiaries. They still can be convicted, and if a province does not supply rehabilitation centres, or alternate institutions, this legal right to put children in penitentiaries still exists.
I plead with the minister and with the House to remove the window dressing from reform and get on with the job; stop image building-images will be built if you reform, but it will take a lot of public relations firms to cover up for the sins of this generation when history is written. When the image builders are dead, the historians will pick the bones of the raw cold carcasses of this civilization and the truth will be revealed.
We naturally get enraged and become emotionally disturbed when we see children in the penitentiaries. If there are places of incarceration for convicted children, maybe the wrong people are in prison. Maybe it should be some of the parents who have deserted their children or the lawmakers. I doubt whether Henri's case will ever be duplicated, and God help us if it is. Dickens said "The law is a ass". Let us ride that donkey out of this Parliamentary pasture.
In October of 1959, a 14 year old young male, Stephen Truscott, was tried in an adult court and convicted. Do you know what the sentence was? It was that he was to be hanged by the neck until he was dead. This case was later on reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, but if this amendment of mine had been law they could not have tried him in an adult court.
Offences for infants should be linked together; offences for juvenile offenders should be studied by a carefully organized court made up of legal men, psychiatrists and, therefore, a solution should be forthcoming. They should not be tried by judges but rather by psychiatrists and psychologists who understand child psychology. I do not think a man who practices law and draws up mortgages necessarily understands the psychology of children.
I have said a great deal recently about young people, and the criticism from some people against my stand has been very severe, so severe that I wonder sometimes whether society has caught up with itself, or if we have to wait another generation for true understanding.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
It has been a great pleasure to present this bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope it will go to the committee for study. I will await for the committee report and its recommendations. Let us get our children out of jail and do away with these archaic laws which give this nation the right to place these children in these institutions.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congraulate the hon. member for presenting this bill at this particular time. Although this bill would amend the Criminal Code in respect of the age limit for criminal responsibility in relation to the young offender, which amendment I believe to be most appropriate, the mere fact that this bill is proposed brings up the whole question of juvenile delinquency and the essential need for prompt and radical reform. I should like to deal briefly with the actual amendments proposed to this bill, and then touch upon the allied subject of reform to our laws dealing with juvenile delinquency.
The hon. member would eliminate Section 12 of the Criminal Code and put in a new section which, in essence, would provide that no person under 12 years of age shall be convicted. The former section stated that no person under 7 years of age could be convicted. In my opinion this law, in force for many years, should definitely be changed. For most of us it is hard to accept the fact that a child from 7 to 12 could be tried and convicted. This reform is long overdue and the amendment to Section 12 or one similar should be passed as soon as possible.
The next amendment relates to Section 13 of the Criminal Code which now reads:
No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of 14 years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequence of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong.
This proposed amendment would retain this rule but increase the age from seven to 14, to 12 to 16. I agree this is a step in the right direction, but I feel this House should seriously consider eliminating this section altogether, as advocated in the report of the Department of Justice on juvenile delinquency.
As I understand the present section there is a rebuttal presumption that a child between seven and 14 was incapable of committing a crime. To establish criminal responsibility the prosecution was required to show that the child had sufficient moral discretion and understanding to appreciate the wrongfulness
March 3, 1970

of his act. As the Department of Justice report points out, there appear to be many valid arguments why this rule should be abolished altogether. First, the rule is difficult to apply. Many juvenile judges ignore it altogether while others differ in the degree of proof that is required. Second, background information which is not properly before the judge until after a finding of delinquency is made is sometimes reviewed at the adjudication stage for the purpose of making a determination required by the rules. Third, the similarity in wording between Section 13 of the Criminal Code and the operational test for insanity has apparently caused some confusion. Four, the rule was formulated at a time when there were no juvenile courts. Five, it is important to note also that the presumption weakens with the advance of the child's years toward 14. Its principal value is in connection with proceedings against offenders who are very young. A proposal to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility would further diminish the need for this particular rule.
Therefore, in summary, although the hon. member is moving in the right direction by his proposal to increase the ages for this rule, in view of the foregoing arguments perhaps it would be preferable to eliminate Section 13 completely. Personally I am especially keen on amendments of this type because if passed there would be fewer convictions of juveniles. As one who is intensely interested in the aftermath of a conviction I believe an amendment of this nature should be passed. On many occasions I have been apprised of the injurious consequences of a criminal record. Not only does it scar the soul for years, not only is it an insidious social stigma, but it has fearful economic consequences. People with criminal records in many cases cannot enter the public service; they cannot enter the armed forces; they cannot be bonded; they have difficulty in obtaining various types of licences and above all they have difficulty in securing employment. If these proposed amendments in any way decrease the number of young offenders suffering a conviction, then for that reason alone I submit they are worth while.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Now, turning to the third amendment which in essence says there should be no imprisonment in a penitentiary for persons under 16 years of age, I wholeheartedly approve of the intention of this particular reform. I have seen prisons, such as St. Vin-
Criminal Code
cent de Paul and Kingston. Certainly, no boy under 16 years of age should be incarcerated in these institutions. The penitentiaries have hardened and twisted prisoners. If a boy were exposed to prisoners of this type he could suffer irreparable harm. If we are really interested in rehabilitating the young offender, surely he should not be placed among professional criminals who are only too eager to teach an impressionable young offender the sophisticated art of their trade.
The question is whether this amendment, although well meaning, will carry out the intention of the hon. member who has moved it. Firstly, since under the Juvenile Delinquents Act all persons under the age of 16 years who are charged with an offence appear in the first instance before a juvenile court, clause 3 of Bill C-27 would be applicable only in those cases in which the juvenile had been transferred to an adult court in accordance with section 9 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. That section may be applied where the child apparently or actually is over the age of 14 years, where the offence is an indictable one, and where the juvenile court considers that the good of the child and the interest of the community require referral to the adult court. If this amendment were passed a person under the age of 16 would upon conviction, for example for murder, be sent to an industrial school in the province. There, he could be confined only until he reached age 21 at which juncture he would be returned to society.
A further consideration is that clause 3 deals only with those offenders who would otherwise be sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary. The clause does not apply to a person under the age of 16 years who receives a sentence in an adult court for less than two years. Such persons, unaffected by the proposed legislation, accordingly would be required to serve their sentence in a provincial jail. Such a result would appear not to be equitable since the more serious offence would result in confinement to an industrial school while the less serious offence would result in confinement in jail.
It should not be forgotten that there are now special provisions in the Penitentiaries Act dealing with those who have been sentenced or committed to penitentiary who are under age 16. By subsection (1) of section 21 of the Penitentiaries Act they cannot, except by special direction of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries, be confined in association with persons over age 21. Further, by subsection

March 3, 1970
Criminal Code
(2) of section 21 the Commissioner of Penitentiaries may, in the case of one under age 16, authorize his transfer from a penitentiary to a provincial institution in the same region if that institution is operated for the custody and training of persons under age 21.
I certainly feel that the proposal in clause 3 sets out what society wants in respect of the incarceration of a child under 16 years of age. I certainly endorse this sentiment. With some refinement of this clause it might be possible to carry out the intention of the mover, but perhaps it would be better to amend the Penitentiaries Act so that it will clearly and unequivocably state that under no circumstances shall a person under 16 years of age be imprisoned in a penitentiary. This I understand is the intention of the previous speaker. We are indebted to the hon. member for introducing this bill because he has focused attention on a most important question, the whole question of juvenile delinquency. This is a most urgent national problem as shown by the fact that in Canada in 1964, 17,000 children under age 16 were adjudged delinquent.
It cannot be emphasized too emphatically that the most productive stage at which to tackle the subject of adult criminals is the stage at which the young person is most vulnerable and exhibits delinquent tendencies. Juvenile delinquency is one of the most distressing and important social problems of our time. Delinquent children, their families and the state, which in the end bear the costs, are gravely affected. The cost of maintaining the offender in a training school for one year as a juvenile delinquent, and in jails and penitentiaries for 13 years as an adult, is over $17,000.
Aware of the gravity of this problem the government, through the Department of Justice, appointed a committee on juvenile delinquency. This committee produced a very comprehensive and far reaching report with a series of 100 recommendations. Copies of this report are available in the Department of Justice. I would recommend it to hon. members as very worth while reading. Among its many suggestions the report advocates additional facilities, more juvenile corut judges and social agencies and different hearing and sentencing procedures. It strongly recommends-and personally I heartily endorse the recommendation-the abandonment of the term "juvenile delinquent" and the substitution of the term "child offender" and "young offender".

There is a constitutional allocation of power between the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to juvenile delinquency, but this divided jurisdiction must not be used as an excuse or an impediment for not implementing many of these long overdue and beneficial reforms as soon as humanly possible. Preventive action does not receive the high priority in the battle against crime that it warrants. In the field of juvenile delinquency, although the government has made an auspicious beginning by producing this report, it will be of little avail unless the federal and provincial governments co-operatively implement many of its suggestions. I am very pleased that the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) is undertaking an exhaustive review of our laws on juvenile delinquency and will be introducing a young offenders bill. A modem revised act incorporating new ideas on child behaviour and the sociological problems besetting our infants should be of great assistance in this continuing fight against juvenile delinquency.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to consider these amendments which are now before the House when he brings in extensive amendments to the Criminal Code at a later date. In any event, I believe that amendments of this type should be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Again, I congratulate the hon. member for bringing these amendments before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit one question. I liked his speech and his suggestions. As chairman of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, would he be prepared to have this bill examined by the committee in the same way other bills have been examined in committee? Would he make that recommendation.


Donald Ross Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee I would be delighted to have this matter referred to the committee. I do not think it is within my ambit to authorize this. I would like to see it referred to the committee and will do everything possible to facilitate its referral.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the mover of this bill, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), for bringing it forward at this time. From my personal experience I know
March 3, 1970

the hon. member to be a man of authority, compassion and with an interest in social justice. We all are proud that he has brought forward Bill C-27 at this time. As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I should like to say that I do not think we should waste much time in bringing this bill before the committee for study. I would hope also that the committee would report and that the report would be implemented. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General is in the House. I hope he will suggest to the Solicitor General that it would be most unfair and unwise at this time to allow this bill to be talked out. I believe the motion should be passed and the bill referred to the standing committee.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Having said that, I am also in agreement with the intent and the purpose of the amendments to section 12 and section 13, and the new amendment to section 13(a). These have been long overdue. It has only been by the persistence of the hon. member that we have them brought forth. Last year we had the opportunity to study and to pass the omnibus bill with regard to amendments to the Criminal Code, and after some persuasion I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is contemplating another series of amendments to the code. We would like to think it is also in the form of either an omnibus bill or a mini-bill.
We have had the Ouimet Commission report with regard to criminal matters within the country, and recommendations have been made by it. I hope the Minister of Justice will bring forth a bill immediately with regard to arrest, detention, bail and uniformity of sentencing, to be followed by a bill by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) which, as the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) said, would be a young offenders' act. I cannot be too critical of what has happened in that regard to date. I recall that a committee on juvenile delinquency was set up in 1961 or 1962 to study this matter and after four years they presented a report. That report was tabled in 1966. It contained many recommendations and we are still awaiting implementation of the recommendations in it.
It is all very well for the chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to say we are bringing forth a young offenders' act, and I am sure he wants it. But we have to take action. The Solicitor General must bring 21701-64
Criminal Code
it forth, and when he does I hope that either he or the Minister of Justice will introduce a mini-bill and incorporate the amendments that the hon. member for Calgary North has set forth.
The hon. member prefaced his remarks by saying that it is the environment which is so important with regard to youth today-the home environment, the church environment and the community environment. He became quite poetical, and rightly so, with regard to Byron. I could quote Byron myself; he is one of my favourite poets. He said, "Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage." We have learned from experience that the penitentiaries we have built have done nothing with regard to the reformation and rehabilitation of young offenders. Last Friday the Solicitor General presented to the House amendments to the Parole Act. They were just housekeeping amendments. Instead of bringing forth amendments which were of substance, he resorted to housekeeping amendments and last Friday we debated what should have been in that bill.
The hon. member for Calgary North has set forth the ages of young offenders who have been confined to penitentiaries. He pointed out that in 1968 there were two inmates, one 15 years of age and one 16 years of age, 136 inmates of 17 years of age, and so forth. Last Friday I pointed out that in 1967 we had four inmates 15 years of age; 15, 16 years of age; 62, 17 years of age; and 127, 18 years of age. I also pointed out that if you were to draw three broad categories of young offenders, from age 15 to 20 you would have 8 per cent of the population of our penitentiaries, from age 20 to 40 you would have 74 per cent and the balance would be men and women over 40 years of age.
We cannot overstress the importance of the treatment of young offenders up to age 16, and really up to age 21. It has been said in the Ouimet report that we should categorize young people up to age 18 as young offenders. As the hon. member for Welland has said, at no time should we call them juvenile delinquents. Possibly the delinquents have been the parents, the churches and the community organizations in not taking their full part in developing the character and moral values of these young people.
It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we get uniformity with regard to age groups. It may be that the Ouimet Commission is right, that the first group should be young offenders up to 18 years of age. It makes my heart sick, Mr. Speaker, when I think of the provinces

March 3, 1970
Criminal Code
across the country which have different juvenile delinquents acts covering young offenders of ages varying from, 16 to 18 years. A young fellow 16 years of age in Saskatchewan will be brought into a juvenile court, whereas a young fellow 16 years of age in Ontario will be brought into an adult court and perhaps be tagged with a criminal conviction, which we know is very difficult to get rid of.
The hon. member for Calgary North has gone into the substance of these provisions. He pointed out how necessary and meaningful they are and what they contain. It would be very foolish for us to prolong this debate, talk out the bill and not give an opportunity for it to be referred to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. Therefore, I have made my remarks very brief. I hope other members of the House who participate in this debate will not speak right up to the end of private members' hour, but before that will give us an opportunity to vote on the bill and refer it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, the last three members have all ably and eloquently expounded the subject. I agree in their condemnation of those things which are wrong. I agree that these wrongs should be righted as rapidly as possible. I do not think things are quite as bad as they are painted. There are many provisions today which are quite good, perhaps as good as we can get, which require explaining. In any event, I hasten to admit that as a member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee I welcome these various suggestions coming before us so that we can study them in detail and make recommendations.
If I may deal with the bill specifically for a moment, clause 1 provides that no person shall be tried for or convicted of an offence if he is under the age of 12 years. The law at the moment is seven years; obviously that is much too young. This bill would change the level of potential criminality from seven to 12 years of age.
The Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency reported in 1967. I believe the age they recommended was ten years. I am not too concerned whether ten years or 12 years is the limit, because as I understand it all the provinces have an act, which we might call the protection of children act. There are undisciplined children who require control, and there would not be a vacuum because they could be looked after under the laws of the province.

The second clause, which deals with onus, would change the provisions of the act applicable to offenders of the very tender age of seven to 14, to the age of 12 to 16. Under that clause it would be up to Crown counsel prosecuting the child to prove that the child had the mental capacity to commit an offence or that he knew the nature and consequence of his conduct and appreciated that it was wrong. That is a rather substantial step, Mr. Speaker. Whereas before we were dealing with offenders as young as 7 years old, now the age is between 12 and 16. Indeed, it is a very heavy onus on the Crown to prove-and the Crown does not have the power to force psychiatric or psychological examination- that a person did have the required mental capacity. I think in that respect the bill is perhaps going too far and is putting too great an onus on the Crown.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
To explain my point, let us compare for a moment a child's position in a civil action. If a child is injured on a crosswalk or out of a crosswalk by a motor vehicle, at seven years of age he is quite often found capable of giving evidence, being examined for discovery and cross-examined at trial. He can, in fact, be found guilty of contributory negligence and as a result will forfeit part of the sum he would have recovered. We must also remember that a child of that age can give evidence and be cross-examined in a criminal case.
Clause 3 of the bill would provide that no person under the age of 16 years can be sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary- absolutely no one in Canada. Instead, he would be sent to an industrial school. With respect to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), there are some vacuums or loopholes if we proceed in this manner. Right now the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over offenders up to the age of 16 years in some provinces, and higher in others. Ordinarily, with the exception which I will give in a moment, such children cannot be sent to penitentiary. So when can they be sent to penitentiary? If the juvenile court is dealing with an indictable offence, under section 9 of the act it may refer the Child to an ordinary high court for trial. But that procedure must be followed only if the court is of the opinion that it is good for the child and/or is in the interest of the community.
There have been very few cases where they have proceeded against a child in the higher
March 3, 1970

court, but there have been some. For example, Mr. Speaker, a murder case is usually-heard in an adult court. It is fine to say that a child aged 15 years, 364 days should not be tried in an ordinary court, but this is an example of where it would be possible for a child aged 15 years, 364 days to take an axe and kill his mother and father and then ask for leniency because he is an orphan. So there are some cases, Mr. Speaker, particularly where the young person is a repetitive offender, which I submit ought to be tried in the Supreme Court. As the law stands now, the judge of the juvenile court has authority to send them there if he so desires.
What happens to this person after trial? If he is tried in the Supreme Court they can keep control of him until they are satisfied he is fit for parole and can be rehabilitated into the community. But if he is tried as the bill suggests, he could only be confined, as I understand the law, until he reaches the age of 21 and then he would be returned to society, whether he is ready for rehabilitation or not. We might regret such a move.
As the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) pointed out, there is another consideration. The bill deals only with those offenders who would otherwise be sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary. Those offenders the bill would have sent to an industrial school; that is, the really serious offenders. Under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, where the offence was less serious they would be sent to provincial jail. It would seem wrong to send the more serious offenders to an industrial school and the less serious offenders to jail.
In any event, as was also pointed out by the hon. member for Welland, there is provision in the Penitentiary Act that those committed to penitentiary under the age of 16 cannot, except at the special direction of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries, be confined in association with persons 21 years of age or more. However, the commissioner may, in the case of a person under the age of 16 years, authorize his transfer from a penitentiary to a provincial institution in the same region if that institution is operated for the custody and training of persons under the age of 21 years. I understand that this power is exercised in all cases where it is appropriate to do so.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, although I agree that there is much merit in the contention that the law in this regard requires very serious examination, I understand there will shortly be before this House substantial
21701-64J
Criminal Code
amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and I think that before very many months have passed we will have an opportunity to make all these wrongs right.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and so am unable to approach this subject legalistically, but I should like to approach it as a parent of a teenager now going to school in Ottawa, a lad who of course must give a parent a great deal of concern because he is exposed to the various problems around us.
As a Calgarian for a number of years, I have a great deal of respect for the mover of this bill, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) because he is well known for his compassionate appeals on behalf of youth over the years. His many speeches made in the House and reported in the press have been most admirable.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Although I am not a lawyer and cannot say whether young people ought to be confined in any particular type of institution, I have searched my mind with regard to the causes of delinquency as well as its effects. Today I think we should not be so much concerned about the age at which we deal with our young people as with the tremendous sociological problems which we have and do not seem to be coping with adequately.
It seems to me, as I look back, that right after the war we began allowing our youth a measure of permissiveness. Psychiatrists were writing books and saying, "You must not spank the child but take him to one side and listen. You must not use the switch any more at school but take the child to the office and listen. You must change your disciplinary methods and your way of teaching what is right and what is wrong."
I am a parent who has raised three boys, and I find I am supposed to do more listening than talking and that my experience really does not count for much any more. I resented being taken to the woodshed when I was a young boy and treated in a certain way. Today parents are not supposed to operate that way. I am in favour of raising the age limit with respect to convicting young people. Nothing appalls me more than seeing a young person who has made a mistake being confined to an institution.
It so happens that at one time when I was young I went to reform school, although not as an inmate. My father was a school teacher in reform school at Portage la Prairie.

March 3, 1970
Criminal Code
Because we lived in close proximity to the reform school, I was in close contact with the everyday happenings in that school. I recall the severe discipline of those days. My father helped a great deal in changing some of those terrible disciplinary methods. In later years when I was in western Canada I ran into successful young men who did not hesitate to remind me they had gone to that school and been taught by my father in Portage la Prairie. They were anxious to see him. That sort of discipline would not be tolerated today in any way, shape or form.
I am concerned because parents are becoming increasingly permissive. Because we are not sure in our minds about the difference between right and wrong, we tell our young people, "We will reduce the amount of discipline and make your lives easier to live, even though you do wrong." I am in favour of increasing the age at which a child or young person may be convicted, and was appalled to hear the hon. member for Calgary North say that children of seven were confined as he described. Even though the age limit is raised, alternative methods of dealing with our youth must be found. But they should not be told they can run out and demonstrate and disregard law and order, as they are doing today.
I hoped that the lawyers in this House who must be experienced in these matters as a result of having been involved in court proceedings could shed some light on this problem. I cannot conceive, from my limited knowledge of court procedure, that any young people in this country would behave in a courtroom as some people behaved a few days ago in Chicago. I understand the people involved were refused bail by the judge, and that bail has been granted by another judge. I have heard talk to the effect that the judge himself will face some type of trial.
I think all parents are concerned about our finding alternatives to the sentences being meted out to our young people, regardless of their age. What about the young fellows who sit around the house at night watching television and seeing violence portrayed: what are we doing to change that situation? What are we doing to change their environment? Let us grapple with the roots of the problem instead of saying merely that the age limit with respect to convictions should be raised to 12 or 16 years of age. All these young people need our help, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, if we are considering decreasing the voting age from 21 to 18, we are doing so because the young people of today know a great deal more than they knew in days gone by.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member has
talked the bill out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 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. Chretien that Bill C-187, respecting Inland Water Resources in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, before private members' hour I was making some suggestions as to what the real necessity for this bill might be. I was inquiring of the minister-and perhaps he might answer this question when closing the debate at this stage-why the legislation is really necessary. As far as members of this party can see, it is redundant and is repetitious of the Canada Water Act. We in this party believe that the setting up of the two boards mentioned by the minister could have been done under existing legislation. I refer to the Yukon Water Board and the Northwest Territories Water Board. There is really no purpose for this provision.
I wish to make one or two other remarks in this regard. In his remarks this afternoon, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) referred to the great duplication of legislation and questioned its necessity. I have already alluded to that matter. It seems that this legislation is unnecessary. The setting up of these boards could have been done under existing legislation. This multiplicity of legislation is unnecessary. It is not a particularly expensive matter, but it does take up the time of this House.
March 3, 1970

It has been suggested that perhaps this bill is a reflection on some kind of a power struggle in the cabinet between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). This, of course, is only conjecture. No one really has any knowledge of the motivation behind these things. We cannot look into the inner recesses of other people's minds to find out what is going on.
It was also suggested that perhaps the bill is a gesture by the minister to let the territorial governments participate in pollution control after their disappointment over the constitutional changes suggested by the government last fall. If this is the case, I do not think it amounts to very much because there is no real power accorded to the Territorial Council. Both these water boards are to be appointed by the minister. There are to be several members on the boards. There is to be at least one nominee of each federal department concerned with northern water management. That is a lot of people, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Simcoe North pointed out during the debate on the Canada water bill that there are at least seven departments concerned with water pollution in general. These did not include the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which has added itself to the list.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The point which was raised this afternoon by way of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) represents the principal objection we in this party, at least, take to the bill before us. As the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) said-and my hon. friend from Peace River as well as the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) on the government side referred to this-we do not like the proposition that all the members of the proposed boards should be civil servants. They will all be members of the so-called establishment, and it has often been suggested by members of this House that these people tend to have a frozen state of mind.
It would be a little better, I believe, if persons outside the civil service were also appointed to these boards. This is a shortcoming the government might correct at a later stage. I hope provision will be made for the appointment of at least one member on each board who is not a member of the civil service and who has knowledge of local condi-
Northern Inland Waters Bill tions. The minister might get one of his colleagues to propose such an amendment at the appropriate time.
The main fear we have is outlined in the amendment before the House. It concerns the diversion of waters from water courses. This appears to be the one item in this piece of legislation which really differs from the terms of the Canada Water Act which, we contend, covers what is proposed in the major part of the bill before us. It leads to a conclusion that a plan for the diversion of water has only to be approved by the board; it does not have to become a matter of public knowledge. An advertisement will be placed in the Canada Gazette-who reads that?-and there will be an advertisement placed in one newspaper: it might be in the newspaper of an obscure town in the north, and nobody would notice it.
There is a genuine concern on this side of the House stemming, in part, from what seems to be deep division within the cabinet as to our water policy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made some remarks at Carle-ton University the other day. This afternoon m the House during the question period he indicated he was not averse to selling our water in certain circumstances. Water flowing into the oceans was not of any use to us, he seemed to be saying. On the other hand, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr Sharp) has implied that not one drop of Canadian water will go to the Yanks, or to anybody else for that matter.
I do not like to use the term "weaseling" here, so I shall say that to judge from the variety of words used there does seem to be some disagreement in the cabinet as to what our water policy should be; whether we should sell it and get a price when it is not being used here, or whether there should be a complete assessment of the water we are likely to be using in this country in the foreseeable future before taking any such step. In any case, there seems little doubt from what has been said that there is indecision or even dispute within the cabinet as to our policy regarding the sale of water.
This being the background, we feel serious concern about clause 2(2) of this bill. I realize we should not refer to specific clauses at this stage but I am doing so merely to illustrate my point. The clause provides-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to exercise discretion as to the consideration of individual clauses at this time. The hon. member has himself acknowledged
4340	COMMONS
Northern Inland Waters Bill that on second reading we ought not to be discussing individual clauses of the bill. I hope hon. members will limit their contributions to debate on the principles of the bill and the amendment which is before the House.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I appreciate Your Honour's point of view and, of course, I agree with it. But perhaps Your Honour did not hear the observation I was just making. My reference to this particular clause illustrates the reason for the substance of the amendment presently before the House. It reads, if I may cite it, With Your Honour's permission:
For the purposes of this act, diversion of waters from a water course, whether the water course is seasonal or otherwise, and obstruction of any such water course shall be deemed to constitute uses of waters.
I quote this only to illustrate the reason for bringing an amendment before the House. We are concerned lest rivers flowing into the Arctic, as the majority of the rivers in this country do, either into the Arctic seas or into Hudson Bay, might be diverted to flow south into the Great Lakes or perhaps into other river systems such as the Columbia, in which case this clause might afford an opportunity for selling our waters in the absence of proper discussion or consultation with the Canadian public or, indeed, without their knowing about it.
This may not, of course, be the intention of the government. But over the years, as I say, one does become a little suspicious about these things, particularly when there does seem to be disagreement in cabinet circles as to what our water policy should be. As far as I am concerned, if the minister, when he closes the debate, would give the House an assurance that it is not the intention of the government to make use of this clause for the purpose I have suggested, and would agree to recommend an appropriate amendment making a declaration at the time, perhaps during the committee stage, we would be quite prepared to withdraw our amendment and allow the bill to pass on division. As has been pointed out, we have other objections to the terms of the bill. Otherwise, we must continue with our amendment.
As the bill stands, we object strongly to a measure which would permit the diversion of Canadian waters without the opportunity for a thorough and full discussion of the long range implications, particularly when government policy, like its attitude toward the Arctic sovereignty question, is uncertain, con-

DEBATES	March 3, 1970
tradictory and indecisive. With these remarks I close my observations and await what the minister has to say.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister and the hon. member that they will not have to wait very long. As I understand the purport of this bill, it is to set up regional water authorities in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. When we were discussing the water bill some time ago, I recall wondering whether there was not a certain amount of duplication as between the provincial and the federal water authorities in connection with pollution especially. There seems a similar possibility here.
There may be good reason for setting up these organizations in the long run, though I am not certain what it is at the moment. The minister in the course of his statement on the bill told the House that action of the kind proposed should not be taken half-heartedly. If he is disposed to view things in this light, if he intends to apply these measures vigorously and forcibly, I am quite pleased to go along with a bill of this nature.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
However, I should like to suggest that those with responsibility in a local sense in these two areas be given co-operation so they are allowed to exercise some authority. I do not think anyone can learn how to govern without having the chance to do some governing. I should like to see the minister extend more authority in fields such as this so that a more vigorous and forceful contribution can be made. In this case perhaps the people concerned would be less subject to temptation from outside sources than would be the case in some other fields.
I am in favour of the amendment moved by the Conservative Party in the sense that I do not think we should, at least at this stage, allow the exportation of our water. I am not quite sure where water from the Northwest Territories would be exported to, unless it were to Alaska. That might be a possibility if the Yukon River were dammed, but at the moment I am not sure just where we would export the water. Nevertheless, I think it is good to put in the bill a provision that places some restriction on exportation.
With regard to the administration of the bill, I favour the viewpoint of the northern affairs minister in the sense that I think he has perhaps a healthier attitude toward water pollution and control than has the Minister of
March 3, 1970	COMMONS
Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). I also say that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) has a better attitude than the minister of energy. Certainly this appears to be the case in light of some of the statements he has made in this House. For this reason I do not really mind the northern affairs minister exercising some control of the water resources in our northern areas.
As a member of the northern affairs committee I hope to study the bill clause by clause when it goes to the standing committee. There we will have the chance to look at all of its aspects and to question the minister in detail. At the present time I am looking forward to hearing the minister's explanation and clarification of some of the points that have been raised in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's participation now will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
there not an amendment, Mr. Speaker? I believe, therefore, that the minister is not closing the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who have participated in what I think has been a good debate. As far as the amendment moved by the official opposition is concerned, as I said earlier the bill relates to management of water in the north and is not related to exportation of water. As the last speaker pointed out, geographically there are not too many places to go if we want to export water from the Northwest Territories, but before any water can be diverted from the north across the border certain legislation on the statute books must be complied with.
I am surprised that the opposition is not aware of the fact that in order to cope with this kind of situation, in 1955, when the Premier of British Columbia wanted to move a little too quickly in this particular field, the government passed an act respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements. This act was designed for the purpose of making sure that the exportation of water is controlled by the federal government.


Mr.   Barnell@: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? I well recall that piece of legislation going through the House, but is
DEBATES	4341
Northern Inland Waters Bill the minister not aware that, despite passage of this legislation, we exported Columbia River water to the United States, and with the agreement of the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker; but
because the legislation existed it was necessary for the government to discuss the matter in the House of Commons and to sign a treaty with the United States. The main concern put forward by members today is that the government inform the people of any action it might take in this regard. In the case of the Columbia River Treaty a full debate was held in the House of Commons. Negotiations were held with the provincial government and the United States authorities.
Although the hon. member may not have agreed with the signing of the treaty, he cannot say he was unaware of what happened. I was here in those days and I know that the hon. member spent a lot of time, both in committee and in the House of Commons, trying to put across his point of view. Unfortunately for him he was unable to convince the majority of the members of the House that the Columbia River Treaty should not be ratified.
If water were to be diverted to the United States from southern rivers in Canada, the terms of the act passed in 1955 would have to be complied with before the water could cross the border. Even though the bill before the House does not deal with the international aspects of water diversion, there is legislation on the books to restrain any action that the board might take which the government considered not in the best interests of the country.
Another point raised by many hon. members today was that they felt the bill was a duplication of the Canada water act. I think the legislation before the House tonight complements the Canada water act. There is a presumption in the Canada water act that a regional or provincial body will be set up for purposes of local management. It is equally vital that there be such a body established in the north, especially when one realizes that this is a region in which one-sixth of the world's supply of fresh water is to be found. More than one-half of Canada's water supply lies in the Arctic. At the present time the Arctic is unpolluted. I apologize to no one for taking steps to ensure that the north remains unpolluted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope your colleague agrees with you.
March 3, 1970

Northern Inland Waters Bill


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will deal with that point later. The legislation deals not only with pollution of water but with the use of these water resources. When this bill is passed, anybody who wants to use these water resources of the north will be obliged to obtain a licence. If any licensee pollutes water, we will withdraw his licence. In this respect the bill is stronger because it gives to the government absolute jurisdiction in that regard.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
What we are doing through this bill is looking after the interests of the people of the north. I am the minister concerned in this House of Commons; Parliament has given the responsibility for northern development and resource development to the Minister of Northern Development. Through this bill we want to assert that responsibility, and we want to assert it in respect of all inland waters.
One hon. member referred to the waters between the Arctic Islands. As I said in the House, there will be some legislation forthcoming to deal with the problem of pollution of Arctic waters, but this bill refers to inland waters.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It does not say that.


An hon. Member:: Just read the act for once.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not that good in English, but it refers to "inland waters". My hon. friend from Nova Scotia, who is French speaking, probably understands fully the French part of this bill which states "les res-sources en eau a l'interieur du territoire", and so on, so he should understand as well as English speaking members that this measure has relation to inland waters.
I understand the point made by some hon. members about the composition of the boards. The boards will be composed of appointees of the government and the commissioners of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The bill states that there shall be at least one appointed by the Yukon and Northwest Territories. There is nothing which prevents us from appointing more than one. The members appointed to the boards by the federal government will be individuals representing each department who are not only interested in the affairs of the north but are also residents of that area. I do not want people from Ottawa having to go there each time there is an application.

The members of the boards will be specialists who are residents of the north. I think this is proper because each department involved in land and water management will be represented. Locally there will be representatives of my department. They will be recommended to me because these appointments have to be made through Orders in Council after discussion and consultation with the commissioners of the territorial councils. They will not be advisory boards but working boards which will have to deal with different applications. For this reason, the members of the boards in my opinion should be residents of the north and representatives of the department there. As I said, at least one appointment will be made by me, after consultation with the territorial governments. We say there shall be at least one such appointee. That is the wording of the legislation. I would consider favourably having more than one such representative.
There was a technical question raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He said that the boards would be made up only of civil servants because there is no provision in the bill to pay these people. As the bill states, the appointees outside the government will be recommended by the territorial councils and will come within the jurisdiction of the act that governs the territories. If we decide it is advisable that such outside people be appointed, we have the authority to have them paid by the territorial governments. I do not want to elaborate more on what I have said. I hope we will have the opportunity to take action and do things in the north that have not been done in the past. This is an unpolluted area, and I am amazed to see that the official opposition is opposed to a bill that goes as far as this one to control not only pollution but the usage of water. That is absolutely unbelievable. We want to make sure that control will be absolute in the north above the 60th parallel. The opposition says it does not want that kind of legislation. I am very amazed that opposition members oppose such a bill and want to put this matter in the fridge for years. Right now there is a danger of pollution and I am surprised that the opposition would adopt such an attitude.
Once more let me say I do not apologize to anyone for facing my responsibilities in charge of resource development in the north and for making sure that resources-almost the most important anywhere in the world- including water, are protected forever. We
March 3, 1970

have started from the beginning and we are not weakening in our position. I hope the explanation I have just given in respect of exportation of water will convince members of the opposition to revise their position and support this bill which will be studied clause by clause in the committee. At that time I will be delighted to testify and go into detail in respect of information I have in this regard.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take too much time. I think we are speaking on the amendment. There are a few words I should like to say about the legislation before us. I listened with interest to the minister's speech. There are many clauses of this measure with which I agree, but one or two of the statements he made in respect of water planning should be looked at again.
The bill which is before us is a measure respecting inland water resources in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. As I see it, the bill will create two territorial water boards. There will be one board in the Yukon and the other in the Northwest Territories. Each will act with single authority in its respective area of regulation and enforcement as laid down under this water measure. I do not think there should be any area in Canada without some type of water act or without the proper regulation and central enforcement of such a measure.
At the present time the administration of water rights in the area outlined in the bill is a real hodge-podge of uncertain jurisdiction. We have federal departments with some control and regulation, and we have the territorial governments also with certain control and regulations. As the minister has indicated, it would appear at present that there is not too much co-ordination or co-operation between these groups in respect of the management of these water resources. As I mentioned earlier, the unification and centralization of responsibility for the management of water resources in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is a step in the right direction. I have no hesitation in saying that. The minister has indicated that we can no longer afford to develop and manage our water resources in terms of single-purpose planning. This one section of his speech I agree with 100 per cent. The day of single-purpose planning, not only of water resources but of any resource, has gone for good.

Northern Inland Waters Bill
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
As I say, he mentioned there would be no more single-purpose use of our water resources. I hope this is true and I trust that as a result of this bill we will see the type of water planning and management which has been sadly lacking in many parts of Canada. It seems to me it would be very easy when developing a single-purpose use of our water resource to completely overlook the vast potential that is often available on a longterm basis. This is what we have been doing for years and are still doing in Canada today. We have done this time and time again. There are many examples of this in my own area. However, I am not certain that as Canadians we have learned our lesson in resource planning. The step-up of activities in our great northland without the necessary ground rules and regulations being laid down is an indication that the present government is not too clear in respect of its plans for this one-third of Canada.
I intend to be rather brief, but there are one or two points I should like to make. I do not believe these points have all been touched on today in relation to the planning in respect of the resources in the Arctic area. I feel this is a special area in Canada wherein we face problems we do not have anywhere else. So far as Canada is concerned, it is a very special area. It is an area in respect of which Canada has not done very much research. It is an area in respect of which there are not many authorities on the problems of the Arctic and how we should go about overcoming them.
Planning for the whole north is difficult and different, not only because of the immense area involved or the sparse population but because of a totally different environment. This environment presents problems which are not normally encountered south of the 60th parallel. As I mentioned earlier, special studies and planning as well as special people are required. The problems concerning development of the resources will tax our ingenuity to the limit, if we are to keep our water in this area up to quality standards.
There is no doubt that today we simply do not have the necessary research to logically and sensibly lay down a full program for the area. I am convinced, as are many other people, that we must start a research program now. This research work should have been done years ago because there has been every indication for a long time that the move to the north for mineral exploration would
4344	COMMONS
Northern Inland Waters Bill come. This has been apparent. We have heard of the wealth there. It was logical that moves would be made in this direction. What has been done has been too little and too late in so far as governmental planning is concerned.
In his speech today the minister said it is his firm belief that with the passage of this legislation we will have all the tools we require for multi-purpose planning and for rational development of our water resources. I do not agree with this. I am convinced that statement just does not hold up so far as the problem facing us in the north is concerned. I think there are a host of problems and that we will not solve them just by passing a water bill. Earlier the minister indicated that all these water problems would be solved and that he could guarantee the quality of our northern waters. I certainly hope he can, but it seems to me there are a number of things which have been overlooked.
I have obtained a number of scientific articles on the Arctic area. I shall not go into these at any length. However, I picked up one today which is very interesting. I would suggest to hon. members who do not have a copy of this article that they obtain one. It is in a little pamphlet apparently taken out of a larger book. It is entitled "A Look at the Future of Hazardous Contamination of the Circumpolar Environment." It was written by a Mr. Kingsley Kay, Ph.D. of Ottawa. This pamphlet sets out several problems which I believe should give members a little better insight into some of the difficulties we face so far as water resource management is concerned.
It does not go into a tremendous amount of detail but outlines several problems. For example, it talks about mining development coming into the Arctic area. Perhaps I should read a section of this because it states the situation much better than I could. It is not critical of the mining ventures but points out, for example, the problems waste materials can pose for the entire area so far as contamination is concerned. That is what we are talking about now-quality water and the possibility of pollution in this area. The article reads in part:
When mining and smelting operations began to develop in arctic regions following the war, it was supposed that discharge of effluents onto the barren arctic waste would not be harmful. However, communities quickly developed at operational sites, and it was evident to health workers that these operations might be even more hazardous to health under the climatic conditions of the Arctic than they had proved to be in populated temperature zone locations. This eventualized in one major

DEBATES	March 3, 1970
case where gold mining and smelting were undertaken in the Northwest Territories of Canada without waste control. Two years after commencement of operations, arsenic trioxide produced by ore-roasters in the recovery of gold had contaminated the surrounding townsite to the extent that poisoning cases involving domestic animals and humans occurred. Then too, the process of distribution of radionuclide fission products around the earth has been under observation for a number of years, and health specialists in this field have suspected that the climatic conditions of the Arctic would also favour the accumulation of these contaminants.
The point he is making is that quite frequently we will take planning from a temperate zone-and we live in a temperate zone- and try to transplant that temperate zone planning into an area where there is a completely different type of climate. I think this has possibly happened with regard to this bill. The article continues:
It now seems clear that development of the Arctic in the temperate zone pattern could introduce the same progression of environmental contamination problems perhaps even in an intensified form due to the meteorology, geology, and geography of the high latitudes.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The interesting thing here, Mr. Speaker, and it has already been mentioned by some hon. members, is that much of the Arctic is an area covered with permafrost. It is not like the areas in which we live. The writer goes on to explain that probably they would spray with DDT to combat black flies. In most sections of Canada a lot of the residue would be carried into the soil with rainfall, and in a period of time would be dissipated. Chemical changes would take place, but when there is a layer of permafrost this does not happen. Matters of this sort should be brought to the attention of the House, the committee, and the minister who is piloting the bill through the House.
Just regulating water will not solve our pollution problem in the Arctic. We must sit down and do a lot of planning on what we will do with mineral wastes which could become toxic, and what we will do with other types of waste coming from the little settlements that will be established. They will have exactly the same problem. There is only one place for their wastes to go, into the pools, lakes and rivers. Very little of their wastes will seep into the soil and be dissipated in that way.
This pamphlet also deals with a fallout problem and how it can affect animals and people. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I
March 3, 1970

would like to read a few lines from this portion:
Among the long-lived meteorologically distributed radionuclide wastes, cesium 137 has become the one of greatest interest to public health authorities since Liden in 1961 reported body burdens in Laplanders around 40 times as high as the southern Swedish population.
It goes on to point out that the reason is that in the area where the reindeer live, cesium 137 gets on the lichen upon which the animals feed and as a result there is a fantastic amount of it in the meat of the animals which the Laplanders eat. The same thing can and does happen in the Arctic where you have a heavier concentration of this type of material simply because there is no chance of it seeping down into the soil and being dissipated.
The article continues:
This investigator discovered that the higher level of the northern population was due to ingestion of reindeer meat which contained 137 Cs at levels around 280 times higher than the beef consumed in the south. These findings were confirmed for Finland in 1964. It was subsequently found that the lichens on which the reindeer feed have an accumulation efficiency of 100 per cent for this radionuclide.
Then it goes on to say:
Though hazardous levels do not appear to have been reached, the existence of this concentrating process demands continuing assessment in the interests of the safety of both indigenous and nonnative people.
The point I am trying to make here, Mr. Speaker, is that this type of fallout could come anywhere over the earth, but because of the peculiarities of this region it is found in larger concentrations there, much larger than we normally would have in other parts of the world, for example, in the temperate zone.
It seems to me we must be especially careful in the type of planning we do in regard to our northern areas. We must take all these factors into account, and I do not think we have done so in this bill. Therefore, I urge the minister and the government to go back and dig up some of the research that has been done and let us start, in light of the knowledge which we have, to draft legislation and regulations which will stop pollution in this area. Pollution in the north could be far worse than anything we have had in the south, and it will be worse unless we are prepared to take the necessary steps, steps we will be forced to take eventually if pollution really takes hold in the north.
Division
Then, too, we have had the problem of oil pollution. Research in this respect has not been adequately carried out, but I am not going into that point at length tonight because we have previously had good discussions on it in the House. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, bringing the water resources of this area under one agency is basically good: it is a framework within which to plan an adequate program. But we must go much further. We must go outside the question of water resources and check all other resources to make sure that through their exploitation we do not contaminate the greater and richer resource of water in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take up the time of the House at this point, but if there are not too many interruptions I shall do so for only about two minutes.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order? He has already taken part in the debate; it is my understanding that he seconded the amendment. Unless it were with the agreement of the House, it would be difficult for him to take part in the debate a second time this evening.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 4030).
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in the debate on the principle of this bill I will say at the outset that I am pleased, along with other members who have expressed their opinions on this subject, to see the minister in the House for the first time, as I recall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hope that before the bill passes this evening-and perhaps I should like to see it do that-the minister will rise and give us his version of the measure as it affects the people in the national parks at Waterton, Banff and Jasper. I do not think; he really meant that they should move out if they did not like conditions there. I urge him to take this opportunity to explain exactly what he did mean and to tell us how the bill before us is likely to help these people.
As I said when the bill was before the House last Tuesday, I am concerned about the principle proposed. We have an amendment which implies that the principle is repugnant, that it should be withdrawn and that the government should reconsider the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 3, 1970


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The bill proposes the setting up of a Crown corporation. As I said on Tuesday, we are already taxing these people. We are implementing 42 year leases which will take away their rights as leaseholders, rights which citizens normally enjoy. We tax them, but we are giving them no representation, no local government whatever. To me, this is repugnant.
We have long believed that taxation should be accompanied by representation. We have long believed that the people should have the right to decide what is good for the communities in which they live, that they should have the right to voice their opinions about the affairs of those communities. Yet Banff, Waterton and Jasper-I mention these three towns because they are the towns with which I am especially concerned-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. May we have order in the House, please?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is nice to see government members so concerned. During the last election they professed a great interest in participatory democracy. Now when someone is speaking in the House they are reluctant to even listen.


Mr. Lind:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Fine. Go ahead.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Is it not true that in 1959, under Order in Council 1108, the previous government increased the rent for parkland in Banff and Jasper?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Many politicians make a terrible mistake by living in the past. I urge everyone here to look at today, to look at the future. It is the future we as Canadians should be concerned about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
hon. member for Middlesex rising on a point of order?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: The hon. member did not answer my question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that the previous government authorized these increases in rent in Banff and Jasper?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it is certainly not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
National Parks Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Furthermore, I was serious when I suggested that members of this House should concern themselves with the future. There is no sense debating what happened in the past or arguing about who was responsible in the past. Let us decide how we can best meet these problems in the national parks. The proposed corporation is to have three basic duties: it will manage, maintain and develop. On Tuesday I asked the Parliamentary Secretary where it would get the money; whether it would be purely and simply from the taxpayers in the area.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: The hon. member has not
answered my question yet. Is it not true that the previous government raised the rent in Banff?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: March 3. 1970
National Parks Act
Speaker, and all hon. members this question: Will a Crown corporation be flexible enough in its management and maintenance of the parks all over Canada to meet this need? Do Crown corporations build up reputations as being flexible?


An hon. Member:: Never.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not very likely. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) frowning. I do not blame him for frowning, with all the trouble he is having with the white paper.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that the problems I have are nothing compared with his in defending an indefensible position.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If my position, according to the Minister of Finance, is indefensible, I would ask him to urge the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to see to it that the committee to which the bill is to be referred travels to Water ton, Banff and Jasper, and then we will see whose position is indefensible. My case will rest with the citizens of these areas; they will be the final judge.


An hon. Member:: They will also judge the white paper.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the white paper were made of softer stuff, the people of western Canada would know where to use it. The only one of the two that would come back from the west would be the minister. Even the tourists who visit the national parks would make some use of the white paper.
To get back to the principle of the bill, it seeks to establish a Crown corporation to manage, maintain and develop our national parks. I ask how this corporation will be financed. If the corporation is to rely on the leases in the national parks, does it think it will be able to develop the parks quickly enough to meet the needs of the thousands of people who in the years ahead will be searching for areas like the national parks of Canada to relax in and lay down their weary cares?
There is no indication in Bill C-152 how the capital will be provided. However, I am interested to see the Minister of Finance take an interest in the legislation. He will shortly be bringing down a budget with a surplus, so perhaps he will be able to start the corporation off on the right foot. Even if the Crown corporation were given sufficient capital, will it have flexibility enough to meet the

demands of the tourist industry in Alberta, in the Maritimes or in Quebec? I do not think it will. One thing that can be said about Crown corporations is that they become hidebound by rules and regulations; they are afraid to create precedents that go beyond the regulations that are laid down.
My experience has been that Crown corporations are not flexible enough to meet the demands made upon them. If there is one industry that does demand flexible servicing, it is the tourist industry. The nature of the tourist industry is such as to demand flexibility-flexibility of management, maintenance and development. The provisions of this bill lead me to suspect that the tourist industry will not receive this flexibility.
Let me get back to the basic question of taxation. There is a need today for the development of townsites in our national parks, particularly when the parks are far from centres of population. This is true in the case of Riding Mountain National Park, and all across Canada there are many other parks of which this can be said. Wherever there is a national park some distance from the centre of population you will require a townsite, a group of citizens who are prepared to provide the services that the tourists require. It is all well and good for the minister to say, "If you people don't like it there, you can move out". I suggest this is not a responsible position to take. Certainly it is no position for a politician, let alone a minister of a government which believes in participatory democracy, to take.
My point is that we need people in the national parks to provide the services required. Therefore, we should give these people some choice in the matter of local government. Let us write into Bill C-152 a provision that the members of the corporation shall be duly elected. If the people of each national park were to elect a member of the board, those in the townsites would have representation. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to think about this proposal, because when the amendment before the House has been disposed of I may move another amendment to this effect. I would propose that the Crown corporation not be composed of political nominees appointed by a minister who does not care about those who live in the national parks. What is wrong with the idea of electing representatives from each of the national parks of Canada to serve on the board of the Crown corporation?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No patronage there.
March 3, 1970


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There would be no patronage involved, and each resident in a national park would have to some extent a voice in the management, maintenance and development of the area in which he lives and the industry that he is trying to service. I observe the Parliamentary Secretary giving thoughtful consideration to that suggestion. I hope he will sleep on it now that I have convinced him that he should take a look at this idea.
It is a shame that a country as old as ours, as steeped in parliamentary tradition as ours, neglects so many people. To say that these people do not need representation in the conduct of their affairs, that if they do not like living in the parks they can move out, is not to be responsible to one of the largest industries in Canada, an industry that needs flexibility and which will certainly need additional financial assistance. With those thoughts I will close may remarks.


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment on February 17 I was attempting to deal with some of the many features of this bill which are totally unacceptable to the Canadian taxpayers who are most intimately concerned, namely, those who live in or adjacent to the great national parks of Alberta.
The bill itself is objectionable enough; the behaviour of its chief sponsor, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), is even more so. Why should any member of the House bother supporting a measure that the minister is so obviously unconcerned about? In the four days that this House has devoted to the legislation so far, the minister has been in attendance-while the House has been debating his own legislation-for about 15 minutes. As soon as the bill comes before the House, he scuttles out. It could be a case of guilty conscience, a case of his knowing that the bill is a bad measure. Perhaps he has been instructed by departmental officials to stay out of the House in order to avoid any chance that he will put his foot in his mouth, as he has done both in the national parks and elsewhere.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
As far as this bill is concerned, it is a matter of little import whether or not the minister is here. It will stand or fall, not on is own merits but on the importance the government assigns to its passage. The point which I object to most about this proposed legislation is that it carries a step further this
National Parks Act
government's philosophy of bypassing parliamentary control, harrassing individuals and small business people and playing ball only with the big companies, with the ultimate threat of a complete government takeover of a large portion of a major national interest, that is, tourism. It is another giant stride toward control of everything by the federal government and its huge, parasitic army of civil servants, only now to be disguised as employees of a Crown corporation.
On February 17 I spoke briefly about the government's sustained drive to isolate and control the national parks by reducing the area's representation in Parliament. Thanks to the active work of the legislative assistant to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), parliamentary representation for the Rocky Mountain Park area has been cut from three ridings to one. But the dedicated collectivists in the departmental bureaucracy were not satisfied with even that measure of domination. They want complete and unquestioned control, with power to drive private initiative and ownership from the parks, free of any possibility of parliamentary control. They have demanded a Crown corporation. Every member in this chamber knows at first-hand how little control can be exerted by Parliament on a Crown corporation. Look at the CBC, which is an emanation of government! That Crown corporation, in my view, is totally unresponsive to the wishes of the general public and is beyond the control of Parliament. Putting the national parks under another bastard creation similar to the CBC serves only to take the heat off the minister and the government and to give free rein to permanent officials, many of whom have never been farther west than Carp, let alone in a national park.
No matter what the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) said in his diversionary and apologetic speech on this bill, it removes the practical administration of park affairs still further from the people. I realize that control is more apparent than real now, but this bill will to a large extent legalize what the hon. member for Rocky Mountain was complaining about in his speech, by providing for cabinet rather than parliamentary control. This is the "in" thing in government today. They want to build a little bureaucratic empire, free of the prying eyes of taxpayers and the nasty questions of private members of the House of Commons, be they government or opposition members. Their answer is simple-just create a Crown

March 3, 1970
National Parks Act
company. The Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) is trying to get out from under the mess he has created by passing the buck to such an organization. The latest rumour is that the government is discussing the feasibility of making the Department of Public Works into a Crown corporation.
One of the most undesirable features of government policy in regard to national parks is the insistence on the 42-year lease. When the Conservatives were in power, it is true they declared a moratorium on perpetual leases but they offered 42-year leases with the certainty of an additional 21-year span and a further period to be negotiated. The government stands on 42 years with no promises beyond that point. The idiocy of this policy can most clearly be seen in what is happening around Lake Louise today. Back in 1956, the former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, while the responsible federal minister, expropriated a large parcel of freehold land in the area. The official excuse at the time was that the federal government needed 1J acres for the Trans-Canada Highway. They took more than 30 acres. They had no immediate use for it, but they took it all because they wanted to get rid of private property owners. Subsequently, in the shadow of litigation, they decided they had wanted it all along for a townsite.
The owners of the land had plans for developing this recreational area. They were frustrated by the federal government. The federal government has spent a tremendous sum of money in servicing this land for their town-site, but it stands idle. Why? Because no private developer or free enterpriser is interested in the only terms offered-a 42-year lease. They will not touch those leases with a ten-foot pole.
It is a case of the government cannot, and private enterprise will not. When you consider what a loss is being sustained in the tourist industry because of this impasse created by the Ottawa bureaucracy, you wonder when the minister and the government will come to their senses and realize that government can never substitute for private initiative in providing for the desires of tourists.
If the minister could bring himself to remain in the House long enough, it would be interesting if he would make a statement about the rumours that the federal government is presently negotiating with Imperial Oil to take over and develop the dormant townsite. He might also explain whether Imperial Oil will be forced to adhere to the

42-year lease provisions, or whether because of that giant corporation's influence it will get special terms. I see the minister is back in the House: maybe he would like to answer that question. Such a deal may only be a rumour, but the minister owes it to Parliament and the people to confirm it or allay the suspicion that exists.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should look around. I was sitting with the man who is handling the legislation in the House of Commons, my Parliamentary Secretary, and he is doing a very good job.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I appreciate the minister's remarks, but I should like to make my views known. The minister is responsible for the passage of this legislation, not the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to know where he gets the authority to delegate that responsibility to a Parliamentary Secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the changes in the business indicated by the President of the Treasury Board, I wonder whether he could advise the House what the government proposes for tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take it the question is directed to myself rather than to the President of the Treasury Board.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I beg your pardon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is all right. It would be our intention to continue tomorrow with this debate. I think this is the fourth day the bill has been debated, and I hope it can come to a conclusion on second reading tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the question I directed to
March 3. 1970	COMMONS
the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) some time ago about the Economic Council of Canada. This is one of the most important and valuable groups giving attention to the state of our national economic health. Its reports and studies are illuminating and immensely useful. If this organization had done nothing more than produce its very fine study of the Atlantic region economy a few years ago, the nation's esteem would have been assured.
Just as it is essential that we have the office of the Auditor General to scrutinize the administrative side of government, so a body like the Economic Council is valuable in the realm of governmental policy consideration. To have a competent representative group look at the economy of the country should be immensely valuable to any government, not just to one apparently and pathetically so much in need of economic advice as this one.
I was therefore much concerned to learn weeks ago that the austerity wave was to wash over this vital body and, by curtailing the scope of its operations in reference to staff and outside consultants, to diminish its effectiveness. The same thing was intended for the Auditor General, apparently, but some reprieve was given him.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It is not immediately clear from the answers given so far what is being done in reference to the Economic Council. The replies of the President of the Treasury Board have been elusively evasive. Whether the wrath of the government was kindled by reported differences of opinion or emphasis between the government and the council on certain alleged anti-inflation measures, I cannot say. But I can say it is now apparent that the austerity program is a selective one. Loyal, long-time civil servants may be given the axe or the redundancy notice, to use an euphemism. Diplomatic posts may be closed even in areas of the Caribbean where the need for more attention rather than less is becoming painfully apparent. The National Film Board may have to diminish its role. But the cut-backs and the freezes are not universally applied. As George Orwell might put it, in the path of the Treasury Board all departments and branches are equal, but some are more equal than others.
The Prime Minister's administrative and bureaucratic empire reaches proportions which make his predecessors' office establishments look like tiny outposts. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) seems to have no trou-
DEBATES	4351
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ble enlarging his staff at the upper echelons. Press men and public relations offices for ministers grow like mushrooms in a wet spring. While things are supposed to be tight and ministers tough, the government moves with lightning speed to establish Information Canada where more millions of dollars and another regiment of PR men will be added to the bureaucratic organization devoted to the dissemination of what has been called by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) "proper information" but by others "managed news".
The "just society" tag is to be discarded lest it be regarded as a mere slogan. Did anyone ever think of it as a doctrine or a commitment? There may be those who think it expedient to prepare for the day when the charisma and the image of 1968 are worn thin or worn out, but I believe it would be far wiser and far more responsible to make sure that such a valued and valuable group as the Economic Council be allowed to fulfil its important role without carping restraints and petty restrictions.
I hope whoever is to speak for the government tonight will assure the House and the country that this very valuable body will not be curtailed in its effectiveness by the sort of suggestion we heard some weeks ago.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the first question on this subject asked by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) was on December 12. Since that time the hon. member certainly is aware that the 1969-70 estimates have been tabled and referred to committee for study. This would seem to be the best forum for a rational discussion of the adequacy of the funds allotted to the Economic Council. The fact that unlimited funds are not available, or that every request made by the Economic Council is not granted, is common to almost every department of government. The fact that each request for an increase in funds is not granted is in no way an indication that the government is not appreciative of the work being done by the Economic Council.



GRAIN-ADVICE TO RAPESEED PRODUCERS RESPECTING MARKETS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on February 23, I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) regarding the position of rapeseed producers in respect of markets. I asked the question
March 3, 1970
4352	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion because of press releases that came out of a meeting in Winnipeg in so far as the rapeseed market was concerned. My personal reason for concern is along the line that surely the information this government now has in respect of rapeseed markets around the world should be made available to the producers.
I would like to quote a few items from the Western Producer of February 26. In it is stated that Mr. A. M. Runciman, president of the Rapeseed Association of Canada-
-recognized another million acres could easily be added by farmers seeking an alternative to wheat. This could throw rapeseed-and sunflowers too-into a marketing crisis. "And rapeseed would lie like wheat, barley and oats in the bins, year after year, unsold, unless farmers were willing to take $1.25 prices."
He warned the trade to get ready to market the biggest rapeseed crop ever and called for co-operation at all levels in the marketing picture-
A panel of speakers representing every phase of the rapeseed industry from producer to processor to handler to exporter echoed Mr. Runciman's call for action-
-an exporter with James Richardson and Sons ... said with a proper selling job it could be handled.
He stressed that much more would have to be done than is being done at present to move a crop of that magnitude.
This is why I posed a supplementary question to the minister to see whether he could give a more thorough answer to that question.
I am sure the rapeseed producers do not want to find themselves in the same position as other grain farmers, having to cut back production. The government has done a tremendous amount of work in researching agricultural problems. I would like to know, has it really looked into rapeseed production in this country to determine whether production will surpass the amount required for world consumption?
It seems to me that at their meeting in Winnipeg rapeseed producers were seeking to co-operate with the government. I quote again from the Western Producer where another producer-
-charged that rapeseed markets had been lost because "people outside the industry are involved in making decisions as to how grain movement takes place."
He was sincere in his belief that the producers of rapeseed should have a say in the over-all marketing of it. Another rapeseed producer said:
A big increase in rapeseed crop could spell disaster to a large number of producers who don't recognize that price times volume minus expenses equals a profit.


Their main concern is that they must have information about where they are going with regard to the market at this time. All I am asking the minister tonight is to try and give an indication to those hon. members still in the House at this time, especially after the long session yesterday, of what is really the situation with respect to rapeseed markets throughout the world. If we run into the same position as wheat farmers, with statements being made overseas that our grain is not of the quality that world markets demand, rape-seed producers will have a big problem. They are asking for information and they want it now. The last thing we want at this time is to have the rapeseed football fumbled to the extent that we will lose some of our best markets.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can give this information in the little time that I have at my disposal tonight. I would advise the hon. member that the outlook papers were published after the conference in November and they have been available to the hon. member and to the industry. Furthermore, the Newsletter we published on December 5 dealt in part with rapeseed prospects, as did the Newsletter for the week ending February 27.
The outlook indicates that an increase of 10 per cent to 15 per cent in acreage giving normal yields could be marketed without adversely affecting prices. However, there are many other factors that could affect the price of rapeseed. On the side of stability are the following:
(a)	The chief competitor of rapeseed is soybeans. The United States stabilized soybean prices through a support program and they have recently announced a continuation of the program for this year at the same level as last year.
(b)	Canada is the world's biggest export trader in rapeseed. Our main trade is with Japan, followed by the EEC and the U.K. These are all developing markets.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Factors that would affect price stabilization adversely are that European seeding is up, particularly in Poland and East Germany. This is a winter rapeseed and those areas are now known. However, cropping and harvesting conditions could greatly affect the over-all yield. It will be recalled that unfavourable harvesting conditions last year reduced yields sharply. We believe rapeseed prices, at least
March 3, 1970

throughout part of this last selling season, have been somewhat unrealistically high visa-vis other oil seeds. Of course, some price adjustment is going on now. The current cash price is 292 and November futures is 228.
I am not suggesting that the rapeseed producers get too much. What I am saying is that the price has been high in relation to the other oil-seeds. Any price adjustment will be accentuated by a large crop. Historically, oilseed prices are comparatively unstable. This is because of the nature of the market and the fact that many types of vegetable oils are interchangeable.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONDITION OF FALLOUT SHELTERS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public is informed that inventories have been taken of all potential public fallout shelters in our cities. The best locations are said to be in the basements of skyscrapers, public buildings and schools. Beyond inspection of these sites, apparently nothing has been done.
At this moment in time the threat to our cities from intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles is increasing, and although Canada has been engaged in civil emergency measure activities for over 20 years we do not have our public fallout shelters, let alone our private ones, properly prepared and stocked with supplies including canned foods, medical and sanitation supplies and radiological instruments. Worst of all, they are not marked as public fallout shelters. Thus, in an emergency the man on the street in Toronto or any other Canadian city would not know where to go or what to do.
Canada's fallout shelters survey of large buildings was tardily completed in 1968 and the results have only recently been distributed to the provinces. Priority was given to protecting emergency government sites for six of the ten provinces. It is announced Canadian policy to make no new expenditures for stock-piles of materials; there is said to be sufficient readily available from the existing resources in time of emergency. But where are they, and how will they be delivered to the fallout shelters when the warning time may be 15 minutes or less?
Mr. Speaker, time cannot be bought in an emergency, and our vulnerability can be reduced at low cost if we are prepared. The United States is prepared. It has a nationwide fallout shelter system using both public and

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion private available resources. They have about
195.000	public structures that will provide shelter space for 187 million people. Private owners of almost 109,000 buildings have volunteered space for more than 104 million people and have authorized the placement of the black and yellow fallout signs on their buildings to mark them for use as public fallout shelters in event of attack.
In the midst of the more likely target areas,
95.000	buildings capable of sheltering 94 million people have been stocked with necessary austere supplies provided by the federal government. In addition, national surveys have been made of smaller buildings and private homes. More than 100,000 public shelter facilities have been equipped with radiological detection and monitoring instruments. There are more than 67,000 monitoring locations with instruments and personnel established, primarily at fire and police stations.
I have had the first-hand opportunity to see and hear about the preparedness of the emergency authorities and their fallout shelters in neutral Switzerland and Sweden and other countries in western Europe. I know that they are, like the United States, far better prepared for a nuclear attack than is Canada.
In our External Affairs and National Defence Committee we were told by two witnesses, Dr. Raymond Gastil and Mr. Robert Kropka, from the Hudson Institute in the United States, that millions of lives could be saved and countless injuries to individuals prevented by preparedness against nuclear attack. In protection you get what you pay for, they said.
Many think that we are in the most perilous position of any country in the world at this time, because Canada's geography puts us in no man's land on the direct intercontinental ballistic route between Russia and China in Asia, and the United States, and our population is at the interface of interception. Although we have good warning systems on land, in the sea and in the air, we are starkly and utterly naked in our active and passive defences against the very real threats of ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. It must be realized that every city in Canada, with the possible exception of Winnipeg, can now be struck by nuclear missiles fired by Soviet submarines from either our east or west coast. Against these threats we have neither sword nor shield.
The construction of the Safeguard ABM system south of the border will give us some protection in that some incoming missiles will
March 3, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion be destroyed over southern Canada and above the atmosphere by Spartan missiles. Others penetrating the Spartan umbrella will, in theory, be shot down within 25 miles or so of their target in the United States by the Sprint ABMs. However, although the nuclear explosions caused by the Spartans over our heads in Canada will cause very little blast or fallout radiation damage, they will blind millions of Canadians from glare if they are not protected from it. Anyone looking at such an explosion, or happening to be looking at a surface or object that reflects a sufficient amount of the glare, will lose his eyesight. The extension of the Safeguard system, therefore, increases this risk for Canadians and our need for fallout shelters.
Explosions resulting from Sprint contacts with incoming missiles in the atmosphere short distances across our border from the proposed Michigan, Ohio and New England ABM sites will, on the other hand, contaminate great areas of the southern halves of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and much of the Maritimes, with radiation, the degree depending upon the direction of the wind. It is urgently important, to ensure against blindness and radiation effects, that Canadians within at least 400 miles of the United States border have properly prepared and marked fallout shelters to go to immediately, if and when the warning sirens sound.
It now appears that the plans of the Emergency Measures Organization have been blocked at the halfway mark, and if we were attacked tomorrow the millions of dollars already spent would serve little or no purpose except perhaps to provide evidence to those who might survive of government's prodigal spending of public funds. What this government needs to do, Mr. Speaker, is take a good look at the Boy Scout motto-Be Prepared.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, along with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) I should like to correct an impression which seems to be prevalent, namely, that there is extreme danger as a result of the explosion of defensive weapons. These are designed to burst at such a height that they do not constitute a danger. Furthermore, it is not expected that the intercepted enemy weapon would itself explode. Even if it did, the extreme height of the explosion would reduce any possible damage to small proportions.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Except through glare.


David Walter Groos: It should be added, also, that there is no significant radioactive hazard resulting from such high altitude bursts. Thus, one would not tie in fallout shelters with the question posed by the hon. member for Spadina with respect to explosions involving the Safeguard antiballistic missile system. Fallout shelters are designed to deal with the problem of nuclear weapons actually evading the defence system and bursting at or near ground level, thus creating widespread radioactive fallout.
As was stated at the recent Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference on Civil Emergency Measures, the government of Canada authorized the Canada Emergency Measures Organization to carry out a fallout shelter survey of large buildings across Canada. This survey has been completed and the information is now being processed. I can tell the hon. member that the minister has asked to be provided with full advice concerning the analysis of the results of this survey as soon as possible. Until such time as he has had an opportunity to study them, he will not be in a position to advise the government with respect to the actions which might be taken in connection with community shelter plans, shelter marking and related matters to which my hon. friend referred, but these questions will be gone into.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, March 4, 1970