1970-04-20

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Okanagan Boundary. Is the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond rising for the purpose of moving this bill on behalf of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary?


Mr. Goode:: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can do this only with the unanimous consent of the House. It is the practice that a private bill cannot be moved by another member in the absence of the mover of the bill unless there is unanimous agreement. The assumption is that the hon. member is doing this with the consent of the hon. member in whose name the bill stands on the Order Paper. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Henry Goode: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-206, respecting air safety.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Henry Goode: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to explain the purpose of this bill for my colleague from Okanagan Boundary who this week is immersed at St. Johns, Quebec.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the method of search for and rescue of disabled aircraft. At present it costs the federal government over $7 million each year for search and rescue operations. The bill is intended both to reduce costs and save lives.


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

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion give a contract to study or up-date its Government Information System to Systems Dimensions Ltd.?
2.	Was there a competitive tender for this study and, if so, who were the other competitors and what were their respective bids?
3.	What were reasons for this decision in view of the freeze on most departments which have proposed to hire new staff or to fill vacancies?
4.	How much will Systems Dimensions Ltd. be paid in fulfilment of this contract and what are the qualifications of the company which received this contract?
5.	What other contracts with private research companies has the department let in the past three months?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No.
2,	3 and 4. Not applicable.
5. None.


INNISFAIL, ALBERTA-TENDERS FOR RCMP DOG TRAINING CENTRE
Mr. Thompson: 1.	How many firms tendered on the construction on the RCMP Dog Training Centre at Innisfail, Alberta?
2.	What are the amounts of the tenders and the names of the contractors?
3 What sub-contractors were not paid by the general contractor and what are the amounts?
4. Did the successful contracting firm meet the obligations of the contract satisfactorily?
Hon. Arthur Laing Works): 1. Two.
(Minister of Public
Amount of
2.
Contractor	Tender
Dynacon Construction,
Calgary	$11,695
Buruma Construction Ltd.,
Red Deer	11,740
3.
Sub-Contractor	Amount
Revelstoke Building
Materials	$632.13
Llewellyn Electric	221.62
Otto Roofing	345.00
Prairie Engineering	178.83

April 20, 1970
Questions
4.	Dynacon Construction met their construction obligations under the terms of the contract satisfactorily, but have not yet met all their financial obligations. The Department is withholding payments to Dynacon Construction and making payments direct to creditors.


LAW WITH RESPECT TO &quot;OBSCENITY&quot;
Mr. Robinson: Is it the federal government's intention to change the law with respect to "obscenity" and, if so, to what extent?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: The Government of Canada has no immediate intention of introducing legislation with respect to obscenity, but this is one of the matters that might be given to the Law Reform Commission for consideration in the event that the Bill now before the House providing for that Commission is passed.


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA-NUMBER OF CASES HEARD
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many cases were heard by the Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada In 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	How are these cases classified by subject and how many were settled in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?


John Napier Turner: 1.
1966	1967	1968	1969Appeals	106	151	130	143Motions for leave, etc.	99	130	139	129Total	205	281	269	2722.	Cases are not classified by subject and the Registrar is not always informed of settlements by the parties. Section 8 of Bill C-182 is amending section 74 of the Supreme Court Act to provide that a notice of discontinuance shall be filed with the Registrar.


CANADIAN GRAIN SALES
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	How many brokerage firms are now handling Canadian grain sales?
2.	Where are these firms located?
3.	In the event of one brokerage firm handling a grain sale, do any or all of the other firms receive any remuneration as well?
4.	How much per bushel do the brokerage firms receive for handling Canadian grain sales?
5.	How are the charges determined?
6.	At any time, did ships refuse to enter the Vancouver port for grain until they received an additional payment per bushel and, if so (a) how much per bushel did they receive (b) was this cost passed on to the producer?


Hon. Offo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: It is assumed that the question refers to shipping and exporting firms acting as agents for the Canadian Wheat Board. On this assumption, the answers are as follows: 1 and 2. See list attached.
3,	4 and 5. The Canadian Wheat Board does not pay a remuneration to these firms for negotiating Canadian grain sales. Competition establishes the margin which can be added to the Board's price.
6. The Canadian Wheat Board is not involved in the negotiations between its agents and the vessel owners. If such additional cost were incurred it was not claimed against the Canadian Wheat Board nor passed to the producer.
The Canadian Wheat Board Shippers and Exporters
Eastern Agents:
Company
Winnipeg Address Cable Address
Agro Company of Canada Ltd.
Anglo Canadian Grain Company Ltd. Bunge Corporation Limited Cargill Grain Company, Limited Cargill Manitoba Company, Limited Continental Grain Co. (Canada) Ltd. Federal Grain Limited The Grain Growers Export Co. Limited Louis Dreyfus Canada Limited 
276 Grain Exchange Bldg. 218-A Grain Exchange Bldg. 211-A Grain Exchange Bldg. 209 Grain Exchange Bldg. 209 Grain Exchange Bldg. 975 Grain Exchange Bldg. 24th Fir. Richardson Bldg. 309 Grain Exchange Bldg. 436 Grain Exchange Bldg.
"Agrocan"
"Ancan"
"Bungepeg"
"Rosscargill"
"Rosscargill"
"Fribrene"
"Snyfed"
"Grainport"
"Sesostris"
April 20, 1970
Company

Questions Winnipeg Address
Cable Address
Maple Leaf Mills Limited,
(Maple Leaf Milling Division)
Maple Leaf Mills Limited,
(Toronto Elevator Division)
Mardorf, Peach & Co. (Canada) Ltd. McCabe Grain Company Limited Norris Grain Company Limited Northern Sales (1963) Limited Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Limited Parrish & Heimbecker Limited K. A. Powell Canada (1966) Ltd.
Range Grain Company Ltd.
Ranks Hovis McDougall (Canada) Ltd. James Richardson & Sons, Limited Robin Hood Flour Mills Limited Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Saurel Grain Company Limited Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited
Smith, Vincent & Co., Limited Western Agents:
Company
Agro Company of Canada Ltd.
Bunge Corporation Limited Cargill Grain Company, Limited Cargill Manitoba Company, Limited Continental Grain Co. (Canada) Ltd. Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd. East Asiatic Co. (Canada) Ltd.
Federal Grain Limited Louis Dreyfus Canada Ltd.
McCabe Grain Co. Ltd.
Northern Sales (1963) Limited Pacific Elevators Limited Pacific Grain Corporation Ltd. Powell-Lester Grain & Shipping Limited James Richardson & Sons, Limited Ranks Hovis McDougall (Canada) Ltd. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
240 Grain Exchange Bldg. "Mapleflour"
240 Grain Exchange Bldg. 312 Grain Exchange Bldg. 409 Grain Exchange Bldg 709 Grain Exchange Bldg. 135 Lombard Avenue 55 Higgins Avenue 661 Grain Exchange Bldg. 563 Grain Exchange Bldg. 982 Grain Exchange Bldg. 563 Grain Exchange Bldg. 26th Fir. Richardson Bldg. 1065 Grain Exchange Bldg. 7th Fir.-220 Portage Ave. 118-A Grain Exchange Bldg.
"Torelev"
"McCabros"
"Norrispeg"
"Norsalag"
"Ogilvie"
"Parrheim"
"Powcan"
"Range"
"Jamesrich"
"Robinhood"
"Saskpool"
312 Grain Exchange Bldg. "Wholesale" 919 Grain Exchange Bldg. "Smithvin"
Vancouver Address Cable Address
524 Marine Building 1624 Marine Building 210 Marine Building 210 Marine Building 401-900 W Hastings St. 1426 Marine Building 1201 West Pender St. 531 Marine Building 1631 Marine Building
1725	Marine Building
1726	Marine Building 531 Marine Building 430 Marine Building 508 Marine Building 955 W. Hastings St. 508 Marine Building
1222 Marine Building
"Agropac"
"Bunge"
"Rosscargill"
"Rosscargill"
"Fribrene"
"Holsalsocy"
"Asiatico"
"Sesostris"
"McCabros"
"Norsaran"
"Pacele"
"Hallco"
"Powpac"
"Heatrich"
"Saskpool"


MANICOUAGAN-CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS ROADS
Mr. Blouin: With reference to the federal-provincial plan for the construction of access roads to natural resources (a) what works were undertaken in the constituency of Manicouagan (b) what was the length, in miles, of the roads constructed (c) where were they constructed (d) what was the cost (e) how much was contributed by the federal government (f) are any new agreements with the provinces contemplated?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources has no record of road construction under a federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement in the federal constituency of Manicouagan.


POSITION HELD BY JEAN OCTEAU-EXPO '70
Mr. Coates: 1.	What position does Jean Octeau hold with the Canadian Government insofar as its participation in Expo '70 in Osaka, Japan, is concerned?
2.	What accommodations have been provided to Mr. Octeau at government expense during the period of his stay at Osaka and how long will he be involved with Expo '70 in Japan?

April 20, 1970
Questions
3.	Are any additional accommodations provided to Mr. Octeau and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Jean Octeau is Deputy Commissioner General of the Canadian Government Participation in Expo '70.
2.	He has been provided apartment accommodation for living purposes with a total area of 540 square feet.
Mr. Octeau arrived in Osaka on March 12, 1970. His term appointment expires September 30, 1970.
3.	No additional accommodation is provided Mr. Octeau.


LAST OAK PARK, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion carried out any work or authorized work in planning for the development of Last Oak Park, north of Broadview, Saskatchewan and, if so, by whom was this work carried out?
2.	How much has been spent to date in each fiscal year in planning for this Park?
3.	How much has been spent in each fiscal year in development of this Park and how much was spent on (a) roads (b) land clearing and development (c) other facilities?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1 and 2. Yes. Under the 196570 ARDA Agreement, two projects were, authorized to assess the recreational development potential of Indian lands in the Crooked and Round Lakes area of Last Oak Park, at a total cost of approximately $124,000. The consulting firm of C. W. Pool and Associates Limited was retained by the Saskatchewan government to undertake the basic study work.
3. Not applicable.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-AGREEMENTS IN RELATION TO &quot;SPECIAL AREAS&quot;
Mr. Simpson: 1.	How many provincial governments have signed or concluded agreements with the federal government in relation to "special areas", as outlined to the House of Commons by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on March 11, 1970?
2.	If any provincial governments have signed such agreements, on what dates were each of the agreements signed?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Drafting of agreements with
[Mr. Coates.1
most of the Provinces concerned has been concluded, and formal signing is expected very shortly.
2. Not applicable.


CANADIAN CONSUMER COUNCIL-ESTABLISHMENT COST
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the total "set-up" cost to establish the Canadian Consumer Council?
2.	What is the annual salary of the executive secretary and the total annual salaries of staff assistants?
3.	What was the total cost of expenses, etc., for Council Members in the calendar year 1969?
4.	What was the total cost of administration of the Council for the calendar year?
5.	What has been the total cost of setting up and administering the Council since its inception?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. There was no identifiable cost involved in the "setting up" of the Canadian Consumer Council.
2.	Executive Director, $23,000; Secretaries, $10,812.
3.	$19,489.
4.	$28,949.
5.	To March 26, 1970, $71,024.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-PURCHASE OF DRUGS FOR VETERANS
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for the purchase of drugs for veterans through Veterans' Hospitals rather than through the local pharmacies and, if so, on what date will this policy come into effect?
2.	Did the Department consider the possible increase in administrative responsibilities resulting from such action?
3 Has the Department studied the effect this decision will have on local pharmacies and, if so, what are the results?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. No. The Department's practice of filling prescriptions from doctors of choice through local pharmacies will be continued.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. A decision to change would have had an adverse effect on the local pharmacies' volume of business and their ability to provide for the treatment needs of veterans in the community.
April 20, 1970


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING
Mr. Brewin: Does the government contemplate (a) making any changes in the design or size of the building to be constructed by the External Affairs Department (b) does it propose to postpone (i) awarding the contract or (ii) the construction of the building until the White Paper (s) on foreign or external policy has been published and approved by Parliament?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: (a) A major redesign of the building, which included a reduction in its size was carried out prior to the calling of tenders in order to meet an established reduction in the budgetary ceiling, (b) (i) No. (ii) No. The building is designed for the long range expansion of the Department of External Affairs. If for any reason there remains a surplus of space beyond that needed for External Affairs when the building is ready for occupancy in approximately three years, that surplus will be used for other compatible needs.


Mr. Coales: 1.	What was the cost to the federal government of the visit of the Tommy Hunter Show to Canadian troops stationed in Cyprus?
2.	How many aircraft were involved in transporting the party and equipment associated with the Tommy Hunter Show?
3.	How many individuals were transported to Cyprus by the federal government associated with the Tommy Hunter Show and what were the names of the individuals in question?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since January 1, 1955, what is (a) the name of each Member of Parliament who visited the federal penitentiary at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan (b) the date and duration of each such visit?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Visits by Members of Parliament to Saskatchewan Penitentiary since January 1, 1955, as taken from the records of that Institution, are as follows:
(b)	(c)
12 April 1959	one day
25-26 March 1966	two days
8 September 1969	one day
3-4 April 1970	two days
3-4 April 1970	two days
3-4 April 1970	two days
6036	COMMONS DEBATES	April 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As the house construction industry is one of the major employers of labour in Canada and as housing starts today are 43 per cent below what they were one year ago, is the government planning to take steps in the immediate future to stimulate our housebuilding industry so that we may have not only the housing we so badly need but the employment which their construction will provide?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as to steps the government has taken, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing has mentioned them in the House from time to time; as to the steps the government may still take, he will make that announcement in due course.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, of course that answer tells the country absolutely nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was not meant to.


An hon. Member:: It was not meant to!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I would ask the Prime Minister, since he appears not to give a hoot about unemployment or the unemployed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot ask a question in those terms. He should ask his question.


George James McIlraith: Try again. See if you can
grow up.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since unemployment today is 21 per cent higher than it was last year, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered following the very good example set by his colleague in Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, who has said that if he is elected and cannot reduce unemployment he intends to resign?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a ques-

tion to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with respect to the activities of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and particularly with respect to No. 20 Colliery which, since the number of miners has been greatly reduced from 1,000 to barely 300, is apparently being phased out. Is it the corporation's intention to phase out this mine or, since it is one of the best mines in operation, is it the intention to go back to full production?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we know that Devco was incorporated precisely to phase out gradually the unproductive coal mines and to keep the productive ones in operation.
Now as regards No. 20 Colliery, I can try to get information and obtain a report on the recent events to which the hon. member refers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this is one of the most productive mines under the jurisdiction of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and since it provides a great deal of employment in Glace Bay, would the minister undertake to use his good offices to see that this operation is not phased out any further but, instead, that it is expanded?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to table later a report on the situation existing at No. 20 Colliery.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie)s
Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. Inasmuch as Treasury Board has approved new initiatives under the special areas legislation and since we have had indications in the last several days regarding the chronic unemployment situation, can the minister say whether any new activity is under way or whether any new initiatives are being taken to speed up the effect of the regional economic development programs in the various regions of
April 20. 1970	COMMONS
Canada? I ask this question because the present pace of activity is so slow that there is relatively no positive effect on the unemployment situation.
Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the question as asked invited a statement on motions. The minister has given an answer. Perhaps it might facilitate the situation if the hon. member were allowed a supplementary.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the country is going to read with interest the elaborate statement of the minister on the unemployment crisis. I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I am very concerned about this serious problem. I am sure most members of the House share this concern. Is the Prime Minister going to make a statement on motions, as intimated in reply to a recent question by another hon. member, indicating any new initiatives planned by the government before he goes on his scuba diving expedition in the next few weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister if he was going to make a statement on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member had asked only that I would have allowed the question, but he asked the question in terms that cannot be allowed. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have an opportunity later. For the moment the Chair has recognized the right hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having regard to the fact that the government has made two recent appointments of consular representatives, is the government considering asking the Ukrainian Socialist
DEBATES	6037
Inquiries of the Ministry Republic to exchange consuls-general so that the Ukrainian people in Canada, many of whom want to visit the old land, and many people living in the Ukraine who want to come to Canada to visit their people, will be in a position where their applications will be processed more expeditiously than they are now?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows we are trying, I hope with the help of the opposition, to keep government expenditures under control. It is not my purpose at the present time to extend our diplomatic representation in that way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know the Ukrainian people across Canada will not be delighted with the minister's answer, but with that very laudable objective in mind, will the minister say why the government entered into an agreement to pay $190,000 at the rate of $200 a day to chartered accountants to answer objections to the white paper on tax reform?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SHIPPING


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's Easl):: wish to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister. Is the government in a position to make a statement regarding the tragic sinking in the Gulf of St. Lawrence last night of the Patrick Morris'! To this time have all the members of the crew of the Patrick Morris been accounted for?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a report from the Minister of Transport on this tragic occurrence. I am told that of the people aboard the Patrick Morris there are 47 survivors accounted for at this time. Four of the crew are still missing. We have no further information.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that this tragedy has occurred and that there is some lack of clarity as to the causes of the disaster, can the right hon. gentleman indicate whether an inquiry is being conducted into the underlying causes of the tragedy and whether a report will be received?
April 20. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am informed by the minister that departmental officials are on the way now to make a preliminary investigation.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he or any of his ministers would be prepared to accept an invitation from the Public Accounts Committee to appear before that committee in relation to the role, the functions and the jurisdiction of the Auditor General, with meetings to commence on May 5?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the chairman of that committee, who I understand is not the hon. member for Vancouver East, were to invite the ministers to attend I am sure they would agree.


Harold Edward Winch: I understood the Prime Minister to say he would agree; I understood he also said that those members of his cabinet who have expressed opinions relative to the functions and work of the Auditor General would appear?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member appears to be repeating the question he asked in the first instance.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. If I may be permitted, I would refer to the question I addressed last Thursday to the Minister without Portfolio with regard to involvement of the federal government in the cultural activities of Canadians other than those of French or English origin. It may have been that my question was misunderstood I was thinking of cultural rather than linguistic rights. Would the minister institute a departmental inquiry into this issue and into the per inent statistics gathered by the B and B Commission in its latest report which refers to the great contribution made by these Canadians, including the native peoples of Canada, with a view to deciding

whether there cannot be greater participation by the federal government in increasing such cultural activities of these Canadian people?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the study undertaken by the government on Book IV of the Commission's report will certainly include the subject mentioned by the hon. member. But the study has not yet been completed and I cannot say exactly what policy the government will adopt in this respect.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is related to one asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. In light of the fact that the January-February review of the Department of Manpower and Immigration indicates there is concrete evidence of a substantial migration out of Saskatchewan of some 7,000 of the labour force in January, will the minister press Treasury Board to speed up its allocation of regional development incentive grants in order to offset this serious loss of human resources to the Saskatchewan economy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have just designated the cities of Regina and Saskatoon as "special areas" and we hope this will have good results in Saskatchewan.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whitby):: Would the minister care to comment on whether or not he thinks a change from a Liberal government to an NDP government might help the situation in Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SAINT-HYACINTE-ESTABLISHMENT AS DESIGNATED AREA

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Could the minister tell the House whether he has considered the representations that were
April 20, 1970	COMMONS
made regarding the city of Saint-Hyacinthe and the surrounding area?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I met with a large delegation from Saint-Hyacinthe this morning and we studied the problem of this city which is facing considerable difficulties.



FURTHER INITIATIVES TO SUPPLEMENT DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

John Howard Lundrigan: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to announce any new initiatives at the federal level in order to supplement the activities of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and whether he pians to make a statement on motions outlining such initiatives?
Right Hen. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): As far as the activities of the department are concerned, the minister informs me that the agreement has not yet been signed, and it will have to be signed before the activities bear their fruit. On the general question of unemployment, I do not see that it would be very useful to make a statement on this subject during the next few weeks. I have already explained several times that unemployment would be substantially more serious in Canada if Canada were not waging such a fight against employment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -against inflation. But I have ceased to try to convince the opposition of this.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the right hon. gentleman consider relaxing government restrictions that have been placed on the spending of the Department of Public Works in view of the fact that not only is unemployment increasing but there is an increasing lack of activity in an area where a relaxation of restrictions is vital for the east coast fishing industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the
question asked by the hon. member was asked last week in precisely the same terms on Thursday or Friday, I believe.



NEWFOUNDLAND AND NEW BRUNSWICK- SIGNING OF SPECIAL AREA AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES

James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question to the Minister of
DEBATES	6039
Inquiries of the Ministry Regional Economic Expansion. Now that Treasury Board has approved the two special areas programs for Newfoundland and New Brunswick-presumably the ones just referred to by the Prime Minister-would the minister tell the House when the agreements will be signed with the two provinces concerned which are obviously very anxious to get the programs under way?
[Translation\


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there should now be no further delay. It has all been approved, but there must at least be time to draft the final agreements and forward them to the provincial authorities for signature.



MANITOBA CENTENNIAL


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. May I welcome him back, and I am sure that my question is one that he will welcome. In view of the fact that the government of Manitoba is making arrangements for July 15, which is the 100th anniversary of Manitoba's entry into confederation, to be a holiday with pay for all workers who come under provincial labour jurisdiction, will the federal government consider the provincial government's request that similar arrangements be made for workers in Manitoba who come under federal labour jurisdiction?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is a very progressive one and certainly a very fitting way to celebrate Manitoba's entry into confederation. Moreover, I hope private industry will listen as carefully as I was.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping that the question would apply to all civil servants, not only those in Manitoba. As 1970 is Manitoba's centennial year, this is the type of celebration that we would request the minister to consider.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
6040	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



RELATION OF PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES TO SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has indicated that the government has under review rates of pensions and war veterans allowances as part of its examination of the over-all fabric of social development programs, has the government now decided that war veterans pensions and allowances shall be part of social welfare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it really depends on how you are discussing the definition of social welfare. We do not feel that they are welfare payments proper, but they are part of that whole area of social policy that the government is now reviewing, and I am sure the minister was alluding to that.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Would the minister ascertain from the Chief Electoral Officer whether resignations have been received from the returning officers for Egmont and Cardigan constituencies in Prince Edward Island, considering that both these gentlemen have for some time been Liberal candidates in the forthcoming provincial election?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly obtain the information the hon. member wants and pass it on to him.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the very much stepped-up coupon give-away campaigns being conducted across Canada by the cigarette companies in the face of the (Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).]
DEBATES	April 20, 1970
recommendations made by the health and welfare committee of this House. Can the minister indicate that we may expect cigarette advertising control legislation to be introduced prior to the summer recess?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the
department and I have given a lot of consideration to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee and I expect to make recommendations to my colleagues on this matter very shortly.



POLLUTION


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the compensation that has now been made available to Lake St. Clair fishermen, and in view of the fact that Lake Erie fishermen have also suffered considerable loss through the freeze on sales and loss of fishing time, what steps is the department considering to compensate the Lake Erie fishermen?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under active consideration with the provincial authorities, particularly the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, concerning fishermen on Lake Erie as well.



COMPENSATION TO LAKE WINNIPEG FISHERMEN FOR MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF FISH

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether consideration has been given to compensating Manitoba fishermen, particularly those of Lake Winnipeg who have suffered losses because of mercury poisoning found in fish in that lake?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I expect to be meeting next Monday with the hon. Mr. Green in Winnipeg to discuss this matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
April 20, 1970

I should like to ask him whether or not he is aware of the impact the closing down of the Dunlop company in Toronto will have on the textile industry in Yarmouth and also what steps are to be taken by his department to curb unemployment in Yarmouth which is a designated area.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Dunlop company is concerned, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and not under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
I should like simply to ask the minister, since there will be unemployment in Yarmouth, whether he is studying the problem in order to reduce to a minimum the number of employees who will be laid off.


Jean Marchand: It is the constant concern of the officials of my department, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which arises from a situation in British Columbia where the locked-out members of seven building trade unions have been refused welfare payments, contrary to the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan. In view of the television refusal of welfare minister Gaglar-di to comply with the federal minister's request that the terms of the plan be met, can the minister say what action he plans to take to enforce the terms of the legislation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan to the minister to whom the hon. member has referred, and also that any such obstacle placed in the path of recipients in terms of receiving benefits would be contrary to the plan. All I can say is that if we have specific instances where recipients are denied benefits contrary to the plan we will have no choice but to take appropriate action in terms of reducing the moneys payable to that province under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mrs. Maclnnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact the provincial government got its own way, which was not in accord with the terms of the plan, in connection with the people involved in the longshoremen's strike, is there any guarantee that things will be different this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the supplementary is in order. I would not think that the question, in the terms it was asked, would be acceptable.



LABOUR RELATIONS


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he say what are the terms of reference of the experts conducting a study and preparing a report on the structure and authority of the union movement in the province of Quebec, particularly on the CNTU?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice and review the terms of reference in order that I may be accurate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: At the same time, would the minister be kind enough when he gives the answer to tell us whether the report dealing especially with the CNTU is to be confidential or made public?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. [English]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonion Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the film shown last night on the CBC program, "The Nation's Business", sponsored and paid for entirely by the Liberal party?


An hon. Member:: It was a pretty good one, wasn't it?
April 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is difficult to know the circumstances of the situation to which the hon. member refers. I should think that if the question is in order it should be placed on the Order Paper, and I would have some reservations about that too.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brefon-Easf Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to one asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, and I direct it to the Prime Minister. Were any public funds involved in the production of the film shown on "The Nation's Business" last night and supposedly sponsored by the Liberal party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has reiterated the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. My suggestion was that due to the fact that it related to certain circumstances it might be placed on the Order Paper and if there was urgency it could be considered at the time of adjournment.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the difference between the questions asked is that I related my question to a program supposedly sponsored by the Liberal party and the use of public funds. I think the Prime Minister should be in a position to answer whether or not this is so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize it has been suggested that if there is urgency in respect of the hon. member's question or the question of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre the matter might be considered at the time of adjournment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he any additional information for the House on the negotiations in respect of the recognition by Canada of the Peking government and when are those negotiations likely to be concluded?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing fresh to add to the information I have already given the House. Our negotiations continue. I cannot say when they will be successfully concluded. I hope they will be but, as I have said on many occasions, in dealing with the Chinese one must be very patient.


Gerald William Baldwin: And the same in dealing with the Canadian government; you have to be patient.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can he inform the House when the proposed white paper on the Unemployment Insurance Commission wiil be forthcoming?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot say specifically, Mr. Speaker. It depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the workload of the House, the workload of the government and the workload of the departmental committees. We indicated in the Throne Speech there would be such a paper and I hope it will be forthcoming.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House whether it is currently being held up because of objections by the Department of Manpower?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The answer to that is no.



DENIAL OF BENEFITS TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN B.C. INDUSTRIES INVOLVED IN DISPUTES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour which is similar to the question directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It relates to those people not directly involved in labour disputes in Vancouver such as harbours board employees and building trades and Pacific Press employees specifically who have been denied unemployment insurance on the ground that there is a labour dispute and are not able to get social welfare because they are not regarded as unemployed. What does the minister plan to do now about this particular situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in respect of strikes has been very clear and consistent throughout the years. Even though a person may not belong to a union, but want to take advantage of a legal strike, he is not entitled to unemployment insurance because he becomes eventual beneficiary of the union's negotiations.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The problem seems to centre around the fact that they are not-
April 20, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Broadview.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the major lay-offs occurring in industry across Canada, when does the minister intend to bring forth legislation in accordance with the Freedman report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is no legislation based exclusively on the Freedman report, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman is referring to the major overhaul of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which may include recommendations on the Freedman report, we are still waiting for a few briefs from interested parties, including labour, which should be on my desk in the next few weeks. That is the last major hurdle.



GIVING OF NOTICE BEFORE MASS LAY-OFFS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister say whether the government is contemplating legislation dealing with a requirement in respect of federal industries for some period of notice before mass lay-offs take place?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be highly desirable and in keeping with the twentieth century.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister which involves the policy of the government or successive governments toward the right of peaceful assembly. In view of the fact that a widely representative, peaceful and legal assembly on Parliament Hill last Saturday had to organize an army within its own members to assure peace, may those who wish to demonstrate get a permit to assemble with the expectation that they will receive some protection by the RCMP from radical groups?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot answer this question
Inquiries of the Ministry offhand. The hon. member is asking a very difficult and important policy question. I can say that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are now engaged in an attempt to formulate for the government our policy on the whole question of maintaining the law in the country.



PUBLIC WORKS


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Public Works. As we both come from the same city I know he will understand the purport of my question. Announcements have been made and contracts let relevant to federal public works construction in many provinces, particularly Quebec and Ontario, but not with regard to British Columbia. May I ask the minister when announcements will be made in respect of federal construction plans in British Columbia in general and Vancouver in particular?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member is referring to an announcement I made that it was our intention to build a new federal building in the city of Vancouver. A survey is under way now and I would expect a decision to be made concerning the location and an indication of its size in a matter of three or four months.



POLLUTION


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to a statement made earlier by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that Manitoba, through the Manitoba Environmental Commission, on March 12 gave the town of Selkirk permission to continue to dump raw sewage into the Red River for several years, would he take up this matter of permission at its source when discussing another matter with the provincial Minister of Mines and Natural Resources?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It must be assumed that the question will be taken into account by the minister.
April 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



ACTION ON WELFARE COUNCIL REPORT ON YOUTH

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Can he inform the House what action his department is taking in respect of the recent Canadian Welfare Council report on transient youth?


Gérard Pelletier: will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CRIMINAL CODE


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is it his intention to bring forward legislation at this session to amend the Criminal Code with respect to such matters as false arrest and vagrancy?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I intend very shortly to bring before the House a bail reform bill relating to bail, arrest and summons.



TAXATION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House when the Minister of Finance will be back in his place in the House so that we can start in again on the white paper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe he is due in the House tomorrow. I will check.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he anticipates a decrease in the $190,000 expenditure when the Minister of Finance returns?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of 
Regional Economic Expansion. Could the minister inform the House when his department plans to conclude its negotiations with the provincial government concerning the Slave Lake development proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure just how urgent this matter is. The hon. member has asked a question and perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot mention a specific date yet, but I hope that it will be in a few weeks.



SHIPPING


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour when the Elestrom study-the labour department's study on safety and manning provisions for the west coast towboat industry-will be available to the general public?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Perhaps never, Mr. Speaker. It was not intended that it be made available to the general public. It was intended to reveal to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport and senior civil servants conditions on the waterfront in the tugboat industry in British Columbia. I am considering releasing the report to the unions and to management as well as senior officials on the coast in order that they may work together as a team to clean up what is an unenviable situation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week I asked him some questions regarding the transfer of nerve gas from Okinawa to the United States via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. At that time the minister said, I believe outside the House, that his department was making representations to the government of the United States concerning the possibility of their finding another route rather than going through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I should like to ask the minister, first, whether he has
April 20, 1970	COMMONS
received any reply to the representations and what it is and, second, whether he has received any information yet concerning the date when this transfer will take place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had said in the House that we made oral representations to the United States about the shipment of nerve gas and also written representations. We have not received any written reply. Of course, in response to the representations we made, we have received a good deal of information about the precautions being taken. I have also raised with the United States the question of whether or not they would agree to some of this information being made available to the public in Canada as well as in the United States. We have not received any response to the representation that it might be possible to move the gas by some other route farther distant from Canada or that it should not be moved at all.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Wednesday last I asked the minister whether the Canadian government planned to join with the Council of Europe in its criticism of the practice of the government of Greece in taking away civil liberties from its citizens. At that time I received the reply that he did not have a copy of the report upon which that decision was made. My question today is, does the government of Canada now have that report and has it decided to act upon it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think even before I was asked the question in the House I had cabled our representative in Europe to try to obtain a copy of the report. We have not yet received a copy but we will be studying it and may have something to say about it after we have studied its contents.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, does the government intend to follow the example of the Prime Minister of Denmark who has recently suggested to the United States that it cease sending arms to Greece?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our shipments of arms to Greece are very minimal and would not in any way contribute to the ability of the Greek government to put down any internal insurrection.
DEBATES	6045
Inquiries of the Ministry URBAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the terms of the brief presented today to the government by the Association of Mayors and Municipalities of Canada, has the government reviewed its policy in respect of involvement of Parliament and the House of Commons and changed its policy of some months ago when the government rejected a proposal by this party that it should be a duty of the House of Commons to look at this issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question was not raised, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It is a very urgent matter. Can the minister say whether his department is planning any action on the basis of complaints of indiscriminate use of herring seiners on the east coast of Canada resulting in the almost total destruction of herring resources, similar to what happened on the west coast of Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. The minister mentioned the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act with regard to men on strike. I want to ask the minister about those men who are not on strike but who are out of work because of a strike and the evident injustice to them of being penalized when they are not responsible for the strike and do not necessarily benefit from the strike. Is he prepared to change the regulations to make it abundantly clear that persons of this type are entitled to unemployment insurance?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank the hon. member for the question.

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
Where it can be proven that a worker is without work as a result of a strike in which he is not participating and from which he will derive no direct benefit, that person is entitled to unemployment insurance. It is only in the case where a person is out of work who may not be a member of the union but will benefit from the collective agreement that is eventually signed that we ask him to share the responsibility of the union members on strike and not draw unemployment insurance. But if he does not benefit from the strike then he does have unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Ccwichan-The Islands):: Then may I ask if the minister
would look into the very large number of cases now before the Unemployment Insurance Commission, particularly with respect to those longshoremen on the spare board who are not members of the union and whose benefits are not retroactive to September 1, and who have been denied unemployment insurance benefits and have no assistance whatever?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows as well as I do that although they may not be entitled to retroactive pay, their pay per hour is increased as a result of the settlement of the unions.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act-Mr. Davis.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) moves second reading of this bill, I wish to raise a point of order. I contend that Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, offends against Standing Order 69 which provides:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
This bill incorporates, by reference, certain provisions of two statutes which do not exist, namely, the Canada Water Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act. The references

to the Canada Water Act are to be found on page 2, lines 4 to 14; page 4, lines 39 to 42, and page 11, lines 4 to 14. The reference to the Northern Inland Waters Act is on page 2, lines 15 to 23.
These references apply to the most substantive provisions of this bill, that is, the provision creating the offence of depositing waste in the sea near our coast and inland waters, set out in clause 3, page 1, and the definition of waste itself which is also set out in clause 3, but on page 4. Neither of these provisions can be understood, nor can the principle embodied in them be considered and debated by this House without knowing the restrictions and qualifications contained in these non-existent statutes.
Presumably these references relate to Bill C-144 and Bill C-187, both of which are now before standing committees of this House for clause by clause consideration. We cannot be asked to assume that these bills will come out of committee unamended or pass through the necessary further proceedings in this House and in the other place unamended. We cannot even assume that the similar provisions in this bill and the other two bills will come out in the same legislative form. They will be dealt with by three different committees; the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Until these other two bills are in perfect shape as statutes, this bill must be considered to be in imperfect shape.
Properly, this bill should be ruled out of order. However, with the consent of the House the better course would be to permit it to remain on the Order Paper until the other bills, incorporated by reference in this bill, are enacted. It should be noted that clause 9 of this bill, page 11, admits the validity of this point of order. That clause acknowledges that this bill, in its present imperfect shape, would not be enforceable, as to the clauses in question, in the courts until the Canada Water Act comes into force.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: On the question of order, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out it is not the intention of the government that this bill should become operative until the Canada Water Act has become law. The hon. member is incorrect in saying that this bill is imperfect in any form. It is perfect in itself, that is to say, from the standpoint that he used the phrase. It provides for certain
April 20, 1970

amendments to the Fisheries Act which are consequential upon changes being made in the Canada Water Act.
From the standpoint of the presentation of the various bills dealing with the question of pollution, if of course any amendments are made by the committee, and subsequently concurred in by the House, with respect to the Canada Water Act or indeed with respect to the other bills which have precedence in order of time over this particular bill, then of course the House will be in a position to make any consequential amendments that might be necessary in this particular case.
I would not think an assumption can be made about what the committee might or might not do with regard to any other legislation. Really each bill should stand on its own feet, only subject to the provision in clause 9 in this case, which relates to the day when it comes into force. On that basis, I would suggest that there is no substance to the point of order.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I find an initial difficulty in following the argument of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald).


Gerald William Baldwin: What else is new?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As my colleague says, that is not anything new. I submit that this House must not be asked to legislate a nullity, in other words, perform a hypothetical exercise. The two bills referred to on page 2 of this bill are somewhere else. There is no guarantee that these bills will ever be passed. Therefore, this whole bill would be inoperative in the event that the other two bills should not be proceeded with or, for some reason or other, should not receive Royal Assent. For that reason, I would find that there is some very grave difficulty in asking the House to pass clause 3, which is the one dealing with the Canada Water Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act. If we pass that, we are passing a meaningless clause. Therefore, if the bill is meaningless, in part, why ask this House to perform this exercise? For that reason, I would say that the bill in its present form is imperfect.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the arguments have been well and eloquently put forward by my colleagues. I only seek to cap them by saying it is but a
Fisheries Act
very brief step from this to accepting the principle that the government can move second reading of a bill containing provisions which are based on another bill which has not even been introduced into the House. I call to Your Honour's attention our faithful friend and companion for many cold winters over the last seven years, the Canada Development Corporation. It may well be that, in a bill to be presented to this House, the government may provide that the financing of the particular measure will be founded on the successful passage of the Canada Development Corporation bill, which may never see the light of day.
In the present bill there are certain clauses which are related to another bill in such a way that the legality, the effectiveness and the implementation of this bill must rest upon the foundation of the passage of the other bill. If that is the case, we have to take just one more step until we say, "Right, we will pass a bill now, the effectiveness of which is founded upon and related to another bill which is not yet introduced into the House."


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I find the point of order that has been raised a very interesting one. If Your Honour is considering this question of order, I wonder if I might draw Your Honour's attention to page 3 of the bill which has to do with prevention of the pollution of the Arctic waters, Bill C-202, where there is a similar situation, which was not raised at the time of its introduction for second reading. This clause reads in part:
-without limiting the generality of the foregoing-
That is the defining of waste.
-includes anything that, for the purposes of the Canada Water Act, is deemed to be waste.
I would suggest to Your Honour that any consideration of this question brings under review not only the bill before us, but also Bill C-202.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), with the support of some of his colleagues, has suggested that the bill now before the House is imperfect in its form because its enactment in perfect form is dependent on the adoption of two other bills which are, at one stage or another, currently before the House, to wit, the Canada Water Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act.
The point made by the hon. member for South Shore and other hon. members to the left of the Chair who have taken part in this



B048 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
debate is an interesting one and the argument is not without merit. If it has a fault, it is that it might be premature. In my view, I think I have to assume that if the bill receives second reading and is referred to committee, it would then be considered by a committee of the House along with the other two bills and it would be at the third reading stage that the argument could be presented with much more force and at that point should be considered very seriously.
I have every possible sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. member for South Shore and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out, the adoption of this kind of procedure might lead us to rather extreme situations. Because of this 1 would suggest that the argument, if circumstances are such that the bill is still dependent at that stage on the adoption of other bills in statute form, might be brought up again and it would be considered by the Chair.
Generally speaking, my conclusion would be that the interesting point is perhaps premature. I would suggest that the House proceed with the consideration of the bill and if on third reading we are still in the position where we are being asked to adopt a bill which is dependent on the adoption of other bills, the terms of which are still uncertain, then the matter might be considered by the Chair.
John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-204, to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today hon. members are being asked to consider several important changes in the Fisheries Act. These changes will strengthen the act. They will clarify it and they will put more teeth in it.
With these amendments, the Fisheries Act will become a better act and a more effective act. It will provide a greater measure of protection for our aquatic environment and it will enable Canadians to generate higher incomes from our commercial fishery, and our sports fishery in this country.
As most hon. members know, the Fisheries Act is a federal act. It is an act which is as old as confederation itself. Our Fisheries Act was passed during Canada's first session of Parliament. It was passed more than 100 years ago. The Fisheries Act has, of course, been revised and updated with the passage of time.

It has changed in some ways but it is still national in character. It is still nationwide in its application. It applies, as our Canadian constitution says, to our "seacoast and inland fisheries". It applies from sea to sea-from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It also applies from our international boundary line in the south to the Arctic ocean in the north.
Perhaps I could put it another way. Fisheries are entirely a federal responsibility. Parliament, alone, makes the laws with regard to fish in salt water and fish in fresh water. The Fisheries Act, therefore, applies to Canadian waters everywhere. The only limitation is whether the water in question now supports fish life or has done so in the past. Parliament, under our constitution, passes all of the laws dealing with fisheries as a resource. Ottawa also writes all of the regulations drawn up under the Fisheries Act. It writes the regulations even when the administration of the act has been delegated to one of the provinces.
Let me give you an example. The administration of our federal Fisheries Act was delegated to Alberta in the 1930's. Alberta, in other words, administers the Fisheries Act in all of the waters of that province. But when Alberta wants to change any of the regulations under the act it must get our approval. It must ask Ottawa to approve every change in the rules in so far as they apply to the fresh water fishery there.
The situation in the four Atlantic provinces, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is relatively straightforward. There, Ottawa not only makes the law and draws up its own regulations but also administers the fishery as well. We are legislators and administrators in salt water. But, inland, the situation varies from place to place.
Throughout the prairies and in Ontario and Quebec, the administration of the Fisheries Act is delegated to one or more provincial departments. They administer the act in so far as opening and closing dates, catch limits and other conservation measures are concerned. Still, they rely on our Fisheries Department. They rely on us for fisheries research, fisheries development programs, fish inspection and fish marketing services. Obviously our department is active everywhere in Canada. It is active throughout Canada, even though the administration of the Fisheries Act itself may be delegated to some province and not to others.
April 20, 1970

Both levels of government look on the Fisheries Act as a useful tool. It is useful, primarily, as an act to protect our living resources in water. But it can also be used as a device to protect the fishery and our own Canadian fishermen. It governs our own fishermen wherever they go on the high seas. It follows Canadian fishing vessels. And it is used to protect our aquatic environment, not only in our largest coastal bays but in our smallest mountain streams as well.
Our own administrative arm has lots of muscle. We have fisheries officers located on both our coasts, in the Arctic and along our salmon rivers. Their main responsibility is to protect the fishery there. It is to conserve fish stocks by looking after spawning grounds, preventing the destruction of streams by bad logging practices, keeping an eye open for toxic sprays and checking on the discharge of industrial wastes.
Some hon. members will be surprised to know that we have dozens of prosecutions under the Fisheries Act. They will also be surprised to learn that we have a thousand officers in our conservation and protection service. These men are well trained. Each is a conservationist in his own right. Each is familiar with his own particular area. Each knows its commercial and recreational possibility. Each officer also knows who to contact when things go wrong as well as how to anticipate problems and head them off before they happen.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I failed to mention the close working relationship which these officers have with their provincial counterparts. They co-operate closely with the local fish and wildlife people. They also consult with the local foresters and, together, they take a multi-purpose approach to the management of our renewable resources there.
Please notice that I have been using the word "fish" as if fish were the only form of aquatic life. But the term fish, by definition in the Fisheries Act, also includes marine mammals like seals. It includes shellfish like oysters. It includes crustacae like shrimp. It includes minute organisms like zooplankton.
In order to complete the chain, we must also include plant life. We must also include plant life, specifically, under the Fisheries Act. We must include aquatic plants because they are very important in the natural scheme of things. Marine plants are often food for fish. However, in excessive quanti-tites they can also be harmful to fish. In the
Fisheries Act
right amounts they can be harvested commercially. Millions of dollars worth of marine plants are already cropped annually in this country. This is another reason they should be referred to, specifically, in the Fisheries Act.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Incidentally the inclusion of marine plants will bring the Fisheries Act into line with our Fisheries Research Board Act, our Fisheries Development Act and our Fish Inspection Act. All of these important pieces of legislation recognize the ecological reality-the reality that fish life and marine vegetation are interrelated. They are part of our wider marine ecology and should be treated as such in our legislation.
Again, there is a need to control harvesting of seaweeds in the interests of orderly growth in that industry. Because the jurisdiction over the resources of the sea bottom is federal, federal legislation is needed as a basis for management. In this field of marine plants we, of course, will have to work closely with the provinces. Working closely with certain provincial government departments on both coasts we see a great new seaweed industry ahead. It is an industry which is already generating products ranging from cosmetics to clothing on the one hand, and from chocolate milk to beer on the other.
Before leaving this subject of marine plants, I would like to say a few words about algae. Algae are also marine plants. They are also living organisms. They are forms of vegetation living in waters which can be enriched in various ways. Indeed, enrichment is often the key to the proliferation of algae everywhere.
Our current problem in Lake Erie, for example, is one of over-fertilization or over enrichment. Over-fertilization or over enrichment produces algae in tremendous quantities. Mark you, algae is not always a bad thing. It may be harmful to some kinds of fish and helpful to others. In large quantities, it is generally destructive to high energy fish like trout and helpful to plant eating species like perch and carp. Incidentally, the perch industry has been flourishing in recent years in Lake Erie and the dollar value of the catch has been mounting quite steadily. I might say parenthetically also that a problem in the Far East in respect of carp stems from a lack of fertilization in the water. The lack of enrichment means a lack of algae and a lack of food for the carp. Obviously, much depends on the

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
particular balance that a society wants to create as between algae and vegetation in water and fish life.
All this proves is that the fortunes of our fish and our marine plants, including algae, are interrelated. They are interrelated in the natural scheme of things. This is a very good reason why they should also be related, closely, under our national Fisheries Act.
Hon. members will doubtless be interested in our marine plant research program. Most of this work is carried out by biologists with our Fisheries Research Board. The Board has its main environmental laboratories in Nanaimo on the West Coast; in Winnipeg, Manitoba; Burlington, Ontario and St. Andrews and Dartmouth on the East Coast. There, our scientists are studying the effects of various pollutants on algae both in fresh water and in the sea.
This brings me directly to the subject of pollution. Anything that harms fish or stimulates the growth of algae may be harmful to man himself. Marine life, indeed, is often more sensitive to pollutants than mankind is. It follows that the living resources in water are our first line of defence. Healthy fish mean a healthy environment and a healthy fishery is undoubtedly the best insurance policy we can buy in our battle against pollution in water.
The idea of preventing pollution in fisheries waters is, of course, as old as the Fisheries Act itself. The act has always contained clauses dealing with this subject. Indeed, a clause along those lines actually appeared in the Upper Canada Statute of 1860. Here is how the Fisheries Act has read for decades and still reads in so far as the discharging of waste into fisheries water is concerned. The act reads in part:
No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass Into, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of a like character to the substances named in this section or not, in any water frequented by fish, or that flows into such water, nor on ice over either such waters.
The present act goes on to say:
The Governor in Council may by order, deem any substance-
I repeat, any substance.
-to be a deleterious substance for the purpose of this section (of the Act).
We have these formidable powers now. We have these powers without amending the

Fisheries Act. We have them without the bill today. However, they are not specific enough. They are difficult to administer fairly. They don't deal with "wastes" in quantitative terms. By quantitative terms, I mean concentrations. Nor do they relate, directly, to other pieces of federal legislation such as our new Canada Water Act or the Northern Inland Waters bill.
The old definition, in other words, is not good enough. It needs to be updated. We need modern wording and we need phraseology which is consistent with that used in other federal acts. Besides, we need to place the emphasis on prevention rather than cure. We should use terms which look ahead, which are designed to prevent pollution before it occurs and which place the emphasis on upgrading our waters rather than simply punishing the offender after the damage is done.
We can achieve these objectives by defining "wastes" in the right way. We are attempting to do this in the present bill by using the same definition of "waste" as appears in the Canada Water Act. "Waste", according to the Canada Water bill definition and according to the Northern Inland Waters bill definition as well as according to the amendments proposed for the Fisheries Act, therefore means this. I quote from the bill:
-any substance that, if added to any waters, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to man, and
-any water that contains a substance in such a quantity or concentration, or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state that it would, if added to any waters, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters-
This, then, is the definition of waste. It will be the same under the Fisheries Act as it will be under the Canada Water Act. The two pieces of legislation will be on all fours. What is deemed to be waste under the Canada Water Act will be waste under the Fisheries Act and vice versa.
Of course, we will be able to write detailed regulations. We will be able to identify substances and name concentrations which are permissible in water. Any amount of a waste substance which is in excess of those concentrations or which would kill juvenile salmon, for example, is out. It will be deemed to be waste. It will be deemed to be pollution under the Fisheries Act as well as the Canada Water Act.
April 20, 1970

Of course, if a pollutant is discharged into Canada's fisheries waters the offending party may be prosecuted. If we are dealing with an industry, it may be prosecuted without warning. Up until the present time, the maximum fine has been $1,000 under the Fisheries Act. The passage of this bill will increase the fine to $5,000. It could be $5,000 a day if the pollution continues after a warning has been given to the plant owners by our departmental officials. Hon. members will please note that the nature and amount of the fine will also be the same as under the Canada Water Act. Again, the Fisheries Act and the Canada Water Act are in step. They are in step in respect of the definition of waste and they are identical when it comes to the maximum penalty which can be levied under our new legislation.
The administration of both acts will also be dovetailed. Officials from my department will be serving on the consultative committees and regional management boards set up under the Canada Water Act. They will do their best to make these consultative committees work and these over-all, federal-provincial management boards work. They have every reason to do so. Organized discussions and organized planning of this kind is likely to be much more helpful to our fishery than the cateh-as-catch-can processes of the past.
When developments proceeded, willy-nilly, the fisheries were usually ignored. Power dams were built without regard to salmon runs. New industries were brought in without regard to pollution and its effect on our fish. The environment suffered and the ecological balance in our waters was upset. "Hard" industry has flourished. But living organisms have frequently been destroyed. Our scenery has been blemished and our recreational potential has been wiped out.
The Canada Water Act should change all that. In our new water quality management areas, all parties will be brought together. All interests will be consulted. Provincial government departments will be involved and so will federal departments. Provincial water resources people and Federal fisheries people will sit down together. They will work out their differences in an organized way and the end result will be a better over-all scheme of development for all concerned.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Various techniques have been developed for dealing with these multi-faceted situations. One is benefit-cost analysis. Benefit-cost analysis was first developed in the planning of
Fisheries Act
whole river basins. There, power dams and irrigation, navigation and flood control, fisheries and recreation, forestry and aesthetics all had to be reconciled. Also some of them could be reduced to dollar terms and others could only be referred to as "intangibles". The technique is still imperfect. But we know that the "intangibles", like recreation and aesthetics, are being given much more credence than in the past. Sports fishing and tourism have been moving up the scale. They have been given higher priority with the passage of time. They have been weighing more heavily in the balance of things. So it is with our fisheries.
It is for these reasons as well that I favour the establishment of water quality management areas in various parts of the country. Ottawa and the provinces will be brought closer together. We will also tend to avoid head on confrontations between single and individual federal departments administering federal laws in the same waters. It will provide a forum for resolving these differences. It will also give our own fisheries people, and our forestry people, a greater say in the overall scheme of things. Using the Canada Water Act in this way, we can make sure their voices are heard. They were not always heard in the past-far from it. Often the opinions of our fisheries biologists were ignored to the detriment of our fishery in particular, and our aquatic environment in general. Often the voices of our fishermen were ignored as well.
I might go even further. I might insist that our fisheries scientists and our development engineers must continue to be the pace setters. They must be the pace setters in so far as the protection of the living resources in our aquatic environment is concerned. They must insist on the highest possible standards of water purity. They must insist that the same high standards are put into effect locally, and regionally, in the new water quality management areas which result from Canada Water Act agreements between Ottawa and the provinces. We, in this department, clearly have a vested interest in the success of the Canada Water Act. We want it to work because it can also help us to do our job in Fisheries and Forestry more effectively.
I have been talking as if regulations made under the Canada Water Act will apply immediately and in all areas of Canada. This will not be the case. The setting up of basin wide plans covering major rivers and streams will take time. Large sums of money will also have to be voted as well. In the interim, at

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
the very least, we will therefore have to use the Fisheries Act as we have done in the past. We will have to use it pending the signing of ironclad agreements between the provinces and Ottawa, agreements which will cover all facets of water development and protect our fisheries as well.
There will of course always be rivers and seas in which fishing is the dominant activity. There will also be single industry situations along our coasts and in outlying parts of this country. In those circumstances the Fisheries Act, alone, may be sufficient to do the job. It is here, also, that we expect our people will have a dominant voice in making sure that our aquatic environment is maintained in a healthy state. Perhaps in the fullness of time, the Canada Water Act may apply in these areas as well. But, for the time being, we will have to use the Fisheries Act by itself, to police pollution as best we can. Policing may not be the right word. Co-operative action is preferable. We want to work with industry, not against it. We want to co-operate with companies building new plants and installing new processes. We know that these new firms can benefit from our expertise and we are sure that our fishery will be much healthier if we have their co-operation from the outset.
Our departmental experience on both coasts has been gratifying. Most companies intending to build new pulp mills or chemical plants are now coming to our fisheries experts and asking for advice. They ask what our standards are and how these can best be met. They ask about new treatment facilities and how they have worked out in other locations in Canada.
We have scored some notable successes. Our new pulp mills on the greatest salmon stream on earth, the Fraser River in B.C., are among the cleanest in the world. Several chemical plants built in eastern Canada are also world leaders in this respect. Our insistence on high standards has also paid off in other ways. Several consulting firms, specializing in pollution engineering have now begun to sell their expertise in other countries. I am thinking of the Sandwell and Simons companies in Vancouver. They are now looked to by the Scandinavians and the Russians as having broken new ground by marrying pollution control and economy and by making a number of chemical process industries more compatible with our environment.
Co-operation with industry in this country, in other words, has turned what might otherwise have been a local disadvantage into an

international advantage. We have been able to protect our fish and develop new export industries as well. We have insisted on high standards and they have been achieved at minimum cost. Sometimes by-products have been produced, sometimes not. But our rivers are cleaner and our seas are healthier. We have taken the intelligent approach to pollution abatement and we have scored a number of successes without costing the federal treasury large sums of money in the process.
While I can report considerable progress in some instances I must, regretfully, admit continuing failures in others. Some industries have been more co-operative than others. Some provinces have also been more energetic than others in the battle against pollution. It is because of this uneven pattern of development, this permissive approach to industrial development and regional expansion that we feel we must formalize our arrangements. By formalizing, I mean making it necessary for industries which generally give us trouble on the pollution front to file plans for their construction of new facilities and the introduction of new processes.
I might also say another reason for proceeding is to avoid the unhappy development of what I might loosely refer to as pollution havens in one part of the country because legislation is not uniform from coast to coast. I am sure changing our Fisheries Act will help to eliminate these so-called havens.
Hon. members will please note that we propose to change section 33 of the Fisheries Act thereby giving this department the power to:
(1)	ask any firm about its plans for expansion;
(2)	be informed about the anti-pollution measures to be taken in each case; and
(3)	approve, or disapprove, of these plans and with the backing of the Governor in Council, in other words the cabinet, to require any modifications necessary to protect the fisheries waters of Canada.
Sometimes, we in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry will have to take the initiative. We will have to contact the firm in question. Once contacted it will be obliged, by law, to co-operate with our departmental officials in reviewing its plans for pollution control. I have no doubt that all, or nearly all, of these industries will work closely with us. I have no doubt that they will co-operate. They have been co-operative in the past. However, there may be exceptions. There may be exceptions, not only as a result of an honest
April 20, 1970

difference of opinion, but also as a result of attempts to avoid cost which the company thinks it might be able to fob off on to the public in general.
Under these exceptional circumstances we in the department will have to take our responsibilities. We have to take up our responsibilities under the Fisheries Act and intervene in the public interest. We may have to intervene to the extent of holding up construction until the facilities are adequate from a pollution control point of view. We may also have to insist on the use of new processes for treating effluent which the company had not envisaged in the first place.
This is strong medicine. It is a drastic step to take. Before the Minister of Fisheries can actually hold up the plans of a company he will have to get full cabinet backing. He will have to get an Order in Council passed by the government. Of course, this is likely to be forthcoming in the kinds of cases which I have in mind. However, the firm in question has this further protection. All ministers, and not simply the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, will have to be convinced that the company is falling down in its duty to look after our waters in the proper way.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
To put it another way, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, require the company in question to make such changes to its plant and/or its processes as are necessary to treat its effluent properly. This power continues over time. It continues in the sense that we will not give a full and final approval in each and every case. Instead, we will reserve the right to make further changes in our specifications. These changes might, for example, become imperative as a result of increased production on the part of the firm, changes in stream flow or, hopefully, a marked improvement in the technology of pollution abatement itself.
Unfortunately, pollution is with us now on a large scale. We can all recall several recent examples. I hope we do not experience a repetition of the so-called "red herring" incident in Newfoundland. I hope we do not run into another mercury problem on the prairies or in Lake St. Clair in Ontario. But if we do, we will have to move, and move quickly. We will have to move in and buy fish, for example, in order to support our fishermen during the period in which the contamination persists.
Fisheries Act
This action will be taken on behalf of the Crown. It will be taken on behalf of the Crown to remedy the condition or reduce or mitigate damage or destruction to life or property. A further amendment in this bill gives the government this power. It gives the power to recover its costs incurred in looking after the interim arrangements. These costs, of course, will be recoverable from those who are responsible for pollution in the first place.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, I could detail other changes in the Fisheries Act. I could, for instance, refer to the 12-mile limit for trawlers. Newfoundland, when it came into confederation in 1949, retained its old 3-mile limit. This will now be changed, at Newfoundland's request, and the 12-mile restriction which already applies to trawlers in Atlantic waters will be extended to Newfoundland as well.
There is more. But suffice it to say that the main thrust of this bill is against pollution. It is part of our over-all effort to deal with this modern menace. We will soon have a tougher Fisheries Act-a better Fisheries Act. We will soon have a new Canada Water Act and a new Northern Inland Waters Act. We will have a better Canada Shipping Act. This is an impressive list. It is good legislation and it is sound legislation. We need these laws, these improved laws, these federal laws, to deal with pollution in an effective manner. We need them to keep our rivers fresh and our salt water clean. We need this legislation to make our aquatic environment in Canada fit for fish to live in.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a short one. But it is an important bill. I urge hon. members to support it. Improve it if you will, but support it. Unlike the United States, where the power over the fisheries resources is fragmented as between individual states, fragmented because it rests with the individual states, we have a unique opportunity here in Canada; we can pass national legislation dealing with our aquatic environment. I, therefore, ask you as Members of Parliament, acting in the national interest of Canada, to approve this bill and amend our Fisheries Act in these various ways.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-204, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, reminds me of a well-known soap product-it does everything. It is all-encompassing. I have read the bill carefully and it is something of a catch-all, with part of the bill being introduced as the result of faulty drafting of previous bills. I

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
make this statement on the basis of the wording of clause 9 on page 11 which states that a clause of the bill cannot take effect until the Canada Water Act has received Royal Assent.
The members of the Official Opposition have examined this bill and it is not our intention to oppose it. But there are some clauses with which we are concerned. I listened carefully to the minister, and I concur with much that he has said. The first part of the bill deals strictly with pollution control and no one could, therefore, reasonably quarrel with its intent.
In recent weeks there has been mounting evidence concerning the dreadful pollution of Canadian waters and the threat this pollution presents to our environment. Mercury poisoning has been reported in lakes in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and it would be no surprise to find that all rivers and lakes adjacent to certain chemical plants are similarly polluted. Certainly, the situation which we know exists in Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River now, where commercial and sports fishing have been banned for an indefinite period-since analysis of Lake St. Clair pickerel showed concentrations of mercury far beyond those considered safe for human consumption-cannot be ignored.
The first alarm about the dangers of mercury poisoning was raised in Japan where, in 1953, some 41 people died of nervous disorders which were ultimately traced to mercury poisoning. It was noted that their diet included large quantities of shellfish caught in a bay contaminated by effluent from a plastics plant. In Canada, attention has only recently be drawn to the danger of mercury as a pollutant although, obviously, mercury has been in use for along time. Besides being used in thermometers, mercury is principally used in chlor-alkali plants as an electrolytic catalyst in the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda. It also plays a major role in the plastics industry, as well as in the pulp and paper industry, and in the making of fungicides. It gets into our rivers and lakes as part of the effluent from industrial plants and, to a lesser degree, from the agricultural run-off.
Since many of our industries have been using mercury for long periods of time, it is now obvious that the management of these plants have been aware of the polluting effect of their operations. But they have not taken any steps to correct the situation. Now, demands not only local but national and international in scope are being made for

greater efforts to clean up our polluted
waters. If the response is to be effective, much more research will be required by industry as well as by our federal and provincial authorities and, on the Great Lakes, by our American friends who also have a vital concern over improving the quality of water in the area.
All of us have recently been made aware of this government's attitude toward international conferences. But if we are to bring about effective control of the pollution in the Great Lakes, I believe the federal government should immediately request a conference between the provincial authorities concerned and the governors of the eight states bordering the lakes. This conference should take place either in Washingtotn or in Ottawa so that a co-operative effort may be made between Canada and the United States-a joint effort between our two nations-to get this problem under control. It makes little sense for Canada to try to control pollution of the Great Lakes unless our neighbours to the south are implementing similar procedures to deal with pollution by their own industries and the large cities situated on the United States side of the border adjacent to the Lakes.
As I said before, we are in agreement with the intent of this bill. Unfortunately, there are too many loopholes left open in this legislation. This becomes evident if one looks at the exemption clauses. These exemptions are clearly areas in which the government can exercise control, and there is scarcely any need to direct attention to the abuse which this arrangement makes possible. On the very first page of the bill we read in clause 3(1) that Section 33 (2) of the Fisheries Act is repealed and the following substituted:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
(2) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste of any type in any water frequented by fish or in any places under any conditions where such waste or any other waste that results from the deposit of such waste may enter any such water.
Certainly this is desirable, but what are the words of the section in the Fisheries Act that is being deleted? This subsection is printed in the bill and reads as follows:
(2) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass into, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of a like character to the substances named in this section
April 20, 1970

or not, in any water frequented by fish, or that flows into such water, nor on ice over either such waters.
Although this subjection is being deleted, the truth of the matter is that it has never been enforced. If it had been enforced, our lakes in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, especiallyy Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River, would not now be seriously polluted.
I raise this point since the words in the bill, though somewhat different from the subsection being deleted, imply the same thing. Obviously, regulations are useless unless they are enforced. I ask the minister whether this law will be on the books but not enforced, as was the previous regulation. I ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, what steps he has taken to strengthen the inspection and the enforcement section of his department?
A moment ago I mentiond my concern over the exemption clauses of this bill and I read into the record the new prohibition on the deposit of waste. I believe my concern over these exemption clauses is valid since I read on page 2 of the bill that the prohibition clause on waste does not apply-and I emphasize this-in the case of any waters that form part of a water quality management area designated pursuant to the Canada Water Act. It does not apply where there is a water board established which has licensed the deposit of waste as authorized by regulations made by the Governor in Council. Neither does it apply in the case of any water or waters to which the Northern Inland Waters Act applies.
In other words, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) can issue a licence to pollute under controlled conditions in all of Canada, with the exception of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and he can do this pursuant to the Canada Water Act. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) can do the same thing in the Yukon and Northwest Territories pursuant to the Northern Inland Waters Act. By this fragmentation of authority, this placing of pollution control in Canada not under one, or under two, but under three federal ministers of the crown, I submit that the government has not only confused industry and the Canadian people but has also made enforcement of our pollution control measures next to impossible.
In addition, we have existing provisions in the Canada Shipping Act for pollution control, and the transport minister has indicated in
Fisheries Act
this House that he plans to strengthen them. As a Canadian, I cannot help but wonder why the government follows this course in such a serious matter, one which is of vital importance to our future well being. I submit that this fragmentation of authority on this important matter is brought about by the unrest within the present federal cabinet and it indicates the jockeying over on that side of the House within the cabinet for political authority. We have four captains on the bridge, four captains who are trying to run the ship. I should like to ask which direction they will take.
This government is obviously willing to sacrifice adequate pollution control methods for the nation in order to appease the vanity of the three of four cabinet ministers who believe that they, and they alone, should have the final say on pollution control since it is the new "in-thing" in Canada. Everybody is talking pollution, so say these ministers, and therefore they believe that their departments should have final responsibility for pollution control. It is almost as though these ministers have said: Never mind about the interests of the Canadian public; let us use pollution control to enhance our own political image in the newspapers, on radio and on television.
Just what has been done? We have these other acts set up, namely the Canada Water Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act, and in my view they are nothing more than window dressing which will hamper and delay the implementation of real pollution controls in Canada. I do not believe that the Canada Water Act will work. I believe it is a fraud perpetrated on the Canadian people. It is a mirage. It is something that you see, something that indicates that the government plans to do something, but when the Canadian people reach out to use the Canada Water Act it fades, as do all mirages.
The act cannot work because its provisions have been fragmented; the authority it gives has been divided between the federal and provincial governments. Even the name "water authorities" is misleading since these bodies will not really be authorities with federal funds provided to assist in establishing pollution controls among municipalities. In fact, we now know from the terms of the bill presently before us that these water authorities will be a hindrance rather than a help since they are empowered to issue licences to pollute, which in effect makes pollution control under the Fisheries Act impossible.

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
I would also question the penalties for depositing or permitting the deposit of wastes in water. In the event, with all this fragmentation of authority, that a charge could be laid, I note that the bill calls for punishment in the form of a fine not exceeding $5,000 for each offence. This could be taken to mean that one day's discharge of waste into a Canadian lake or river could kill all life in that water and that the penalty for the offence would be only $5,000. This penalty is too limited for a large company. After all, is the price of a Canadian lake or river only $5,000?


John Howard Lundrigan: Like Long Harbour.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, as my hon. friend says, like Long Harbour. There was an instance of pollution which has destroyed the ecology of the area. Although efforts have been made to restore the fisheries, those of us who are familiar with the fisheries and have had a long time association with the fisheries know that it will be many years before we have fully recovered from the effects of the pollution of Long Harbour, Newfoundland.
We must be realistic about pollution. Let us be realistic about its effects on our environment. I ask the members of this House to think about the problem. Let us ask ourselves: Who are the main polluters in this nation? The answer, of course, Mr. Speaker, is you and I collectively, under a term called the "municipality". Our municipalities, with their sewage and garbage disposal problems, have been the greatest polluters of our rivers, lakes and streams. Especially is this so when cities and towns are located quite close to any given body of water. How do you propose to force the municipalities to act under this legislation. And if they do not act because of a shortage of funds, who are you going to fine-the mayor, the town clerk, the chief of police or the garbage collector? I suppose it would be the latter, since he is more closely associated with pollution!
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
But, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, since all municipalities located on water bodies are constantly pouring phosphates into the waters. We are now saying, under a troika of authority, that the polluter must pay. Since the government has intentionally divided our pollution control authority, I believe that the enforcement of the clauses of this bill will be extremely difficult. The answer, of course, lies in a common sense approach to this problem. There is one minis-

ter on that side of the House, the Minister of Fisheries, who has a solution for the control of our pollution difficulties, but unfortunately he apparently lacks the required support of his colleagues on this important matter.
I say that the Minister of Fisheries has a solution to our pollution control problems because he expressed certain views in his speech entitled "Pollution and the Fisheries Act" as delivered before the Rotary Club of Hamilton on Thursday, May 22, 1969. In that speech, which indicates considerable research, the minister pointed out the manner in which the federal Fisheries Act could be used to bring pollution under control. He was talking, of course, entirely about pollution in water where fish react to poisonous substances. To use his words, they go belly up before human beings take sick, so strict laws protecting our fisheries should be our first line of defence against pollution and our first line of defence of human health and welfare as well. I endorse the minister's remarks because salmon will refuse to swim in water before we humans refuse to drink it. When we see fish dying in rivers and lakes, the waters of which are being utilized as sources of supplies for cities or towns, it would be wise for the authorities to examine the quality of that water to determine what has happened to it.
After describing our water problem, and after pointing out that it is quality and not quantity which we require for our well being, the minister stated, and I quote now directly from his speech:
We in Canada are fortunate. We are fortunate in that we have a clear cut avenue for federal participation in the battle against pollution. We are fortunate in that we have an effective tool in the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act, as it happens, is nearly as old as Confederation itself.
He repeated some of those words today in his speech. He went on to state:
It pre-dates most provinces-and it certainly predates provincial legislation with respect to water quality and pollution control.
Most provincial legislation has been framed with our federal Fisheries Act in mind. Our provincial acts, in other words, surround the federal Fisheries Act, embroidering it so to speak. But provincial laws and provincial regulations must take second place to the Fisheries Act in any case-for fisheries are federal under our constitution.
The minister continued by stating that we are fortunate as compared to the United States, where fishery matters come under the individual states. This makes it more difficult for Washington to co-ordinate activities since their authority is limited to international treaties and the like. He pointed out that in
April 20, 1970

this country, Ottawa has full authority over our sea coast and inland fisheries. Under the British North America Act, Ottawa makes our fishery laws and it approves our fishery regulations. True, Ottawa has delegated some of its authority to the provinces at times, but if these provinces want to make a change in any of their regulations they must first submit it to the federal government for approval.
Having said this, the Minister of Fisheries then got down to the nitty-gritty of our problem when he said, and again I am quoting:
We must deal with pollution before pollution occurs. We must get into the act before new plants are built; when they are in the design stage so, to speak. We must insist on the best manufacturing techniques and the best devices for eliminating poisons and making sure that eutroplication is a thing of the past. Our federal Fisheries Act, in other words must be updated. It must include a few clauses which are essentially anticipatory in nature. It must not only say what kind of chemicals can and which cannot be discharged into Canadian waters but see to it that our municipalities and our industries are aware of these guidelines ahead of time.
The minister continued as follows:
With a new and amended Fisheries Act, we will no longer have to wait until the damage is done to our environment. We will no longer have to discipline maverick companies which themselves have failed to look ahead and to plan for the future. We will no longer have to plead with municipalities to do the right thing for themselves and their citizens.
The minister said he liked this approach, and quite frankly so do I because it is simple and relatively straightforward. In his words, and I am now quoting him:
We already have a fisheries department and we already have a fisheries staff in the provinces. So, we can use our existing establishment to do a job on pollution-to do it quickly and to do it well.
In summing up, the Minister of Fisheries said:
In the Fisheries Act we have a one hundred year old piece of federal legislation which with a few simple improvements can be used to reduce pollution in all the waters of Canada. In our Department of Fisheries in Ottawa and out in our regional offices we already have all of the officers we need in order to police pollution in this country.
These statements made by the Minister of Fisheries are not broad generalities; they are blunt, they are definite and they are to the point. According to the Minister of Fisheries, the Fisheries Act, which we are presently amending, is all that is required to reduce, control and police pollution in all the waters of Canada. This is a viewpoint with which I 22218-37
Fisheries Act
agree so I cannot help but ask, in view of these facts why was the authority to control pollution in Canada intentionally fragmented by this government? Why did this government intentionally go out of its way to set up an expensive bureaucracy for the control of water pollution, when the Fisheries department has all the officers required to police pollution? Why all these new and obviously unnecessary expenditures while the government implies it is practicing thrift and cutting down on expenses? This is nothing but doubletalk. Only last Friday in this House of Commons the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked the opposition for suggestions on how to cut down government expenditures. As you will recall, he received some suggestions immediately from the opposition. It was suggested that he cut down his personal staff, and it was suggested that he cut out Information Canada.
It is now obvious from the statements made by the Minister of Fisheries that we do not need the Canada Water Act, and its expensive bureaucratic water authority, or the Northern Inland Waters Act. The immediate withdrawal of these measures would not reduce by one iota our fight against pollution in this country. It would save some of the hard-earned dollars of the tax payers. I hope the government will give this suggestion some thought. I hope the government will give the Minister of Fisheries more power under this Fisheries Act so that our industries and our municipalities will know where they stand on this serious problem of pollution. We need guidelines under one department which are well understood and well administered. We need guidelines which are enforceable, and which are enforced from one end of Canada to the other, if we are to surmount this new difficulty which is troubling Canadians and all mankind. In my view the federal Minister of Fisheries should have complete responsibility for the enforcement of pollution control in Canada, using as a vehicle the federal Fisheries Act.
There are other provisions in the Fisheries Act amendments which relate to the conservation of marine plants. With the development of the science of marine biology, these plants are becoming more and more valuable commercially, and they provide an additional source of livelihood for many Canadians. I believe the changes proposed represent good conservation practice, and we are fully in agreement with these measures.

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
Finally, the bill deals with fishing operations on the east coast, and it corrects an anomaly which has existed off the coast of Newfoundland ever since that province threw in its lot with the rest of Canada. Here, I refer to the fact that deep sea trawlers operating off the coast of Atlantic Canada, other than Newfoundland, were required to refrain from fishing operations umil they were 12 miles from our shores, while deep sea Newfoundland trawlers could start trawler operations three miles from the coast. In other words, all our east coast fishermen are equal but some are more equal than others.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Under the changes proposed, which I agree bring uniformity to our regulations, all our deep sea fishermen in Atlantic Canada will now be treated alike. I only hope that day will not be too far distant when the 12-mile limit will apply not only to Canadians, who practice it as a conservation measure, but to the eight other countries, namely Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States, who historically and traditionally have fished within three miles of our coastline and whose operations, as of today, have not been phased out by the government. All our new regulations, and all our talk about conservation of our fisheries resources, become meaningless unless other nations such as those I have mentioned are willing to co-operate and practice conservation policies similar to those imposed upon our own nationals.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said when he moved second reading of this bill, it does propose some very extensive changes to our Fisheries Act. I would think it is probably the most extensive revision of the act which has taken place since 1932 and, perhaps in some ways, the bill proposes the most important change in some of its basic principles since the act was introduced in the first Parliament of Canada, as the minister said. Many of the changes, of course, just repeal some of the archaic sections of the act. So far as I have been able to study the bill, I have no quarrel with what is being done in this regard. There are certain other changes, such as those mentioned by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), in respect of the application of the Fisheries Act on the Atlantic coast which, so far as I am concerned, are logical changes at this time.
I believe, however, there are two really important changes proposed in this bill, and I

intend to confine my discussion at the second reading stage to these two particular aspects. The first, and perhaps least important of the two, has to do with the introduction into the Fisheries Act of specific sections in respect of jurisdiction over marine plants. These are now to be under the purview of the act and the department. Although as I believe the minister pointed out, and I well recognize, to some extent marine plants have been controlled and regulations have been applied by the department. I believe this is certainly a very interesting clause of the bill and one which indicates a recognition of the potential importance of marine plants in the industrial and commercial life of Canada. For this reason, I welcome the proposed sections which will enable proper regulation and control over the volume and method of harvesting of marine plants.
Undoubtedly, without some form of careful management some of these marine plant resources which potentially are of economic benefit to our fishermen would be depleted, and in fact mined instead of harvested. This has happened from time to time in respect of some particular species of our fish. I know that in the area of the Pacific coast with which I am familiar, there is at the present time an effort being made to promote the commercial harvesting of kelp. This is a very interesting form of plant life. I had the opportunity of discussing this particular venture with the people who are endeavouring to pioneer it. Although I do not think it will ever develop into one of British Columbia's major industries, I believe this is a very significant development and my interest is heightened by the fact that the act is being amended in this regard.
I wish to commend the minister for bringing in these proposals in respect of placing marine plants under the jurisdiction of the act. I readily understand this can be important in respect of another aspect. I commend the minister for introducing control over the algae and other marine plants, even though they may not be harvested commercially, because this is important in relation to the ecology of the waters of Canada, both inland and on our coasts.
The other major clauses of the bill to which the minister referred most extensively, as indeed did the hon. member for South Shore, have to do with the changes proposed in respect of the control of pollution. The pres-
April 20, 1970

ent section 33 of the act which governs pollution of the waters is very extensively revised under the minister's proposal. I should like to say I welcome certain aspects of the approach the minister has taken, as indicated by the provisions of this bill.
I welcome the fact that the approach being proposed, particularly with regard to the additions to section 33, is one of positive control rather than of negative control. In other words, as the minister has suggested a number of times, the Fisheries Act should not be a weapon to be used against people but should be a mode through which the authority of the department can work positively with industry to ensure that our waters are protected. To that extent, I feel the proposals are a step in the right direction. I feel that these particular additions to section 33 can be welcomed by all members of the House and fully supported.
However, when we consider the proposed changes to the present section 33, I feel we move into an area in which we may find we do not see eye to eye entirely with the minister's proposals. The minister quoted section 33, and I should like to quote it again. I refer to the part having to do with protection of our waters from pollution. It reads:
No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass into, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of a like character to the substances named in this section or not, in any water frequented by fish, or that flows into such water, nor on ice over either such waters.
Well, in view of some of the statements the minister has been making across the country,
I expected there would be some rephrasing of the rather archaic wording in that particular section of the current Fisheries Act. The proposal which he has brought forward, while it may be couched in more modern words, is a move to weaken the authority and power of the Fisheries Act rather than, as the minister attempted to suggest to us in his introductory speech, a move to strengthen the act.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Perhaps, as the minister suggests, the wording may clarify the act, but I submit that as matters stand before us at the moment in this Parliament what the minister is proposing to us will weaken the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act, and the power of the minister to take effective measures to prevent the growth of the pollution of the waters of Canada. I would 22218-37*
Fisheries Act
like to outline my reasons for having this feeling after having made this analysis of the minister's bill. In order to do so, I should compare the present section with the proposal in the bill. I am going to quote only part of it at the moment, but I think it is the parallel part;
-no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of waste of any type in any water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where such waste or any other waste that results from the deposit of such waste may enter any such water.
Then, Mr. Speaker, further on in that same clause is a proposed definition of the word "waste":
"waste" means (i) any substance that, if added to any waters, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation of alteration of the quality of those waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to man, and
(ii) any water that contains a substance in such a quantity or concentration, or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state that it would, if added to any waters, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to man-
If one compares those two wordings, one cannot but agree that the wording proposed in the bill is much more modern, is clearer, and is broader in its context. Certainly, in the light of the kind of industrial society in which we live, this bill contains a much more adequate definition of waste and provisions for the control of its disposal than section 33(2) of the present Fisheries Act. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is a joker in here, and this is the point that concerns me. When one looks at it, the whole value of the definition as it is set forth is contingent upon what is done in another act, or, I should say, what is now contained in another bill that is before this Parliament. I say this because all of what is in the proposed bill in respect of the Fisheries Act, in the definition of waste and in the powers of the minister to control waste that may be harmful to fish going into waters, is subject to the Canada Water Act.
The initial prohibition of persons putting or depositing waste fo any type into water is subject to subsection (4) of the bill, which in turn makes it clear that it is subject to the provisions of the Canada Water Act and to the conditions:
-authorized by regulations made by the Governor in Council under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 16 of that Act-

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
When one considers the question of waste as it is defined in the clause of the bill, after the part which I read defining waste, the following words appear:
-without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes anything that, for the purposes of the Canada Water Act, is deemed to be waste;-
So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if we are to understand the meaning and the purport of the bill that the Minister of Fisheries is presenting we must inevitably have a look at what is said in clause 16 of the Canada water bill. Clause 16(1) of that bill reads:
(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) prescribing
(i)	substances and classes of substances,
(ii)	quantities or concentrations of substances and classes of substances in water, and
(iii)	treatments, processes and changes of water for the purpose of subsection (2) of section 2-
This all sounds very complicated until one refers to clause 2 of the Canada water bill. So, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a bit of a maze. I think it should be pointed out that we now have before this Parliament four bills, if my count is correct, in which the precise wording of the definition of "waste" appears.
We have before this Parliament Bill C-144, the Canada Water Act bill, Bill C-187 the Northern Inland Waters Act bill, Bill C-202 the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act bill, and this bill, C-204, to amend the Fisheries Act. But all of these bills, all of what they mean or what they do not mean, depends upon the acts that may or may not be taken in the future by the Governor in Council under clause 16 of the Canada Water Act bill.
In other words, until we know what the government has in mind in the shape of regulations prescribing substances and classes of substances, and quantities and concentrations, and treatments and processes, we in this House have no way of knowing whether or not we are being asked to throw down the drain the whole impact of the Fisheries Act so far as protection of the quality of our waters, for the well being of our fish, is concerned.
The minister may say, "Tut, tut; you know this government isn't that bad." But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is not fair to ask the House to buy a pig in a poke. Some of us who have had some association with the administration of the Department of Fisheries for a period of years have some respect for the approach taken by the conservation and development branch of the department, with the 
backing of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. I think it is fair to say that over the years they have been really the only cohesive body in Canada which has been concerned with the quality of Canadian water from coast to coast and off the coasts of Canada.
In his speech, the minister paid considerable tribute to the department which he heads at the present time. I certainly concur with many of his sentiments in that respect. In fact, in some respects I would be prepared to go further than the minister did, because I think, under unfortunate circumstances, the department which the minister currently heads has been doing a magnificent job in trying to protect, develop and conserve the fisheries resources of Canada and, because of that, has been attempting to conserve the quality of the waters of Canada. It has been an uphill fight and they have lost a good many battles, Mr. Speaker, largely through the indifference and neglect of succeeding governments and, I suppose, of succeeding Parliaments of Canada, and in the last analysis, because of the indifference and neglect of most of the Canadian people over a long period of years.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However, there is evidence of greater interest now in the quality of our waters than there has ever been in any previous Parliament, as exemplified by the number of bills before us dealing with the subject. But are we just going through the motions, Mr. Speaker; are we just engaged in a song and dance about the desirability of preserving our waters? This is a question in the minds of many members of the House and many Canadian people. I ask members not to discard the existing power that resides in the Fisheries Act until there is something better to replace it. So far, there has been no tangible evidence of this. Various bills propose to set up elaborate and complex administrative machinery. Most of us will agree that some of it is necessary and this view was expressed in this House in respect of the bill to deal with the pollution of Arctic waters. One of the ideas expressed in the Canada water bill, namely the management of watersheds on a countrywide basis, is a sound idea.
In all of these bills, Mr. Speaker, Parliament is being asked to move forward blindly without the assurance that they really mean anything when it comes to controlling or preventing the pollution of our waters. I, for one, am not prepared to agree to the passage of
April 20, 1970

this bill until I have had some enlightenment on what I consider to be the crux of the matter. Some people believe we have too many bills already but I think we need another bill, which would take precedence over any of these now before us, having to do with the question of water quality, a bill which would enable us to know exactly what we are being asked to pass in this bill. I have a picture in my mind of an act to provide for the establishment of a pollution standards code which would authorize the Governor in Council to enact regulations proscribing classes of substances, and processes, and changes of water. This would be the control bill, as it were, which would give meaning to all these other bills, in particular the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act.
In this way, we could intelligently discuss and assess the change to section 33 of the Fisheries Act, which the minister has brought before us. We could then also agree with the other clauses of the bill which give him the authority to regulate in advance the submission of plans, and to require alteration of plans etc. In any event, the design of new industrial plants should be analyzed by technically qualified officials of the fisheries research board, not by some other department, as this would reduce the authority of the minister to protect, develop and conserve the fisheries of Canada. We must take care that the proposed amendments are not allowed to downgrade the powers of the Fisheries Act.
The idea of a pollution standards code is not new, Mr. Speaker. In November, 1966, I made a speech in this House reporting on the conference on pollution and our environment held in Montreal earlier that year. At that time, I summarized and quoted from some of the guidelines produced by the conference touching upon three fields, air pollution, water pollution and soil pollution. The guideline suggested for air pollution was that a single federal agency or organization be established to set up a national pollution abatement code and the details of how this might operate were given.
Under the heading of water pollution, the guideline was that a single federal organization or agency should be established to develop a national pollution abatement code. The guideline on soil pollution recommended that a single inter-disciplinary national agency on environmental contamination be established with broad responsibility in the general areas of, among other things, developing national standards.
Fisheries Act
I felt that these guidelines were most encouraging, Mr. Speaker, and I summarized the situation in my speech reported at page 10021 of Hansard for November 17, 1966, as follows:
-there was general agreement which certainly confirmed the view I have held for quite some time, that the only way in which this whole problem can be really attacked in a proper manner is if we in this Parliament, through the federal government, exercise real leadership and guidance. Only when we can develop a national code and national standards based upon active and continuing research, so that the standards can be continually upgraded as new science and technology are developed, can we make continuing progress in this field.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Apparently the government has rejected that approach, Mr. Speaker, and now this House is being asked to diminish the authority which currently exists in the Fisheries Act of Canada. I sometimes look at sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act which have to do with the distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and the legislative assemblies of the provinces, and it seems to me, without attempting to pose in any way as a constitutional authority, that when we start talking today about pollution and the control of pollution of our air, water and soil, we are really dealing with an area covered by the preamble to section 91, which reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with, the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces;-
I think we recognize, and many thoughtful and knowledgeable scientists have been suggesting this to us, that we are engaged in a process of total war against pollution. The question of our managing our environment in such a way as to protect its quality for living creatures on land, in the sea, and I suppose in this day and age one can include creatures in the air, has reached the proportions of total war. It has reached the stage of being important in considerations relating to peace, order and good government, and is as important as the question of whether or not we can prevent a thermo-nuclear holocaust from breaking out. Although some of the statements attributed today to scientists may make us feel that they are being alarmists, nevertheless we in this parliament would be foolish to ignore the kinds of warnings we are being given from time to time. It is in this context,

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
and with this sense of urgency, that I feel the federal government ought to be approaching the question before us now.
1 feel that this assertion of the concern of this Parliament could best be expressed not by the piecemeal bits of legislation introduced to control this or that aspect of pollution, but by a general act which would spell out the principles relating to the preservation of our environment which this Parliament feels should be adopted. This general act would give authority to the Governor in Council to set out quality standards as they would apply to any form of development across the country. If we had such an act we could assess, on the basis of its criteria, whether a particular idea for managing all water resources in a certain region of the country was desirable or not. We could assess, if we knew what those regulations were, whether it would be desirable to bring the operation of various acts under particular definitions that would be set out in those regulations.
I quoted from my own speech and may I now briefly refer to one which was made by someone else. I am referring to a release from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry of Canada under the date of January 15, 1970. The first page has a synopsis of the minister's speech at the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce monthly luncheon of January 5, 1970. The first item of the synopsis indicates that the minister believes a national water quality code is essential. I must say that I agree with the minister. Then, the release tells one to see page 4 of the speech. I always become interested in the fine print when I see headings like that. On page 4, I read that the minister believes we need a national water quality code. He also says that we need regional guidelines drawn to meet regional needs. Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have before us are proposals to develop some regional guidelines to meet regional needs; but we are building a body, as it were, without any head. I agree with the minister when he says that we need a national water quality code.
Yet the minister who believes in the need for a national water quality code and who now has in his hands legislation, which although poorly drafted for present purposes nevertheless gives authority to put forward a national water quality code, is apparently voluntarily asking this House to approve his surrendering the authority to develop a national water quality code. This, to me, is a pretty basic flaw in the proposal the minister

is putting before the House and I for one do not find myself inclined to accept. I hope that before we proceed too far with this bill we can get some indication, if not from the minister then at least from the government, as to whether and when it is intended to bring to a head, as it were, this question of establishing national standards, not only in the field of the control of the purity of our water but in the fields relating to the control of the purity of our air and soil. I think the minister will agree that all these things are interrelated directly and indirectly. He knows, for example, that in the design of a pulp and paper mill the two questions of water purity and air purity are very much interrelated. In some cases, of course, it is possible to improve the quality of water discharged from a plant by increasing the quantity of pollution that is going out in the air, and vice versa.
This is the assessment I make of what I think is undoubtedly the key proposal in this bill. I have tried to assess it on its merits as I see them. I think that in many respects, as I have said, it represents an improvement over the present act but it has what I fear, Mr. Speaker, could very well turn out to be a fatal error, one which would downgrade the effectiveness of the kind of work that has been done by our various fisheries scientists over the years. Far from increasing their influence in the councils of the nation, it might very well relegate them to a corner where their efforts would be even less effective than they have been up to the present time. These are the considerations which I submit should certainly be uppermost in the minds of hon. members of the House in discussing the merits of the bill. I hope, perhaps before the bill proceeds much further on its way, that we can obtain some agreement that some arguments I have advanced have validity. Then, either through this bill or some other way, the general approach being taken to the control of water pollution in Canada by the government may be changed and improved.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister's speech, it now seems evident that we will have to wait until we get this bill before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry before we can have the amendments proposed in it explained in detail, indeed before we can have some of our fears hopefully put to rest.
April 20, 1970

My colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), referred very eloquently and impressively to the proliferation of pollution legislation either now before Parliament or pending. This fact was also alluded to by the hon. member who just resumed his seat. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the buckpassing has to stop somewhere. Someone must have the ultimate responsibility for the control of the pollution and cleaning up the waters of our country that have been polluted as a consequence of neglect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In addition to listening to the minister's speech today, I have read some of his speeches in recent weeks, particularly his speech on April 8 to the Executive Council of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I have formed the impression that the minister is fighting a losing battle within the cabinet. I think the minister fully appreciates the fact that if he is to do the job of Minister of Fisheries, he must have the legislative authority to control water pollution in all aspects. This has been said before. My colleague, the hon. member for South Shore, said it today. I said it during the second reading stage of the Canada water bill. It has also been said by other hon. members. The Canada Water Act is not necessary. It is window dressing. It should be withdrawn. If we need further proof of that, we need only read some of the speeches of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and, indeed the legislation now before us, the amendment to the Fisheries Act. The minister knows this, but I do not think he has been able to sell the idea to his colleagues.
In addition to the Canada Water Act, we have a still further proliferation of the laws of our country respecting pollution. The Northern Inland Waters Act is now before Parliament. There is proposed legislation dealing with pollution of the high seas which presumably flows from the Brussels Conference on Pollution of the High Seas which took place last year. In the final analysis, the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Minister of Fisheries.
It will be most unfortunate if there is a dilution of government authority because as a consequence of this dilution no minister, including the Minister of Fisheries, will be able to deal effectively with pollution. The government should recognize this and withdraw the Canada Water Act. The government should immediately enter into negotiations or
Fisheries Act
discussions with the United States government aimed at entering into some agreement with that country. Without such an agreement with the United States, no matter what we do, we will not have the ultimate control necessary in this country to keep our own environment clean. That is a simple fact of life. It is a fact of geography.
At the present time there is legislation before the United States Congress, similar in many aspects to the legislation before this House, aimed at dealing with water pollution in that country. I doubt if our government is even aware of the debates that are taking place in that country. There should be a meeting of minds. In my opinion, there should be a continuing committee representing the responsible ministers of both cabinets which would have the responsibility of at least keeping each other informed of our various laws and regulations dealing with pollution. Such a joint cabinet committee could be the forerunner of what has to be the ultimate solution in the continental fight against pollution, a treaty between our two countries.
There are two aspects of pollution that the minister alluded to which are of great concern. I wish to deal with the threat to our fishing resources posed by oil pollution. Oil pollution manifests itself in a number of ways. There is continuous pollution caused by tankers dumping their ballast on the high seas beyond the reach and control of any government. How this is to be controlled is one of the great problems facing the world today, especially when we consider that over half the tonnage of the ocean cargoes of the world is composed of oil. Giant tankers are being added to the tanker fleets of the world every day. If an accident were to occur to one of these fully loaded giant tankers, it would represent nothing short of a world crisis.
The second aspect of the oil pollution problem is the possibility that any day there may be success in the explorations that are taking place and oil will be tapped on the continental shelf. The consequence of an accidental spill from one of these offshore wells could be disastrous. We must consider the resources of our Grand Banks. We saw what happened with the Santa Barbara spill off the coast of California and with the spill that occurred a short time ago off the coast of Louisiana. The time has come for us to make some hard and fast decisions. If I had the responsibility of choosing between the oil industry on our continental shelf or the fishing resources of the Grand Banks, I would opt for the latter.
Fisheries Act

April 20, 1970
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Many people in the world today are coming round to this way of thinking. The world is desperately in need of protein-the type of protein we have in abundance in our Atlantic and Pacific fisheries. There are strong suggestions that because of the necessity of cleaning up the air of our cities, leading to efforts to replace the internal combustion engine, the world demand for oil may decrease. But the population expansion ensures that world demand for protein will continue. So, we have some decisions to make.
I believe the government should adopt a policy now, before it is too late, of refusing to countenance drilling for oil on the continental shelf of this country such as would impose a threat to the fishing resources of the Grand Banks. I believe the time has come for us to make this decision. I believe the world will applaud such a decision.
This is one aspect of the legislation now before the House which gives me some encouragement. At least the minister will in future have legislative authority to take the steps I have indicated to prevent this kind of pollution from taking place, provided he can get his colleagues in the cabinet to agree. We know from experience that if drilling for oil proceeds on the continental shelf off the Atlantic coast there will be accidental spills, and if these spills occur, the only effective method found to date of clearing up the oil is by using straw. In other words, straw is used to soak up the oil after it has floated ashore on our beaches, after it has destroyed untold quantities of plankton and other minute forms of sea life on which our groundfish depend. We know enough about the consequences of oil pollution to be in a position to make this decision. The minister was very quick to reach a decision in connection with the Georgia Straits incident in British Columbia. He had our support when he did so. I do not think the government can any longer refrain from making the inevitable decision with respect to the continental shelf off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The great oil companies of the world have been pouring millions of dollars into prospecting for oil for the past several years; they know that eventually they will strike oil. A decision will have to be made.
In addition to the danger of oil spills which would result from drilling for oil on the con-[Mr. McGrath.1
tinental shelf, another hazard faces us in the form of a huge 100,000 barrel refinery which is to be built in Placentia Bay in the little village of Come-By-Chance. This is the bay which suffered so greatly from the effects of the phosphorous pollution, a consequence of the government's inability to prevent such pollution occurring. Anyone who knew anything about the operation of a phosphorous reduction plant in such a location knew that pollution was bound to occur. The area affected is only now getting over this setback; we are only now beginning to restore the damage done to our image in the eyes of the world, especially in the markets of the United States.
I look forward to asking the minister, when we are in committee, what steps he proposes to take with the authority Parliament is giving to him under this measure to ensure that there will be no repetition of what took place at Long Harbour when this 100,000 barrel refinery goes into production. What will happen when the petro-chemical industry which is supposed to follow the building of the refinery begins its operations? Oil refineries and petro-chemical plants are among the most serious polluters of coastal waters.
I am not at all satisfied that the government has taken the necessary precautions in this case. The promoters of this industrial complex have been hard at it for a number of years and have made no secret of the fact that they have every reason to expect their efforts to materialize. The refinery is to be built, we understand, in an extremely sensitive area as far as the fishing resources of the Grand Banks are concerned; there are also, of course, the resources of Placentia Bay itself to be considered.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Housing-suspension of C.M.H.C. loans in larger cities; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- Historic Sites.-acquisition of residence of Sir Robert Borden.
April 20, 1970	COMMONS
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of the private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motion, Public Bills.
e (5:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the possibility of passing a law under which every Canadian citizen, who is without work or other source of income, would receive a guaranteed minimum income as a way of recognizing, in a special fashion, the dignity, the value and the economic rights of the human being, in the context of the economic life of the nation, that the amount required for the payment of the guaranteed minimum income be derived from the national product so as to increase neither the taxes on individuals and companies, nor the cost of living, nor the price of any product or service; that this measure could, with advantage, replace the contributions and payments of all the systems of unemployed insurance, social welfare, family and personal allowances, Canada Pensions and Quebec Pensions, that the economic recognition of the guaranteed minimum income would be to the greatest advantage of all the citizens of Canada, and, at the same time, would be of great benefit to all the principal sectors of the national economy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, about this notice of motion which I put on the order paper on October 28, 1969, I take it as my responsibility to express my views because this concerns the fate of two thirds of the Canadian people without income.
Since first we heard the promises of the government, especially those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), about the establishment of a just society, we can wonder when will come the measures which were to follow.
We have been told about various bills on tax reform, but we must admit that Parliament has not done anything to help the majority of Canadians.
Royal commissions have been created and they have submitted their reports, pointing out to us structural and regional disparities. Some reports also dealt with periodic fluctuations and even recommended the retraining of some workers. But those recommendations all reflect the influence of a clique.
While computers do the work of accountants and office clerks, and machines replace 22218-38

Guaranteed Minimum Income workers, unfortunately there are still dreamers within the Canadian administration who keep the possibility of a full-employment policy alive.
While financing costs and taxes of all kinds increase the prices of goods and services that are essential to our survival, those who are responsible for those increases are talking about a plan to ensure a reasonable price stabilization. To distract the people from the real conditions, even economists contradict themselves publicly about the causes of poverty in a prosperous society.
If we consider that the Canadian citizens are always caught between a heavy production on the one hand and a low purchasing power on the other, it is obvious that a slight change must be made in the distribution of the purchasing power in the specific areas where it is lacking, that is among the Canadian citizens who do not have a sufficient income.
We feel that the guarantee of a national dividend which would cover the essential needs, food, clothing and housing, is perfectly workable today, due to the present conditions of Canadian production.
Thanks to the advent of automation and cybernetics as well as the application of new production techniques, we consider that the productive labour of mankind is becoming increasingly useless and is replaced by equipment in plants which are increasingly automated.
In an open letter to President Johnson, American economists and sociologists stated that the first condition to be fulfilled in order to prevent economic and social disorder in the present state of production, which eliminates human labor without succeeding in reemploying the worker to good advantage, is simply to ensure to each individual and to each family a minimum guaranteed income as a basic right.
Even though wages and salaries might bring sufficient income to all of the 8,500,000 Canadian citizens actively engaged in production, there remains an unbalance due to the other 13,000,000 Canadians without income. This is the gap which must be filled without however taxing those who get an income from work or from personal wealth. The only thing necessary is therefore to determine a set and guaranteed minimum for the 13,000,000 Canadians who are too young, too old, sick, crippled, blind or unemployed, who are all entitled to it.
April 20, 1970
Guaranteed Minimum Income
In fact, if the father works he receives the salary of a single man. To my mind, society cannot expect him to support five or six people on one salary which is barely sufficient for a single person. That is why a guaranteed minimum must be provided for the mother and each of her children.
The Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals have never taken the family into account in their tax legislation. A table, published at page 1534 of Hansard, on June 14, 1967, makes a comparison between a single person and a man with a wife and three children as dependents, both earning an annual salary of $4,200. After paying his income tax and while taking advantage of his basic exemptions, this father has $515 left to support his family. That is $125 per person per year, $10.50 per month or 30 cents per day. That is what our present tax system leaves to the taxpayer. One can imagine the small amount left to the mother of a large family. Thirty cents per day for the mother, the most important person in our society, when our national production will reach $80 billion in 1970. Those figures show that the situation is abnormal.
In my opinion, the first move was to bring in a notice of motion in order to draw the attention of the House to this situation through proper parliamentary action. Social Credit has always advocated a philosophy and economic reforms promoting the well-being of the individual and the family in the monetary, economic and financial fields, and thus more personal, family and social freedom. With money in his pockets or in the bank, a man can speak the language he wants or go to the school of his choice.
While all the millionaires, the scientists, the chairmen of large banks and companies, the leaders or ministers of the old political parties are defending the interests of high finance, while all the unions are seeking higher salaries for the workers, nobody is doing anything for the unemployed who have a right to live. In fact, Social Credit is the only one to talk about that.
In this country, 5 per cent of the population are made up of people with personal income, 35 per cent earn salaries, 60 per cent are unemployed and depend on a producing citizen or on society in general. Here are the facts; here is the present situation in the Canadian society.
The Canadian government does not produce anything but it administers everything. It is the people who produce everything, even 

their ministers and members of Parliament. It is up to the people to say to their ministers and representatives how production should be distributed for the good of the whole population and not only for the good of capitalists.
The production of goods and services is excellent but purchasing power is lacking to buy this production. Purchasing power, it is money. Money is very badly distributed. Some have too much, others not enough. Inflation for some, deflation for the others. All the while discussions take place throughout the country about the sharing of taxes between the federal, provincial and perhaps even municipal governments, the poor distribution of money between families is forgotten.
When the government levies taxes, it is to distribute the sum total of this revenue in salaries, interests and administrative costs. Thus, taxes that have been drawn from the people are deemed to return to the people. If the national production is made up of the work of eight million citizens, isolated or associated, I think it should benefit all Canadians, including the thirteen million who are unemployed, but who also have the right to live in our society.
All the Social Credit philosophy based on the needs of the individual in the family, is there and it enables us to claim, even in the present system, a guaranteed minimum income for all.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The purpose of this method is to help families to fulfil themselves and, as the family is the very basis of society, I feel parliament should give serious thought to that problem. If we want the country to prosper, let us start by ensuring the prosperity of every family, every individual. If families are prosperous, all the institutions normally will be, or else they will disappear if they are not useful to people who can afford to pay.
Beautiful plants, stores, huge offices, marvelous schools and public buildings, skyscrapers fifty stories high are being built, but still too many slums are being tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, the concept of a guaranteed income is not new, since on October 22, 1968,
I gave the green light, here, to the personal guaranteed income, during the private members' business hour. At that time, I was congratulated on doing so, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
April 20, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES
Guaranteed Minimum Income
The Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote:
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for his interest and concern in the grave problem of poverty in Canada and the improvement of assistance and welfare administration... X do want to congratulate him most sincerely upon his interest in the problem and for placing the matter before the House.
For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) said, and I quote:
I welcome the opportunity extended to us to take part in a debate on a guaranteed minimum income for Canadians. I should like to compliment both the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on their contributions to this debate.
Fortunately, on April 6, 1970, three members of this house spoke again about a guaranteed minimum income, and expressed various views as to the problem and the difficulty of solving it, to start with the quasi-impossibility of isolating the problem and even of defining it, for the needs of the study.
Of course, I am happy to thank the honourable members for Oshawa-Whitby, Lanark and Renfrew and Scarborough West (Messrs. Broadbent, McBride and Weatherhead), for having opened the debate this year, thus allowing me to go straight to the point and to give some details and solutions concerning an individual guaranteed income.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is always ready to make gifts to some developing countries. Such action, repeated regularly enough, has a two fold purpose: First, to help the recipient country; secondly, to keep our industries going since with those gifts, foreign countries buy more from Canada.
If gifts to foreign countries contribute to the progress of our national economy, all the more would gifts to Canadians have the same results, affording at the same time a little comfort to families.
If new gifts promote the development of foreign countries, let us allow our own people to take advantage of the same methods.
Mr. Speaker, in order to give a new impetus to the national economy, I take the liberty of suggesting the amount of the gifts that will have to be made to all Canadians without income, namely $30 a month to all youngsters, from birth up to 12 years old, $60 a month to all students from 12 to 18 years of age, and $100 a month to all other citizens without any income, including mothers.
All hon. members who understand the meaning of the gifts to foreign countries will recognize that the gift approach is the only method which can so far ensure that a minimum income is paid without resulting in an increase in taxes, prices, or the cost of living, both for individuals and companies.
This method alone under which a purchasing power is guaranteed to the unemployed without any other source of income can replace, in my view, all family and personal allowances programs, as well as the Canada and the Quebec pensions plans, including the welfare allowances which have become as expensive as they are disgraceful.
The people who produce the national wealth have the right to tell the ministers and their elected representatives how to distribute production in the interests of all Canadian citizens, and not only to ensure superabundance to a few, to the prejudice of others who lack the necessities of life.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I dare hope that all hon. members who wish to better the lot of their constituents will give me their support.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that I can give satisfaction to the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), who hopes that several members will support him. In fact I am one of those who will support him.
I believe that the need for a guaranteed income system was felt in Canada for many years. However, let me tell you that the motion of the hon. member for Portneuf has a serious weakness, since it purports to restrict the guaranteed minimum income allowances to the unemployed Canadian citizens. Therefore, such a system would not apply to the poor workers, no more than the existing welfare programs. It would be almost identical to the present programs based on a means test.
Mr. Speaker, the tremendous economic growth experienced by Canada after the second world war could leave many people under the impression that as our gross national product would increase, the problem of poverty would gradually lose its importance. However, the facts have shown the contrary.
The real per capita revenue has increased noticeably, but a good number of the people have not benefited enough to get rid of poverty. The affluent society is more and more conspicuous for the poor, but the rich, to a great extent, remain unmoved by the predicament of the poor.

Guaranteed Minimum Income
During the past years, we have become more and more aware of the persistence of poverty in Canada. If we are not more sensibilized to the problem, perhaps it is partly due to the fact that we keep believing that poverty means full deprivation. In other words, the threshold of poverty has often been considered as the level of minimum physical sustenance, providing one with just enough to be able to live and work.
Human needs, however, also involve many conventional or social features related to the changes in the way of life of the community. Obviously, these features change with time. For instance, more and more people are now becoming aware of the fact that many people are poor because they are deprived of income, of job opportunities, of the environment and the self-respect, which are considered normal in the community. Poverty should therefore be considered as a fact related to the average standard of living, which is constantly developing. This, however, does not preclude isolated cases of utter destitution.
The tentative evaluation of poverty which appears in the fifth annual Eeport of the Economic Council of Canada shows that about four million Canadians may be considered as living at or below the poverty level. Preliminary estimates for 1967 involve 840,000 families and 586,000 single persons, adding up to some 3,850,000 people.
The data provided by the Canada Assistance Plan and the Old Age Security Program show that out of this number, almost two million people are now receiving an income supplement based on a means or needs test, or an income supplement to the old age security pensions. In spite of that, their income remains below the poverty level.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We can therefore conclude from the Economic Council figures that most of the remaining two million persons belong to families of small wage-earners who belong to the labour force but whose income is below the poverty level.
We will therefore note that there are now m Canada more than four million men, women and children who live in poverty compared to their fellow citizens. Some, if not all of them, are inadequately housed, fed, undereducated, deprived of leisure and frustrated even in their own sense of dignity. Most of them can be fitted into one of three main categories, the first of which includes the people on welfare.

DEBATES	April 20, 1970
Mr. Speaker, the term "welfare" has become a bitter one for more than a million persons who rely on the system. Benefits vary considerably from one province to another, but in practically all cases, they fail to meet the actual needs of the recipients. People in receipt of relief feel stigmatized. They are often fearful and scornful of the local welfare officials because of the great power they wield and because of their often irrevocable decisions. That category is made up mostly of mothers without husbands either as a result of desertion, death or divorce. Disabled persons, a great number of whom are totally unable to fend for themselves, also belong to this category.
Another class belonging to this category are the older people. The economic situation of the aged in Canada is amply evidenced by the fact that 52 per cent, or almost 750,000 of those on welfare, are eligible, either partially or fully, to the guaranteed minimum income.
For a good many of those elderly people the guaranteed income supplement does not provide decent living conditions. And yet most of them cannot get the advantages provided by the Canada Assistance Plan. It should be pointed out that a relatively small number of elderly people who are living in a state of poverty receive some supplementary assistance through the provinces.
Those I call the working poor are another category of needy people. More than two million people fall into this category. A good many of them note bitterly that in spite of all their efforts to succeed in supporting themselves their lot is actually worse than that of their fellow-citizens who are not working and get welfare payments. Those people sometimes earn their low income from marginal industries, from jobs on farms, from work done as woodcutters or as fishermen. It may be also that they live in economically underprivileged areas where they can find parttime or low-paying jobs only. They are also found in big cities with a very high cost of living and where they manage somehow to make both ends meet with an income in the neighborhood of the minimum salary.
But the motion presented by the hon. member for Portneuf does not provide for any benefit for those two million people who live, in spite of the fact that they work, in a state of poverty. I should like to add, in this connection, that this motion is not that much different from existing provincial welfare schemes.
April 20, 1970	COMMONS
Bachelors and married people with no children are not as a rule eligible to the various programs designed to meet the needs of particular classes of people. Still, it was expected that the unemployment insurance program would apply to all persons actually in need. But we note that, at the provincial level, welfare programs have not generally taken into account the needs of the low wage earners, that is what I call the category of poor workers.
Everyone knows that, generally speaking, poor workers are not entitled to social welfare benefits under present regulations. This situation prevails despite the fact that, under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan or of the agreements concluded with the provinces pursuant to that Plan, there is absolutely no restrictions concerning the federal share of the costs of assistance to fulltime workers.
Some provinces are determinedly against financial assistance as the basis of the general policy for full-time employees; other provinces do not reject it. However, the principle of granting financial assistance is extremely limited in those provinces and benefits are usually available only to the families which experience severe hardships.
The proposal of giving welfare allowances to full-time workers naturally raises the much debate question of determining reasons, more particularly so when it is considered with regard to the application of adequate forms of assistance to people who are unable to work. The objection is often raised that the fact of providing those who are unable to work with a satisfactory allowance can dampen the sense of independence of the recipients who are partly able to work and of those full-time workers who could not earn more than what the assistance brings. That is the basic dilemma.
If the welfare systems provide adequate assistance for the unemployables and give
identical help to employable recipients, but without any income exemption, the latter will
not be encouraged to work: any income arising out of a job only reduces the amount of benefits and leaves no advantage to someone who works.
If employable individuals are granted partial income exemptions beyond a basic adequate level, not only a huge expenditure of public funds will be necessary to help those whose income is lower than that level, but the systems will then apparently be subsidizing the small wage-earners. If to give an
DEBATES	8069
Guaranteed Minimum Income incentive to work to employable individuals, a certain form of guaranteed income lower than an adequate minimum level is applied, the difficulty remains as far as the determination of an adequate income for the unemployables is concerned.
For two years now the federal government
has been carrying out a reappraisal of its social security programs and of their objectives in order to decide which method among those that I have just mentioned, or which combination of methods, would be more in harmony with the aims of social security in the future. A close analysis of the costs and consequences of each method is necessary.
In the throne speech last fall, as hon. members will recall, the government announced the preparation of a white paper on social security to be tabled in the House during the current session. That document will make known the results of the reappraisal that has been underway for the past two years. It will give the federal government an opportunity to make known its views and its intentions in this field. It will also allow for a general discussion on the matters in question and for a dialogue with the public on the methods to be used with regard to income security in Canada in the next ten years.
I ask the government of Canada to include in this white paper proposals relating to the establishment of a guaranteed minimum income plan for Canadians.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, although there are one or two aspects of the motion now before us with which I must take exception, I should like as my first word to commend the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) on bringing before us once again the question of a guaranteed income for the Canadian people. While I am in a mood to extend congratulations, may I also commend the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) on his insistence that our concern for those living in poverty should not be confined to persons and families on relief, social welfare and so on. He makes the point very well when he emphasizes that many people who are working are on incomes so low that they too are living in poverty. As a matter of fact, I suspect the figure he gave of four million Canadians really existing in poverty is probably a conservative one. I suggest this figure probably is five million or more.
April 20, 1970

Guaranteed Minimum Income [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, although I commend the hon. member for Portneuf for again bringing before us the question of the guaranteed income, even as I commend all hon. members who are interested in the problem of poverty, I must again say that I feel very strongly that we are not really comprehending the problem nor coming up with a solution when we talk about income guarantees that in effect are based on means or income tests. That, indeed, is my one quarrel with the motion placed before us by the hon. member for Portneuf, in that he wants this guaranteed minimum income, as he defines it, to be made available to every Canadian citizen "who is without work or other source of income." It seems to me that if we continue to think in terms of social assistance, social welfare, social security programs or what-have-you as having to be based on what people already have, based on whether or not they are at work, based on whether or not they have enough income, we are in effect keeping people in a category of poverty.
Hon. members are aware of the recent book by Ian Adams, entitled "Wall of Poverty". In it he has a chapter entitled-I think I have this correct although I do not have the book in front of me-"Keeping the poor that way." That is what concerns me about most of our approaches to the problem of poverty. We think of these people as the poor and so we must do something to help them; we do it out of kindness or compassion, or to keep the economy going. But we seem to assume they will still be the poor; they will still be in need of assistance. I submit that some day society will get wise to itself, and I do not see why we cannot start now and make to our people grants that are a form of guaranteed annual income without any reference to work, means tests or what-have-you.
There are in society many things in respect of which we do this already. We provide all our people with education. Oh, there are varying degrees of education that people get, depending upon their incomes, depending upon whether or not they can go up into the higher grades, to university and so on; but we provide it, and we boast of our society as one that provides education for all. We provide police and fire protection for all. We provide roads, highways and national defence. There are many things that are part of a society, and if you live in the society you are entitled to share in them.

I believe the day will come when we will say the same thing about a basic standard of living and about the number of dollars, the income, that is necessary so that everybody achieves that standard of living. We will grant everyone a basic income and let the income tax take it back from the wealthy. We started to move in that directiotn with respect to the old age security pension back in 1950 or 1951 when we provided a pension to everyone of a certain age regardless of his means or other income.
We retreated a bit when we added the guaranteed income supplement and put it on a means test basis. But I submit that it is still true that some of the sting that used to go with old age, when the old age pension was on a means test basis, has been taken out because there is this money available to everyone. That is what I want to see, not just for our senior citizens but for all groups in society.
Indeed, I think that a practical way to do this is to start with one group and move on to another. I would like to see a guaranteed income provided first of all to our senior citizens. I do not mean a guaranteed minimum income based on means; I do not mean a guaranteed income supplement-I mean raising the basic $75 to $150 and giving it to everyone, across the board.
I think our veterans group is another in respect of which we could practice the principle of a guaranteed income for all without regard to means or to other income. Then perhaps the next area is our families. Although people say that family allowances do not play the part that they did when they were brought in in 1945, this is a way of providing certain basic guarantees of income to all our family units regardless of the other income that people may have, regardless of whether they have jobs or not, and therefore family allowances should be increased. Mr. Speaker, that is the point I want to make, that providing a guaranteed income means granting it across the board, without any means or income test.
People ask about the cost of these things. Of course these programs cost money, but my hon. friend from Portneuf-even though he may have put it in words that the rest of us say is Social Credit jargon-is awfully close to the truth when he says we can provide things out of our gross national product. What is it that we want to provide? Do we want lots of filling stations, tall office buildings, great bank buildings and affluence of that
April 20, 1970	COMMONS
kind; affluence for a few at the top-or do we want the purpose of our gross national product first and foremost to be a guaranteed income for all our people? I believe it can be done. I believe it will have to be done.
I do not want to be accused of trying to paraphrase something a great man once said, but I think it is true that society, whether it is ours in Canada or that of the world around us, cannot go on half well-off and half poor, half secure and half insecure. If we are to hold together any kind of unity, any kind of society, certain things will have to be shared and enjoyed equally by all our people. I think the way to get this kind of thing started is to work for a guaranteed income. As I say, I would pick out certain groups as the first ones, such as senior citizens, veterans, and families.
The day of this kind of social security will come, and I do not think we should resist it by saying that it is futuristic or by going along with this gobbledegook about selective programs of social security and social welfare. That is turning the clock back, Mr. Speaker, and we do not want that. We want to move ahead into the kind of society that is possible in the future. Why does the future always have to be so far out in front, especially when you consider that in the meantime, as my hon. friend from Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) has said, four million or five million people in this great country of Canada, with all the wealth we are producing, are living in poverty today? It is not good enough. A guaranteed income could solve it, and I welcome the fact that the hon. member for Portneuf has asked us to do some thinking about this question again today.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Aurelien Noel (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbeault), who pointed out the following flaw in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), and I quote:
-every Canadian citizen who is without work or other source of income.
This is too restrictive.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) himself drew our attention to the matter when he said that this yearly income should not only be granted to unemployed Canadian citizens. As my hon.
DEBATES	6071
Guaranteed Minimum Income colleague pointed out, there are a lot of employed people whose income is below the subsistence level.
If we further analyse the motion moved by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), we note the following and I quote:
-that the amount required for the payment of the guaranteed minimum income be derived from the national product so as to increase neither the taxes-
I simply do not understand that proposal. How can we make available to Canadians without income, capital or work the national product? It needs always to be transformed to some extent so that the Canadian citizens can avail himself of it. I do not understand that at all.
Further on the motion says:
-be derived from the national product so as to increase neither the taxes on individuals and companies, nor the cost of living, nor the price of any product or service;
This seems to me quite fantastic. I continue:
-this measure could, with advantage, replace the contributions and payments of all the systems of unemployment insurance, social welfare, family and personal allowances, Canada Pensions and Quebec Pensions.
Thus it is a matter of getting rid of all that has been done for several years to help the poor who have special needs. We are going to demolish everything in order to rebuild. I know some people today who call for destruction, especially in the province of Quebec. Would it be another form of demolition? I do not think that such was the intention of the hon. member who sponsored the motion.
This motion implies that the provinces are all agreed about it. This is an illusion. All the same!
Though I am in favour of the government supplying the Canadian people with guarantees against poverty and also in favour of improving the present system, I cannot, however, endorse the four points specifically and implicitly included in the motion.
Let us examine the first argument. The program would be financed, as proposed, out of the national product, without increasing taxes or the cost of living. The motion suggests that the national product can provide the necessary funds to cover the substantial increase in expenditures without necessarily boosting individual or corporations taxes the cost of living or the price of goods or services. In my opinion, these objectives cannot be achieved in practice; in short, they are unobtainable so to speak.
April 20, 1970

Guaranteed Minimum Income
I just cannot imagine how such a tremendous increase in expenditures could be financed except by an over-all increase in the personal and corporate income tax, the sales tax, by taking over credits allowed to other government programs, by making loans, by depreciating our currency, through some rearrangements of the above mentioned proposals, or, finally, by putting the printing press to work making bank notes.
All these factors could put pressure on costs and prices and bring about a drop in real income. Then, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach the goals mentioned in this motion.
Canada is not as rich a country as some of its citizens seem to think. Supported by a rising tide of all kinds of aspirations, since the Second World War, various groups in our society expect that the community will enable them to realize these aspirations, whatever they are, and they contend that the community has the financial capacity to do so. On the other hand, it is well known that all taxpayers object to the general level of taxes. This has been forcefully demonstrated here by the spontaneous outcry of several individuals when the white paper was submitted. The level of taxes has to be particularly taken into consideration when they are to be increased.
As far as possible, funds which are already paid into the system should be distributed to the poor in the fairest way possible. But those funds are not sufficient.
To respond in a practical and fair way to the challenge of poverty, Canada will have to find additional funds, in addition to those which already support our social security system. The resources already allotted to the system must, as far as possible, be distributed to the poor and new funds must be contributed in order to achieve this main, priority goal.
Mr. Speaker, I said "as far as possible" and this leads me to criticize a second argument of the motion which I cannot accept. It deals with the proposal that the guaranteed minimum income should replace the contributions and payments of all the systems of unemployment insurance, social welfare, family and personal allowances, including Canada Pensions and Quebec Pensions.
Before discussing the replacement of all the present income supplement systems we should again examine their purposes. It is advisable to recall the objectives of the income supplement programs. Some of them are devised so as to provide for an income 
supplement intended to help out poor people under certain economic circumstances and to prevent impoverishment. Others are designed to protect all citizens against the loss of income incurred from social risks which affect all citizens and not only the poor; some of them are even so designed as to redistribute income to the disadvantaged people of our society.
Canadian social security programs have been set up to fight poverty and to bring in social insurance. As far as poverty is concerned they have been meant to ascertain a strict minimum income to those who have not or hardly the means of supporting themselves, and as far as social insurance is concerned, they are made to protect people against certain social risks.
Unemployment insurance has been established to provide all contributors and members of the labour force with a short-term unemployment income irrespective of their annual income. It fills in for the salary lost momentarily on account of unemployment, without the recipient being required to earn an income lower than the poverty-line level. One of the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security program is to provide an income supplement to the old, the disabled and widows regardless of any income they may receive.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Workmen's compensation is designed to provide for income maintenance and health services arising from accidents suffered at work or industrial diseases. The maximum levels of support are more generous than would be the case under a system of guaranteed minimum income. Consequently, the legislation implementing a guaranteed annual income program to replace the existing programs should be carefully considered in order to determine its effect on the social and economic goals achieved by several of the existing programs.
It is necessary to take into account the technical and the political aspects of the results ensuing from the substitution of the guaranteed annual income for the existing programs. For some programs, the substitution would be relatively simple; for others it would be extremely complicated, not to mention the political problems it would create.
From the technical standpoint, it would be relatively easy to replace the family allowance plan but, from the political standpoint, it might give rise to strong objections on the
April 20, 1970	COMMONS
part of those who would stand to lose if the current program were abandoned. Families with an income over a certain level would no longer get these allowances nor would they be entitled to the maintenance income provided under the guaranteed minimum income scheme.
Replacing the unemployment insurance program would create a certain number of problems. Owing to some commitments too costly for their standard of living, unemployed people with an annual income above the prescribed limit on minimum income may have an urgent need for a short-term maintenance income, even though these people are usually above the poverty level.
The abolition of unemployment insurance would suddenly deprive some workers with an average income of a type of protection which they now get and to which they have contributed for a period of years. In order to overcome the difficulty, the unemployment insurance plan should not be replaced but be made part of the entire guaranteed income scheme. The minimum guaranteed income should be available to those who are at or below the basic income level, but those who are in the higher income brackets and who are unemployed should receive a proportional supplement.
The substitution of the annual guaranteed income system for the old age security scheme would cause serious problems to those who have an income higher than the basic level of maintenance income. Most of the people who receive life annuities from a private enterprise made it part of old age security. Many retired persons or some who are on the verge of retirement are convinced that an old age pension will be paid to them as soon as they reached retirement age. It is distressing to think that 40 per cent of older persons might be in such a situation and would not get a pension, because their income exceeded the standards of basic income, more especially since several have been paying a special tax for old age pension since 1952.
One could dwell at length on the implicit contents of the resolution. I cannot agree, because the motion on the whole does not apparently take into account the fact that the central government cannot act alone in determining a guaranteed annual income without consulting the provinces beforehand. It is an important constitutional problem which the motion overlooks. Social assistance, in whatever form it is implemented, is an extremely complex problem which must be studied thor-
DEBATES	6073
Guaranteed Minimum Income oughly. It is not good enough to promote the idea and then say that everything will turn out well.
The replacement or the integration of the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan would surely cause difficulties in respect of contractual commitments to contributors in every province. As in the case of unemployment insurance, the purpose of the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan is to provide additional income to people in all income brackets who would not bother to provide against a rainy day.
It would be very difficult to replace that goal by a formula which would bring a maintenance income only to lower income groups.
The motion also suggests that the present social welfare plan be abolished and that the funds be made available for a federal guaranteed minimum income scheme. On the one hand, this proposal does not mention that 50 per cent of contributions to these plans come from provincial and municipal governments, which could well decide to use these amounts for other purposes if a federal guaranteed income plan were created. On the other hand, it does not take into consideration the likelihood that social assistance programs based on needs of citizens must be maintained, even if a federal guaranteed income plan were to be implemented.
I presume that the federal government would not be able to distinguish between the citizens in urban areas and those in rural areas, where the cost of living is high or not. I also suppose that we would have to guarantee a certain level of income according to the number of members in a family, regardless of the area, the city or the place where these people want to live.
I believe this would be a very costly proposition. As a matter of fact, a great deal of money would be needed to guarantee a minimum income to everybody, to enable them to live in an adequate and dignified manner in metropolitan areas like Montreal or Toronto. This minimum income would have to be fixed in terms of the needs of people of average income.
If this assumption is correct, the income level that we could guarantee to people in Toronto and Montreal would undoubtedly be inadequate to support families. Therefore, some families would need additional assistance which could not be granted to them under a standard system of minimum payments established for all Canadian people.

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
Some people may need special diets, drugs, apparatus, supervision or services which cannot be provided under the guaranteed minimum income plan. It will then be necessary to establish special social welfare programs in addition to the payment of a guaranteed minimum income to all unfortunate families who live in areas where the cost of living is high and the minimum income inadequate. I cannot believe that all the social programs would simply disappear if a yearly guaranteed income plan was established.
Finally, my colleague from Saint-Jacques pointed out that the motion is too restrictive, that it applies only to unemployed people or to those without capital. I shall, therefore, spare the House the few remarks that I had prepared on that subject.
This is a very complex problem and, as my colleague from Saint-Jacques has just said, the government is giving active consideration to it. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, we all want a more equitable distribution of riches, but the question is to find the means of insuring a fair, rational and efficient distribution of all such resources.


Hon. J. W. Monfeith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I see I have 30 seconds left before the supper adjournment. I should simply like to say that I regret very much not having had the opportunity of putting my personal views or those of my party on record during the discussion on this matter.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Davis that Bill C-204, to amend 
the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was referring to the concern that I and many other people have about the effects of two very serious forms of pollution-pollution from the possibilities of offshore drilling for oil on the continental shelf on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and the consequences of a major mishap at sea as a result of the construction of large oil refineries on our coasts.
I was referring to an oil refinery which is to be built at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland. It is to have a production capacity of 100,000 barrels. I repeat that we have arrived at a point where the government must make some decisions. The time has come when we must choose between offshore oil drilling and the conservation of our fishing resources on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. I refer especially to the Atlantic coast and the great Grand Banks fisheries which produce so much of the world protein and where at the present time a number of major United States oil companies are conducting experimental drilling operations. Substantial amounts of money are being spent with a view to developing the known oil resources on the continental shelf.
One of the great authorities on the consequences of oil pollution, and one of the few recognized authorities in Canada, is Dr. Richard E. Warner, a professor on the staff of Memorial University of Newfoundland. He has written a very definitive paper on oil pollution, which I commend to the minister. I wish to put on the record Dr. Warner's recommendations which were made as the result of considerable study on the subject:
Recommendation 1: instigation of a biologically and oceanographically oriented research program in the North Atlantic and the coastal regions of eastern Canada with special reference to seabirds and other important marine species.
Recommendation 2: instigation of a research program into the biological effects of marine oil pollution upon the hyponeuston, or the surface and immediate subsurface biotic community which is so critical to the continued productivity of the oceans.
Recommendation 3: instigation of a research program into the biological effects of oils in arctic and subarctic waters.
Recommendation 4: carrying out of a national survey to identify sites of special importance, leading to development of critical area protection programs.
April 20/ 1970

Recommendation 5: instigation of a research program into the biological effects of present and proposed refinery and petrochemical plant operations-
He cites as examples the oil refinery in Holyrood, Newfoundland, and the proposed oil refinery and petrochemical complex to be built at Come-by-Chance in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland.
Recommendation 6: development of a truly effective national system for locating, reporting, and identifying the sources of oil pollution circumstances.
Recommendation 7: development of a national contingency program.
The need for such a contingency program is very dramatically borne out by the Arrow disaster off Nova Scotia and the opening up of the Northwest Passage to supertankers.
Recommendation 8: development of national criteria for environmental protection, to be included in all oil leases, construction contracts and other agreements where the activity presents some probability of risk to the environment.
Presumably one of the important amendments in the legislation now before us will give the minister authority to implement a recommendation such as this. I think it is a very important recommendation.
Recommendation 9: improvement of international co-ordination and communications.
That is a very important recommendation, Mr. Speaker, especially since we share this continent with the great industrial giant to our south, which is responsible for most of the pollution of the environment of our western hemisphere. Indeed, there is an urgent necessity for the government to enter into negotiations and discussions with the United States with a view to having a meaningful treaty on continental pollution. This could cover oil and other forms of pollution.
It is not enough for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) to get up in the House and say that he is going to meet with the U.S. Undersecretary of State. We require a conference of our two governments at the ministerial level at which the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), who has considerable responsibility in this area, could play a very important role. The Minister of Fisheries probably has more responsibility in prevention of pollution than any other minister of the government, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Transport, (Mr. Jamieson), although a special case can be made for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Fisheries Act
Development (Mr. Chretien) because of the peculiarities covered by the Northern Inland Waters Act.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The Minister of Transport has assumed certain responsibilities in connection with pollution. He represented Canada at the Brussels conference last year and will presumably be presenting legislation to the House. As far as he and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are concerned, we feel they should take second place to the Minister of Fisheries. We believe even more strongly that the proposed Canada Water Act now before Parliament should be withdrawn in favour of a Fisheries Act which places responsibility where it belongs, that is to say, in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries. We understand that the minister has been unable to convince his colleagues in the cabinet sufficiently in connection with the seriousness of the responsibilities he bears. We wish him every success and we intend to continue to press for the withdrawal of the Canada water legislation.
With regard to international agreements, reference has already been made by my hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) to the conference which is being promoted by the province of Ontario. Eight Great Lakes states of the United States and two or three of our provinces which border on the Great Lakes are to be represented at this conference which presumably will be the first step toward cleaning up the situation. The government of Ontario has in this instance assumed an initiative which should have been shown by the federal government a long time ago.
Now that the conference has been called, I hope the government of Canada will take advantage of this opportunity which has been presented to it by entering into discussions with Washington to make sure that the government of the United States is represented at the conference by a senior member of the United States cabinet. I hope, too, that the Canadian government will be represented by the Minister of Fisheries and that as a consequence of this conference a consensus will be reached on the basis of which a treaty between Canada and the United States will be possible. This, to my mind, is the only logical and effective way in which control measures on this continent can be implemented.
I trust the conference will be furnished with all the knowledge and expertise which the two countries have at their disposal.

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
There is the Canadian experience in connection with the Arrow disaster, and our experience in Arctic waters generally, then there is the experience of our American friends in connection with the disastrous Santa Barbara spill and the recent spill off the coast of Louisiana. I trust there will be correlation of ideas leading to a meaningful consensus so that we can effectively implement the controls so necessary to free our environment from pollution.
Pollution is becoming a popular subject. In this Parliament we have seen that a number of ministers are anxious to get into the act and follow the lead given by the public. As I said before, we feel strongly that the responsibility for dealing effectively with water pollution should rest with the Minister of Fisheries and that the government, recognizing the inadequacy and redundancy of the Canada Water Act, should withdraw it in favour of a strengthened Fisheries Act which will enable the Minister of Fisheries to deal with pollution not only in our streams and lakes but of our coastal waters both in the east and in the west.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend a few minutes this evening discussing one or two points which have been raised by other speakers, among them the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis).
I have gone over the bill with considerable interest. It deals with water pollution generally and the work which the Department of Fisheries will be called upon to do, or should be doing, to prevent water pollution in all its forms. Looking through the bill, we find that in some instances the act has been strengthened. I would certainly support regulations which added a few teeth to some of the enforcement methods at the disposal of the department, because we need them. I am surprised, however, that the minister should try to tell the House that the enforcement capacity of his department has been improved by this legislation. The very opposite is the case.
I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the clause which deals with the Canada Water Act, and to the clause which withdraws the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries from waters which are to be quality management areas under the act to which I have referred. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not make sense as far as enforcement is concerned. It is amazing to me that the minister and his department should ever have agreed to amendments to the legislation which would (Mr. McGrath.]
allow the worst polluted waters in Canada to be removed from their jurisdiction. I shall give the House an example of what could happen. For example, there is a move afoot to make the Lower Fraser River a quality management area. The Fraser River is, possibly the greatest salmon stream in the world. We are facing a situation in which jurisdiction can be taken away from the Department of Fisheries and its expert staff of biologists and placed in the hands of whatever group is elected to manage the water quality area concerned. If my interpretation of the bill is correct, this is exactly what will take place.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
What will happen if there are two or three water quality management areas on the Fraser River? I realize there are regulations governing salmon spawning, but what will happen is that there will be little groups controlling the greatest salmon spawning river on the continent. Indeed, this sort of thing will happen all across Canada. The areas of jurisdiction that the Fisheries Department and the minister and his staff should be responsible for have been taken away from them. Instead of putting more teeth into the act in this respect, I suggest we are losing ground. A small group will be set up in a water quality management area with the right to set its own standards, with the right to lower standards in the river if it wants to. It could set its own effluent fees and the Fisheries Department would have precious little to do with it, though it might have somebody on the board to whom it could speak.
The minister told the House this afternoon that the government is trying to do away with pollution havens, and that the act was a step in the right direction. The minister referred to areas where industries could vie with one another by lowering pollution standards, thus attracting other industry. In my opinion, this bill is a move in the opposite direction. Large areas of the river, as I see it, will be removed from the control of the Fisheries Department, according to the act. These areas will be removed from the jurisdiction of the department. I am rather disappointed that the minister and his staff have allowed an amendment like this to come forward in view of the damage I think it may do over the years.
I have a great deal of respect for the minister, who I know is keenly interested in pollution problems. He has the most efficient and best trained staff in the federal field to handle
April 20. 1970

pollution problems. But according to the particular section I am talking about, we will lose the expertise in this particular area. I know of no way around this problem unless it be to move an amendment, as I hope will be the case. I also hope the minister will look at this provision, and if I am wrong I should like the point I have raised to be clarified. As far as Canada is concerned, this is a very serious problem.
Let me talk for a moment about the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Great Lakes and all the streams that pour their waters into the Great Lakes system. Numerous water quality management basins will be established on streams that flow into the Great Lakes system. The minister need not tell this House that there is any wide, broad national standard applied in these areas, because such will not be the case. There will be a wide variation of standards. A few months ago the minister was advocating-and I agree with his theory-that we in Canada need broad national standards from one end of the country to the other. He said we were going to tell industry that it could not move from one province to another or from one area to another with lower pollution standards.
Although we talk about ending pollution havens, we are setting up pollution havens in Canada as a result of the implementation of the Canada Water Act, this legislation and other legislation that goes hand in hand with it. It is time the members of this House, particularly cabinet members, recognized the problem facing Canada and did something about it. Unless changes are made, and made before the legislation is finalized, once more Canada will be presented with a hodge-podge of legislation that will not clean up pollution for the Canadian people.
As I say, I am disappointed to see an amendment of this type to the Fisheries Act which seeks to remove from the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Department those sections of waterway that are mostly badly polluted and need the attention and expertise of the minister's department. I contend that this sort of legislation basically is not good.
Let me put another case to the minister. Take the case of a waterway which is a water quality management area and into which a large number of industrial plants are dumping effluent, including perhaps mercury. According to this legislation the minister's department will be unable to take action. The department will be told to keep away because this is a matter that falls within the jurisdic-
Fisheries Act
tion of the Canada Water Act. But eventually this effluent will move downstream to the point where the department does become involved. If this is not a piecemeal and foolish approach to Canada's water problems, then I do not know what is. I am amazed that the government has not found a better way to solve the problem.
I realize that you cannot have too many jurisdictions involving themselves with the problem, but I agree in the position taken by the minister over a number of years that the best vehicle for handling water pollution in Canada is the Fisheries Act. A few simple amendments to this legislation would allow the department to stop pollution by industry. It could stop pollution at the factory fence and would perhaps go much further and be far more effective than some of the legislation that is being handed to us as a consequence of the Canada Water Act. It irks me to realize that in an attempt to solve the problem we are probably creating even more hazards than we had before.
Some of the amendments have toughened up the regulations and increased the amount of fines in those areas in which the Fisheries Department still operates. The minister has stated that this is a vehicle that is national in scope, but I suggest it cannot be national in scope when huge chunks of the department's jurisdiction are being cut away. The work of the Fisheries Department is being fragmented as never before. As I say, I am amazed that the minister, his departmental heads and the government have not realized this and put a stop to it.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I shall now say a few words about pollution in general. Other members have touched on this subject. I shall not go over all the points which have been raised by various members. Some members have covered the different clauses and dealt with them in more detail. I believe they have covered these very well. The criticism offered this afternoon and evening in respect of the various clauses of the bill is given in the hope that when the bill returns to the House for third reading some changes will have taken place in respect of its over-all drafting.
Pollution has become a major problem. There is the problem concerning mercury. Again, I shall not go into it in detail. What amazes me in respect of mercury poisoning in Canada is that industries in general pour a large amount of mercury into our rivers and

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
streams. They have been doing this for years, and nothing has been done to stop it. It would seem that no monitoring has been carried out by the various departments. They could not have been doing a proper job. There is no doubt that for years our fishing streams have been polluted. No doubt, also, some of the product used locally and exported has contained substantial amounts of mercury. Then suddenly it is found that mercury is affecting the fish in the Saskatchewan River and a check is commenced. When the checking is completed we will possibly find many more sources of mercury poison than we suspected.
The point is, this situation never would have arisen had we been effectively and efficiently monitoring the effluents which are flowing into our streams and had the officials of all departments, including the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, been on their toes and using the regulations which had been laid down many years ago. In fact, there would not have been a pollution problem in Canada today.
I say frankly that the best department in this regard and the department which has done the most effective job in trying to stop pollution is the Department of Fisheries and Forestry under the present minister. I give the minister all the credit in the world. I would be extremely happy to see him in control of the whole pollution program for Canada, because I think he is interested and has the knowledge and dedication necessary to do the job. I say to the minister, however, that he will not be able to do the job with the type of legislation he has placed before us for second reading today.
I should like to return to one or two other points in connection with this subject. We have spoken of mercury generally. Someone mentioned oil a few moments ago and the tremendous problems we are having in this regard. There is the matter of pesticides and the industrial aspect of this question. This is an extremely serious matter. But again the minister in his effort to clean up the rivers and streams of this nation will be strapped and harassed at every turn because of one or two of what I consider to be foolish amendments contained in the present legislation.
There is one very good amendment in the legislation which extends the jurisdiction of the department in the coastal areas over aquatic plants. This is good. I believe it is a sound move. I can see nothing but good arising out of it. There are other clauses which deal with the 12-mile limit. I shall not discuss
[Mr. Harding.1
these simply because I believe the amendments are sound. I think they are a step in the right direction and again the department is to be congratulated for bringing in such legislation.
I know other members are interested in saying a few words about the legislation we are now debating. Before I sit down I should like to go a step further and mention the fragmentation of the authority which would be the result of the amendment to section 33 of the act. I consider this to be bad. I shall ask the minister and the officials of his department to take another look at it to see whether some of her amendment or some compromise can be made so that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry can remain active in respect of their regulations, expertise and control in these areas, because if this is not done this whole program could be in jeopardy.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning may I say I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). We sat together on the committee which dealt with the Canada Water Act. Like him, I feel very strongly about certain things contained in this bill. I believe the Canada Water Act should not have precedence over the Fisheries Act.
This afternoon I listened with interest to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). I should like to say that I do support this legislation. As I shall point out, I support most of the amendments. However, I have some reservations about the fact that the Fisheries Department would seem to be taking a back seat to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
On May 20, 1969, the minister advocated changes in the Fisheries Act. Personally, I would like to have seen these changes before the Canada Water Act was introduced. In any event, we have them now. As I say, this legislation is strong in parts and I support those parts which are strong. I concur also with the speech given this afternoon by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and certain objections he had in respect of the bill. There are anomalies in this bill. On the one hand it is very strong in that basically it says we will allow the fish to live. On the other hand it says we will do this only if the Canada Water Act is effective. How many pollution bills have we had this session? Well, we had the Canada Water Act, the Northern Inland Waters Act and the Arctic pollution bill.
April 20, 1970

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We have talked about amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, particularly with respect to pollution and the passage of ships through our waters. Now in this bill we have amendments to the Fisheries Act. In all we have at least ten departments concerned with pollution, and at least 25 other agencies of government having an interest in some aspects of pollution. Who has the ultimate responsibility for dealing with pollution? Again this year we have four or five departments introducing legislation to deal with pollution. Mr. Speaker, who has the ultimate responsibility?
I had hoped that the Department of Fisheries would have the ultimate responsibility for dealing with pollution, and my objection to Bill C-204 is that it does not give that department the ultimate responsibility. This bill does not take precedence over all other pollution legislation, and I believe it should. Why do I say it should take precedence over all other such legislation? It is because I think that the right to live, both of animals and of humans, should take precedence over everything else. We have a right to kill animals and fish only for food or to improve our means of livelihood.
This bill prohibits the depositing of waste in any waters frequented by fish. In that respect it is pretty strong. The early part of the bill is quite simple in that respect, and of course it defines waste in accordance with the terms in the Canada Water Act. To my mind the definition in this bill sets minimum national standards. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) does not believe that we can have the same standards applicable to all Canadian waters. However, this bill sets minimum national standards, which is something I have advocated. Other hon. members have advocated it. We discussed this point on second reading of the Canada Water Act, which is presently before the standing committee.
On January 15, 1970, speaking to the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, the Minister of Fisheries said:
Our national goal is of course to keep Canada clean. But we have different problems in different industries. We have different industrial mixes in different areas and we have different aspirations regionally, provincially and locally across this great nation of ours. There is room for differences in other words, and the same standards and the same solutions may not always be applied in one part of the country as compared to another.
One thing which we can probably agree upon is a set of minimum standards or goals. A minimum
Fisheries Act
goal for water quality might be that living things can in fact survive. This would protect the essential nature of our Canadian ecosystem. It would protect our particular web of life. At least it should protect the higher orders of living things-people, most animals and lively fish like salmon and trout.
I agree with that, but it contradicts the objective of achieving national standards and goals. Under his legislation the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will even allow fish to die in certain waters. He will allow pollution to come to such a point that fish will sometimes die, all because there are no minimum national standards, and therefore there will be different standards for different areas of water.
My main objection to Bill C-204 is that it depends too much on the provisions of Bill C-144 covering the Canada Water Act. I contend, as I said at the beginning, that the reverse should be the case. Bill C-144 should depend on Bill C-204 containing the amendments to the Fisheries Act, because all other departments and all other agencies dealing with pollution should act after consultation with the Department of Fisheries.
The Canada Water Act provides for the establishment of water management agencies. When it was introduced it was supposed to be the government's anti-pollution bill. Now the emphasis has been changed. Not the government says its purpose is to manage waters and that controlling pollution is just one part of the bill. But I remember that when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because of sickness, was not in full control of his department a Minister without Portfolio who introduced that bill clearly introduced it as an anti-pollution bill.
Bill C-144 is still in committee. We are waiting for the Minister to introduce amendments to it, because now we know it is absolutely too bureaucratic. It will provide for the establishment of the water management agencies that I have mentioned. This will be costly and it will take time. That bill is really irrelevant and useless in terms of Bill C-204. Some have said that so far as pollution is concerned, the government should withdraw Bill C-144. But it does have some good points. Under its provisions long-term goals can be set, but it will take years for it to become fully effective.
To my mind Bill C-204 amending the Fisheries Act should be the government's anti-pollution bill. I do not really believe that the Minister of Fisheries wishes to have his bill depend upon the effect of the Canada Water Act. Mr. Speaker, I want the Department of

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
Fisheries to have the responsibility, not the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. On moving second reading this afternoon the Minister of Fisheries said that the fisheries are entirely a matter of federal responsibility and that the Fisheries Act applies to all Canadian waters. The Fisheries Act is the key to the control of pollution because it does apply to all Canadian waters.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The minister has said that as far as pollution is concerned, living resources may well be our first line of defence. If this is true, it is no justification for the introduction of the Canada Water Act which I believe was only for political reasons introduced because the public was becoming aroused on the subject. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the government really wants to do something about pollution? To be fair, I feel that it does, but for some odd reason it does not want to tackle the problem as a whole. Already this year five departments have introduced legislation dealing with pollution whilst another ten deal with it in other legislation.
Up to now the debate has been mainly concerned with water pollution, and naturally the Fisheries Act is mainly concerned with this aspect of the problem. But what about air pollution and soil pollution? In the areas of water management and water pollution, the Canada Water Act was supposed to do away with the bureaucratic and jurisdictional maze existing in various departments. As a member of the committee I have listened to many briefs and have repeatedly heard the remark, "It will take years for the Canada Water Act to become effective." This afternoon the minister said that he hoped this bill would be an immediate tool to deal with pollution whilst we are waiting for the Canada Water Act to come into effect. Mr. Speaker, if this bill can deal with our immediate problem, surely it can deal with all our problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: Must we wait for the Canada Water Act before the Fisheries Act amendments can become effective? If so, the Fisheries and Forestry Committee will require explanations. If it does have to wait for the Canada Water Act, then I suggest we have either to amend this legislation, Bill C-204, or the Canada Water Act, Bill C-144. Had the government known that the Canadian public would have become as interested in pollution matters, I believe they would have tackled the

problem differently at the start. Now they seem to be caught in some sort of web. They have introduced the Canada Water Act as an anti-pollution bill but now realize it is not sufficient and that we need other amendments to complement it. They realize that there is an overlapping of departments, that a great bureaucracy is being created and that nobody is being really concerned with the over-all problem.
We still have air and we still have soil. Just the other day I listened to a television program referring to the efforts of the United States, stressing the need for a national body dealing with pollution in general. The problems of air and water pollution are inseparable. If we do not allow refuse to go in the water, the alternative is to burn it-and then there is an air pollution problem, so the whole thing is interrelated.
The Progressive Conservative Party has suggested many times that there should be a strong federal abatement policy to co-ordinate, to plan and to have ultimate responsibility in dealing with pollution. We have been advocating a need for co-ordinating action in pollution control and we have repeatedly proposed the establishment of a single federal agency called the Canada pollution abatement commission which would report to Parliament through one minister. This agency would have the single purpose of providing technical and financial assistance in pollution control to existing agencies in the federal, provincial, municipal and industrial fields. The purpose of the agency would be to undertake research programs and to co-ordinate existing programs. It could also provide emergency information and assistance where required. Some people even advocate a department of environmental control. This idea has some merit, though I do not know whether it is really necessary.
Mr. Speaker, will the bill before us deal with situations such as the recent Arrow incident? Will the Department of Transport still have to look after such incidents? Will the Department of Transport be concerned about the fish in Chedabucto Bay? Just last summer a tanker can aground off the coast in my riding. I immediately made representations to the Department of Fisheries to send an inspector in order to make sure there was no oil leakage and that the lobster grounds were not contaminated. The department reassured me on these points. I did not take the matter up with the Department of Transport because I thought the Department of Fisheries should
April 20, 1970

look after it. The bill before us should take the lead, Mr. Speaker, and it should not depend on the Canada Water Act nor the Northern Inland Waters Act. Water pollution should be dealt with by the Department of Fisheries. As the minister has repeatedly stated, we should allow the fish to live.
I repeat that I support the part of the bill that is strong; but I wonder, if we can act immediately on water pollution under this bill, why we cannot act permanently under it. Clause 5 of the bill deals with marine plants, and I commend that section which I have studied with great interest. It is of particular interest to me because in my area there is a great Irish moss harvesting industry. This legislation was probably introduced in consultation with the provincial Minister of Fisheries, Hon. John Buchanan, because he is very concerned about it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I support those parts of the bill that are strong. I hope the committee will amend it so that it will take precedence over all other bills and the Department of Fisheries will have effective control in dealing with pollution. I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is sincere and I hope he does not have to wait until Bill C-144 becomes law.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I hope he can go at it himself and take the initiative, as he did in the past couple of years when dealing with a matter that affected the fishery in certain parts of Canada. I agree with the minister that we have the necessary tools to deal with pollution and that we really need these amendments or changes. Of course, we need a great deal of money to put them into effect.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is almost totally unnecessary for every member of my particular political bent to take part in the debate going on at the moment. I listened to three of my colleagues and a number of other hon. gentlemen take part in the debate. Having listened with great interest to my colleagues, I can say that I have been more than interested in the totality of their remarks which have covered the situation entirely. Having said that, I suppose I ought to sit down. However, I concur in all those remarks, especially in those of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who made one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in a long, long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Fisheries Act


John Howard Lundrigan: He stated very definitely the opinion of the party he represents and exactly the views that I myself hold. It is interesting to examine this piece of legislation before us, Bill C-204. I believe we now have four ministers in the act; we have a front-line of four in the House. I have been trying to figure out how the other members of the cabinet could in some way or other find some constitutional excuse to become involved with legislation in the area of pollution. What will the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kier-ans) do to become involved in this field? What will the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) do? There must be some areas these ministers can move into with respect to pollution legislation. It seems it is the "in" thing now for ministers to bring in legislation in this particular area. It is as popular for ministers to move into this area as the yoyo was a few years ago.
I am not going to be critical of the bill; I think it is a good bill. It is a very simple piece of legislation; there is very little new in it. I guess the minister would be quick to point out, if I were to say there is nothing new in it, that it gives the minister a jump on the polluter in the sense that he can now demand that the potential polluter be forced to adopt certain procedures before causing pollution, whereas before this legislation existed-and we assume that it will obtain passage-a polluter could commit the act of pollution, after which he could be brought to task. The minister could point this out.
I have looked at the definitions in the bill and seen what is meant by pollution. I see, for example, that the previous legislation gave the minister authority to move in, prosecute and bring to task the people who were responsible for the tremendous amount of pollution which has taken place in almost every lake, stream and river in the Canadian nation up to the present time. Having looked at the bill, I am not overly impressed with the definition of intent. I will be much more impressed with the department's actions, based on the legislation. I suppose every Canadian over the years would have been more impressed if the government had taken more action to prosecute people who committed offences in this area.
I notice that the hon. member for South Shore this afternoon observed that the upper limit of the fine for anyone guilty of infringing the legislation is to be $5,000. I do not know why the minister built that limit into

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
the bill. Perhaps I am misinformed and not totally aware of all the intentions of the bill, but it seems to me that is a pretty small sum for a large company such as Erco of Canada, or any other large company which has been tried and found guilty of polluting, to pay. Even $5,000 per day is very little for them. On the other hand, it would be a pretty heavy fine for someone who is gutting codfish.
On looking at clause 6 of the bill I notice that there is reference to dragger operations off the Newfoundland coast. I do not think any member of the House will disagree with the need for that clause, because these drag-gers have been wreaking havoc in Newfoundland. Forcing them to stay outside the three-mile limit is a good thing, and I commend the minister for his thinking. This is in line with the commitment he made to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada who have been plagued by these inshore dragging operations. I beg your pardon-I see the 12-mile limit is mentioned. This is commendable.
I was absolutely appalled at the statements made by the minister today and in his previous speeches about his department being in a position to police pollution. I believe that is the correct phrase and I believe I am quoting the minister correctly. He said the Department of Fisheries is now in a position to police pollution throughout the nation. If I were to say that this is unadulterated nonsense, I would not wish to be unnecessarily unkind to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis).
There are in Canada two major problems in this area. The first stems from the lack of intention on the part of the government to move decisively into this area. Pollution is becoming a real political issue and everybody, I think, wants to get into the act, including myself. A serious problem results from our not having the personnel who could police pollution.
The minister said this afternoon that there is in the Department of Fisheries an administrative arm that has the personnel and competent people to deal with pollution. He mentioned, I believe, river guardians and various officers who could move in as a team and deal with these problems.
No doubt he wants to leave the impression that we have an army of people ready to move in to catch offenders and bring the guilty to justice. Just to indicate the true state of affairs, may I say that last year there was a drastic reduction in the budget for river guardians and lake police, if you want

to call them that. I am referring to officers and guardians who are involved in apprehending offenders. We had a drastic reduction in the budget in this area. I cannot give the exact figures, although I have them in my office. I remember that there were reductions in some parts of Canada of almost 50 per cent in the number of guardians and people competent and capable of enforcing the law in this area.
May I talk about a river system I am familiar with? How would anyone like to see a beautiful river system such as the Gander River system, which includes a lake that is 25 miles long-and very beautiful it is-and a piece of very precious property belonging to the Canadian nation, inadequately policed? Several small rivers feed into that lake, and running out of that lake are 30 miles of beautiful river. This is one of the most prosperous pieces of salmon river, if I may say that, that we have.
Last year we had on occasions two guardians supposedly responsible for guarding the whole of the lake and river system. There ought to be many more than that responsible for this system. To bring this matter down to earth, may I say that I have fished on this river as a salmon fisherman since 1961 and never have I been asked to produce a licence, simply because nobody has been around to ask me to produce it.
Looking around now I see several hon. members in this House who have gone to my province and fished for salmon, and I hope many more will go back in future and fish on that beautiful river system. I doubt whether any of those hon. members have ever shown a licence to anybody on that river. We have two people who are expected to police approximately 400 square miles or more of property. That is totally impossible. I say this to indicate that the minister is not telling the whole story when he says that his department is capable of policing pollution in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Howard Lundrigan: ter who has messed up the Indian Affairs Department so beautifully, and to all those ministers who were so actively bragging about these great efforts.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The budget this year is exactly the same as that for last year with respect to research and development aspects of the Canadian fishery. Members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry admit that there has been a reduction in the Department of Fisheries. They are becoming very concerned in that department because they cannot do the kind of research and development and provide the protection that is necessary. If I recall correctly, we have had an act in force since 1964.
I am not an old politician. If I remember correctly, in 1964 there was a proclamation by the then Prime Minister and the Premier of a province on the east coast stating that we should be the same as Iceland and other countries. It was suggested that we set up a shield or an umbrella around the provinces on the east and west coasts of Canada so that the provisions of the Fisheries Act could be enforced, and thereby keep out foreign vessels. At that time I felt that no foreign vessel would be allowed inside the 12-mile limit; there was to be tremendous protection for our fishery resources. This has been going on for the last six years. My point is that we can spend all day talking about the intent of the government and the intent of the legislation in 1964-the intent of Bill C-204-but it is of no avail unless Canada is willing to enforce the rules and regulations which exist under the legislation.


An hon. Member:: It's window-dressing.


John Howard Lundrigan: An hon. member shouted, "It's window-dressing". That could be the result of this piece of legislation. I challenge the minister on the matter of policing antipollution regulations. I challenge him to say in this House that there are sufficient personnel to enforce the regulations in this bill. Who is going to police the Canadian coasts? The minister is familiar with the west coast. There is the same situation on the east coast. There are tens of thousands of miles of coastline, bays and inlets where small pleasure craft can go on the west coast and where hardworking fishing craft can go on the east coast.
Who is going to board these craft and control their effluent? Who is going to watch what these craft dump into the sea? In one way this is reminiscent of legislation which says
Fisheries Act
you cannot replace a fuse in a fuse-box. Of course, nobody has fuse-boxes any longer. I ask the minister, who is going to enforce this law? The Canadian people are going to question the observations of the minister about his department's capability to police pollution. The minister should admit to the Canadian people that his department is not capable. More money, research and development is necessary to police pollution in Canada.
I rise to participate in this debate because of some unhappy experiences on the east coast with respect to recent pollution. I am sure all hon. members recall the Long Harbour situation where a whole bay was polluted and the livelihood of 400 fishermen was affected. These fishermen harvested good returns. People who had been making a decent living last year were faced with a whole bay of dead fish. The complete story was never told and I do not intend to exaggerate it because in many ways it is a dead issue.
Last year, when the Long Harbour situation was investigated, it was found to our dismay that the Department of Fisheries had acted in what I consider a totally irresponsible manner in permitting the particular plant to locate and pollute the whole environment without requiring any safeguards. I understand there was an exchange of letters and the company agreed that the effluent would be kept to a particular level of toxicity which would not be dangerous or hazardous to the fishlife. The government agreed to this. After the bay became polluted and the total fish population had been destroyed, this government department realized its mistake. There had been no built-in safeguards. The end result was that the company was forced to build centrifuges, settling-ponds and trailing-ponds to prevent pollution. The government should have assumed some financial responsibility initially and required that company to build in the necessary safeguards. In every location where that kind of industry developed, the results have been tragic so far as pollution of the environment is concerned. Thousands of Canadian citizens, not scientists or researchers, could have made that information available to the minister from experience which they gained not far from Ottawa.
There is also the Arrow incident, which has been the subject of many discussions in this House. A couple of days ago I noticed in the Globe and Mail a picture of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) devouring nice, juicy lobster from that particular area. I

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
suppose the impression to be left is that there is no need to be concerned because the effect on the fisheries is negligible or non-existent.


An hon. Member:: Why wasn't the Minister of Fisheries eating lobster?


John Howard Lundrigan: Last year an oil tanker got into trouble off the south coast of Newfoundland. Luckily, it was escorted to port. An oil slick had been left by a different oil company. There has never been any prosecution, athough reports indicate that tens of thousands of seabirds were destroyed off the coast of Newfoundland. No wonder the residents are having a bad year duck hunting: there are fewer birds. I use these examples to express my concern.
I am not an expert with respect to the Manhattan. Some members are following this matter very closely: it seems to be a reason for great concern. There is a very complex issue with regard to Lake St. Clair. I understand the figure will reach many millions of dollars before the issue is finally resolved. This pollution is affecting the fishermen as well as the tourist industry in that area. With the tourist season approaching, these people are becoming very concerned. I understand several prominent lawyers are working on the matter. Also, a situation has developed in Lake Winnipeg. A major problem has arisen in the Great Lakes. The "phosphorus kids" are beginning to make their presence felt. This is not new. I imagine there has been pollution in the Great Lakes for 50 years or longer. If the records of the Department of Fisheries are checked, I am sure evidence will be found to show that there has been a problem for a great number of years.
I have been in every Canadian province. In the last five or six years I have travelled extensively in Canada. I am not familiar with the environment in each province, but I do know that my native province of Newfoundland is one of the most pollution-free provinces in Canada. In order to attract tourists we brag about the fact that we are one of the few unmolested areas in Canada. Our province is one of the few virgin areas with beautiful lakes, rivers, streams and pounds. I wish the minister could have been with me during the Easter recess when I caught 21 eastern brook trout which averaged 12 inches in length.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Out of season?


John Howard Lundrigan: No, it was not out of season. I caught these 21 brook trout in about

an hour. If you become thirsty when fishing there, you can drink the beautiful clear waters. One does not appreciate this situation unless he leaves and then returns. I can appreciate it because I must drive past the Ottawa River every day. I do not envy anyone who has to do that. I appreciated returning to the east coast, standing by a beautiful little lake and catching 12 or 15 eastern lake trout or mud trout. This can be done in many thousands of areas in Newfoundland today. The situation is even better in Labrador. However, things are happening which are causing concern. I doubt if my children will be able to do the things I was able to do in my childhood.
e (9:20 p.m.)
The Exploit river system was one of the most productive salmon systems on the east coast of Canada but today, I understand, it is almost completely dead. I have already asked, in committee, whether the minister or his officials would make available some of the evidence they have on the effect of pollution on the salmon population of that river. As I say, it was a beautiful system but today it is just about dead. I asked the minister whether he will conduct an investigation of the Gander system. I have received correspondence from him, and he agreed with some of my conclusions. He indicated the department did not have the funds available to enable them to conduct a major investigation, but I still believe he will be able to look into the matter up to a point and perhaps pour a few dollars into research to find out what is happening. There is scarcely a pond, stream, bay or inlet in Canada right across the whole nation where pollution will not be found to exist. This is a major issue. I support this legislation, but the minister should be given the necessary funds and authority to do the job properly. If not, let him leave it until the necessary funds are available.
Another problem has been presented by the decision to set up a petrochemical complex in Come-by-Chance. This is the news of the year; it is to be a $130 million complex. To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, not a single piece of research has been done by the Department of Fisheries on the effect on the environment of a project of this kind. I do not say we have no need for a petrochemical plant; God knows, we need such developments, even developments of a type one would not normally want in one's backyard. But the least the government could do would be to assure the Canadian nation that an
April 20, 1970

establishment of this kind will not destroy the surrounding environment. I ask the minister to assure us that his official will look into this aspect, and that all the necessary pollution control equipment is built into the operation immediately. I am not an expert; I do not know what may be necessary. But there are many people who suspect there will be a need for strict federal control to ensure that an enterprise which might well have a potential for pollution is controlled to the maximum extent.
In the time left to me I wish to comment on the speech made by my hon. friend from South Shore. Perhaps the main point he made concerned the question of responsibility. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) also dealt with this point capably and eloquently, that is, responsibility for pollution control within the federal government. We have heard a good deal this year from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I sometimes have the feeling that this minister is the big boss in the cabinet where pollution control is concerned. After all, he was a candidate for the leadership and I do not doubt there is an overflow effect. His campaign met with a good measure of success and he was likely one of the keys to the election of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Undoubtedly there are many things which go on behind closed doors and about which I can only guess.


James Aloysius McGrath: Give the Minister of Fisheries a rough time.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am interested in supporting the minister. Mr. Speaker, the "phosphate kid," the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has been using the phosphate issue as the best political gambit I have seen since I entered politics. He has almost succeeded in convincing the Canadian nation that if we can prevent these phosphates entering our waters we shall have beaten pollution. This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, but it is a beautiful job.
The hon. lady for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) almost finds herself supporting the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his present effort. Editorials all over the country are supporting the minister in his fight against phosphate pollution. But the fact of the matter is-and the Minister of Fisheries agrees with me-that phosphate pollution is not even a major problem; it is
Fisheries Act
relatively easy to control. Indeed, phosphates are a form of nutrient which might well benefit certain species of fish. The minister himself has acknowledged this.
Here we have a minister who is responsible for a water act which may never come into effect, and if it does, he may have no control over it. Five Canadian provinces have stated that they do not intend to play any role under the permissive legislation proposed by the "green" Minister of Energy. I understand Ontario is the latest province to indicate it wants no part of this bill; they have more effective control through their own commission than through the toothless, gormless legislation proposed by the Minister of Energy. They recognize there is no money. They recognize there is a lot of political hay being made, that it will not result in the setting up of one, universal, authoritative body; they recognize it will be so diluted as a result of the discretion permitted by the act as to be totally ineffective.
Now we find the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) concerned in this field. Can anyone imagine the Minister of Indian Affairs having legislative authority in regard to pollution? I have been reminded of something by my hon. friend from St. John's East who spoke at the United Nations last year and recommended that control of pollution should be one of the key projects of the United Nations, recognizing in advance the extent of the problem.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
My hon. friend from St. John's East reminds me that last year at the International Conference at Brussels our representative was the Minister of Transport. He brought back a report which I have in my hand. It is the statement of the Minister of Transport to the Brussels Conference on Pollution of the Sea by Oil, and is dated November 10, 1969.
When the minister returned to the House, if I am not mistaken he was questioned by hon. members and agreed he was going to bring in some anti-pollution legislation. Indeed, he is already moving in this area in regard to the regulations in connection with the voyage of the Manhattan.
We therefore have involved in pollution control the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of Transport. This piece of legislation, Bill C-204, has been brought in under the name of the Minister of Fisheries. The hon. member for South Shore has reminded us today that we have a

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
problem-a ship called "Pollution" which is being manned by three captains. I disagree
with him. I contend the ship is being manned by four captains, with all kinds of other captains in the wings who will be coming forward as the years go by and the ship pulls further out to sea. One hon. member asked this afternoon in which direction the ship would be going, and somebody responded that it would be going down. I would agree with that observation.
I have read Bill C-204 and it has all the
ingredients for very good legislation. I do not think there is any major change being made. I firmly believe that the only major change is that it permits the minister to act in advance in order to head off pollution. I think I am right in saying that. The legislation permits the minister to sort of head off pollution; it prevents pollution taking place rather than punishes after the event. The legislation is more preventive than punitive, if I may summarize it in that way.
Other than redefining waste and disposal of waste, I see nothing new in this legislation. In addition, I agree with the intent of the legislation. But I disagree that we are able to police pollution. Neither do I see why we must have three other ministers dragged into the fight against pollution. I have confidence in this minister; I think he is capable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: The government has the constitutional authority to make the minister in charge of the Department of Fisheries responsible for pollution control. In that regard I am quoting the minister, and I am fully aware of his position. I am also aware of his interest. He is an expert in his own field. Anybody who knows the Minister of Fisheries knows that. However, I do not want to praise him too much because he is also a very modest man.
The act is a simple one. The question here is one of defining what is going to be done. It is a question of allocating resources so we can do the necessary policing, of getting the personnel to enforce this particular piece of legislation. Again I ask why we need to drag into this field the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who as far as I am concerned has very little knowledge of pollution control outside of the fact that he talks a lot about the Great Lakes. Of course the Great Lakes are polluted; they have been for generations.

Pollution has much broader aspects than that. I am concerned about pollution of salt water, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. The Minister of Fisheries' department is geared to this kind of pollution control. The department has the necessary professional staff and the departmental structure to fight pollution in the broad sense. It is also geared to fighting pollution in the specific sense in which control is now delegated to the Minister of Energy.
I also suggest the Minister of Indian Affairs has no business to poke his nose into this affair, and the Minister of Transport has enough problems of his own. It is against all sound managerial concepts and sound principles of control and authority in the field of business management, in industry-you name it-to make four or five people responsible for tackling a particular problem, one which is relatively simple to define though somewhat more difficult to police, and much more difficult to allocate resources to meet.
I suggest we do not need the Canada Water Act. The act is a nebulous document, one which is totally ineffective. The provinces do not want it and the minister cannot enforce it. The legislation has no teeth. We want pollution control placed where it belongs, under the Department of Fisheries. We want the responsibility for fighting pollution to lie with the Minister of Fisheries. I do not envy him this role because it would be a major one. I think the Fisheries Act can provide the policing, the personnel and the resources effectively to take action against one of the major enemies of modern society in this twentieth century.
I cannot close on a stronger note than to support 100 per cent the observations made by the hon. members for South Shore, St John's East and South Western Nova in regard to some kind of single authority being vested in one minister, instead of fragmenting and dividing authority to the point where the whole government is made responsible for pollution control. We tried to get away from this sort of thing in the area of regional economic expansion and have been fairly successful. But we are now moving back to it again in the area of pollution control.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) saying all those nice things about the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) I began to wonder whether he was a Liberal backbencher.
April 20, 1970

The Minister of Fisheries made a number of statements this winter in regard to the fisheries. I noticed that they were very similar in content to one he made today and which appears in a press release. He said that healthy fish mean a healthy environment, and a healthy fishery is undoubtedly the best insurance policy we can buy in our battle against pollution in water.
I can understand why the minister makes statements of a similar nature because we have had a number of bills this session that are somewhat similar in nature. When I hear the minister speaking about fish, and so on, I cannot help thinking he had wished that Merlin the magician had touched them with his magic wand so that he really understood how the fish themselves felt and thought. From what he says, one would think he had a fair understanding of fish. I think it is reasonable to equate healthy fish with a healthy environment, and the same could be said of other statements made by the minister.
In view of the great variety of legislation dealing with pollution control that the House is dealing with at the moment, I think if I were a fish I would not be sure just which bill presently before the House was polluting me or was not polluting me. Even as a Member of Parliament I am a little confused as to which bill will deal with which part of Canada.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It is all window-dressing.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Yes. While we are all in favour of anti-pollution measures, I feel that some of these questions may work themselves out in time. At the moment it seems there is some confusion, particularly over the question of authority, as to how these particular bills are going to operate. For example, the minister suggested that the present bill would be dovetailed into the Canada Water Act. If I were a fish, I would say to him that he would probably water it down. It seems to me that some aspects of pollution control, at least, will not be as effective as would be the case if control was kept within the fisheries legislation we are now discussing. I feel that since the Canada Water Act requires the co-operation of the provinces and regional authorities, pollution control would not be nearly as effective as it would be under one authority.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I should like to mention one thing in respect of section 33A in which it is stated that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry
Fisheries Act
will have control in respect of plants in certain areas. A plant, for example, situated on the Fraser River, presumably under the authority of the Canada Water Act, could pass its effluent into the river. The effluent would then pass down into the Pacific Ocean, where it would come under the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It seems to me there is a conflict here. This water would come under the control of the minister after something has happened to it, and it would be his job to clean it up.
I suggest this is a backward move. I believe the reverse should be the situation and that the minister should have authority over the whole region. It would seem that the regional authority would lack the co-operation of many individuals and that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry would have to clean up the water when it reached Vancouver Harbour or the mouth of the Fraser River. I think there might well be some conflict here. I suggest that the minister look into this particular situation to see whether or not further amendments are called for.
For a moment I should like to speak about drilling for oil off the shores of Canada because I understand this matter will be covered by some portion of this bill. I do not quite go along with members representing the Atlantic coast who say there should be no drilling at all for oil. I think his might be desirable in areas where there is a fault such as was the case in respect of Santa Barbara. I suggest that if sufficient precautions were exercised, such as adequate wellhead procedures and control measures, we could continue to drill for oil. I think that if proper procedures were followed we could drill for oil and look after our pollution problem at the same time. I believe that with the high living in society there will be some pollution risk. I am against pollution as much as anyone, but I believe we should be realistic and realize that oil will continue to be used in buses, aeroplanes and motor cars.
It has been suggested by other speakers that there should be more research in various areas concerning pollution control. It seems to me there may be some conflict in respect of our various pollution control measures. It would seem to me also that a need for arbitration in this regard might arise some time in the future unless something is done about this problem. Just the other day I noticed snow and salt on the ice of a river. Presumably this will go into the water and pollute it. Perhaps it is a little thing, but in any event it is part of the problem.

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
I should like to compliment the minister on the bill. I believe other people today have pointed out some of the problems in relation to it. We hope the minister will consider these suggestions and come up with amendments, not necessarily at this session-although it might be that some changes are necessary now-but perhaps next year if it should be found that changes are necessary.
There is one good thing about this bill which I should like to mention. As I read it, the control in respect of pollution will remain in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry until such time as the regional authority comes into effect. I believe this is a very good provision. We do not know how long it will be before these various water management agencies come into effect. If we take the Fraser River again as an example, we notice that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has insisted on some adequate pollution controls being set up. I do not really see that the setting up of a local management authority at a later date would weaken this. Obviously, some good things will result from this legislation but I say we should continue to look at it in the long-term sense and not just for today.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I believe there is a disposition to complete the debate this evening, although I do not believe there will be time to go on to the other piece of legislation which has been scheduled by the House leader, perhaps not very wisely.
I have been interested in this debate. I heard the compliments paid to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). I do not think I can go quite as far as some other members did in their excitement. However, I would pay the minister one compliment. I give him credit for going as far as he has in promoting the eating of fish. This is apart from this legislation, but I know the plans he has for Wednesday night in this regard and I know of the other activities in Ottawa. I believe this is a proper step and the minister deserves credit for his efforts.
I believe the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has stated our case very well. Other members have also done a very good job. The powers given by this legislation are quite extensive. I hope the minister will use these powers wisely. As has been stated, we wish him well. There are two matters, however, which I should like to mention. They

have to do with the Saint John River and, in a sense, with pollution.
I am sure all hon. members are familiar with the beautiful Saint John River which is famous for salmon fishing both sportswise and commercially. The first thing I mention actually happened, and the second was alluded to. In both cases there is a lesson to be learned in dealing fairly with pollution. First of all, the minister found it necessary to move in on the salmon season. I refer to the commercial salmon season in Saint John Harbour and the areas in which the federal authority has jurisdiction. Although I believe in some respects this action was necessary, I did object in this House concerning the length of the restrictions. In addition, proper notice had not been given and there was a feeling that the officials of the department were perhaps unaware of the opening and closing dates of the season.
Without going over the whole story, I merely hope that when the department begins to use this act it will give as much advance notice as possible concerning the results it hopes to obtain in changing a season, because this is very important to the commercial fishermen. I hope they will have studies made so that when they move they will know exactly what they are doing. I hope there will be full preparation and information given to the fishermen. I hope that the salmon they hope to release will get upstream, and that the accomplishments achieved will be understood by the fishermen.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The second matter I wish to raise concerns a problem that may have been presented at least in a hypothetical way in statements concerning pollution of the Saint John River in connection with such-and-such industry at its mouth. The minister will recall that I asked a question in this regard. I only mention the matter to express the hope that with the great powers he is given in this bill the minister will deal with the entire river. I hope every industry will be considered wherever it may be on the river. I hope the public will be made fully aware of what is being done by the department. These are two matters of importance to the commercial fishermen and to the employment provided by industries in the Maritimes. With these two warnings, Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister luck in his efforts on behalf of the future of the fishing industry.
April 20, 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would be disposed to allowing the minister extra time, if he needs it, beyond ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat overwhelmed by some of the kind remarks expressed today about the Fisheries Department and the effective way in which it has been carrying out its duties. I hope we can have the support of all parties in the House in getting this legislation through quickly, but in saying that I do not mean that we should put it through precisely in the form in which it has been introduced. I hope we can improve on it in some way, although I am not certain how. But I am sure that some of the questioning in the committee will produce ideas whereby we can strengthen the bill still further.
I think that the Fisheries Act as amended will be a sharp instrument, a specific tool which we can use to deal with spot situations across the country. I also think it creates standards which are essentially nationwide and, as I said earlier, these will prevent the development of pollution havens which tend to exist in the economically weaker areas of the country.
The question was asked as to why the old sections of the Fisheries Act dealing with pollution had not been enforced more rigorously down through the years. The sections in question were all too embracing, all too comprehensive. For instance, anyone who threw sawdust, bark or lime into a stream could be prosecuted. As the years and decades went by and prosecutions were not laid, it became more and more difficult to enforce legislation of this kind. In other words, it withered away; it fell into disuse, and indeed we failed ourselves in not using it more effectively.
What we really need in legislation of this kind is not an absolute prohibition on everything thrown into our waters but more precise measurements of what can be thrown into water and still keep it clear, clean and useful to the fisheries, and being useful to the fisheries healthy for men and women as well. In other words, we need to know what con-22218-39
Fisheries Act
centrations of a whole range of materials are tolerable, and what concentrations of those materials are not tolerable.
By introducing the word "waste" into the legislation, and by defining in the regulations the concentrations of the various chemicals which can or cannot be tolerated in the fisheries waters of Canada, we will have a more precise and useful tool in legislation which can be enforced throughout the country equitably and effectively. There are various kinds of wastes, not all of which affect fish and not all of which kill fish. The Fisheries Act, as it has been administered, by and large required the evidence of fish that were killed or of fish that were seriously affected by pollutants. Not all chemicals affect fish. Phosphates in some concentrations encourage plant life in the water and may not be too detrimental to fish, but obviously they create unsightly ponds, and so on. Therefore, phosphates have to be dealt with under other legislation.
The Fisheries Act does not solve all the problems. It does not necessarily solve the problem of effluents from municipalities, but it certainly deals with most industrial pollutants. The pulp and paper industry, with some 180 mills across the country, puts the greatest single burden on Canada's rivers and streams. Perhaps 60 per cent of the burden of pollution from industry is placed on Canadian streams by the pulp and paper industry. In fact, a single mill can create as much burden on a river as a city the size of Ottawa does. We can deal in large measure with pollutants from pulp and paper mills through the Fisheries Act. We can deal with the greater part of industrial pollution from chemical plants, from most chemical processing industries, and from many mines. As I say, the Fisheries Act can be used in large measure to deal with pollutant problems which arise from industry but not necessarily from municipalities.
One hon. member mentioned a specific oil refinery to be built at Come-By-Chance in Newfoundland. We are already in touch with the people there, but I would suggest that with the amendments to the Fisheries Act we have the law behind us when we ask for information. If the plans which we discuss with that refinery, or with other refineries, do not meet the standards which our people believe are required to clean up the effluent, then with the agreement of the cabinet by Order in Council we can stop construction until the company in question agrees to

April 20, 1970
Fisheries Act
instal the type of equipment which has been proven effective elsewhere. This is the sort of thing which is contemplated in the bill.
An oil-drilling rig being set up in any of the fisheries waters of Canada would be like a new plant being built on a major salmon stream in another part of the country. We can similarly ask for their plans and their precautions, for information on the processes which they will follow in order to protect the living resources of the water. If the plans, the location and the over-all situation are such as to give the Department of Fisheries real concern, then possibly we can stop the drilling from going ahead.
Mention was made of water quality management areas. In a number of situations, particularly where there are a number and a variety of industries, where there are one or more municipalities, where there is a wide range of ac ivities and a multiplicity of effluents we need the powers not only of one department of the federal government, namely, the Department of Fisheries, but also the powers of the Canada Shipping Act, the powers under our national health legislation, the powers under all the provincial pieces of legisla ion and the powers of municipal bylaws. We need the full force of all the legislative powers and administrative abilities of all three levels of government in such situations, and this in good measure is where the Canada Water Act comes in.
Many hon. members have alluded to the possibility that we could in a sense be downgrading our fisheries powers through this bill, especially with reference to the Canada Water Act and its water control management areas and agencies, but certainly as long as I am Minister of Fisheries, and as long as many of the officers of the department hold their present positions I can say that we are not going to back up one single step when we insist on proper fisheries standards. We are going to make sure that the fisheries standards still ob'aining generally across the country, ob ain in those areas. Some other standards, not necessarily fisheries standards, will apply as well. I would suggest that we will have cleaner water and better conditions for fish in those situa'ions of joint enterprise, joint management and federal, provincial and municipal co-operation in the water quality management areas.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The Northern Inland Waters Act was mentioned. The powers which the Minister of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is asking for under that legislation are similar to those enjoyed by a provincial government, for example, the water right powers. A province could authorize the development of a mine and thus inadvertently authorize something harmful to the local fishery. If a dispute occurs between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, there is a clause in the Fisheries Act which allows it to be resolved around the cabinet table, and if this should occur I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry would carry the day in the cabinet chamber.
Mention was made that a $5,000 fine was inadequate, for example in relation to the Electric Reduction Company in Newfoundland. We did not fine the Electric Reduction Company in order to make retribution for the so-called "red herring" incident in Newfoundland. We asked the company to clean up and it met all our standards. It also finally compensated the fishermen and we expect to recover all our loans. In all, I would say the company was out of pocket nearly $2 million. The company could have avoided this with good planning at the outset.
Before I conclude I shall answer the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan). With the present personnel of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry I do not believe we have enough people to police pollution across Canada. We expect to get help from other departments and municipalities but we need some more staff, particularly competent engineers with knowledge about the optimum design of treatment facilities. We also need more people on the mercury program and more of the machines developed in the last 12 to 18 months that enable us to find the parts per million of mercury in fish. Without that equipment we could never have discovered this problem.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act is a sharp federal tool and one which we can use effectively to deal with pollu ion problems, especially those arising in industry. We cannot solve all the problems, but we can co-operate with other departments of the government in tackling pollution on the broadest possible front. I welcome comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvement in the legislation when we meet in committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 20. 1970	COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

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

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on March 13 I asked the Minister wi.hout Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) if he could tell the House whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has cut off housing loans in cities of over 10,000 population and, if so, why? I am sure the answer the Minister without Portfolio gave me at that time was, to his way of thinking, adequate to fit the needs at that particular time.
I am also certain the minister realizes that the people in the area I come from have run into a situation where there is no private money available. Contractors have made application to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for money and have been told there is no money under the regulation alluded to. There is no private money available for the type of condominium construction being talked about.
One of the main matters that all of us must be concerned about is that several departments of government, particularly the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, are attempting to look after various aspects concerning the whole country and trying to bring about development in some areas of Canada, whereas at the same time Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not permitting development in those areas which are under the jurisdiction of regional economic development programs.
I appreciate that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing has said to the mayor of Moose Jaw that the government is looking at this matter and will examine any proposals that proponents may wish at this time to bring forward. At the same time we realize that it is not good enough when only two areas in Saskatchewan are to be entitled to any consideration under this legislation.
22218-39J
DEBATES	6091
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Actually the two areas, Regina and Saskatoon, will only obtain assistance under this legislation if a real need is shown.
This is really the reason behind my raising this question tonight. I wish to learn from the Minister without Portfolio whether he really is looking at the situation and whether areas across Canada which need assistance now can expect some in the near future. I say this because there is no way that some areas may obtain assistance from private lenders. It is common knowledge that Central Mortgage and Housing leads the way with lending. It appears that private lenders sort of bend their ear to learn what Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is doing, and under those conditions private lenders will look at any enterprise or any type of construction only if it fits into plans concerned with regional economic development. I hope the Minister without Portfolio will give an assurance that he will look at this matter in a very serious manner and will say, in the short time he has available, whether the government will be looking at legislation which will assist communities across the nation in this regard.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to respond to the hon. member. In the allocation
of the $854 million that I described on February 2, I believe, in this House I made the point that section 40 loans, which generally speaking are loans at market interest for individual people building or acquiring houses, had been reduced very considerably from previous years and stand this year at $110 million.
The purpose of this was to allocate much more money and give much greater emphasis to social housing programs such as public housing and section 35 and section 16 housing, those being so-called limited dividend, non-profit operations. We then put $570 million into those other programs, $265 million going into public housing, and this is in turn distributed to the various provinces. That, I think, includes an acceptably generous allocation to the province of Saskatchewan which certainly matches the request that the province had made. It, in turn, totally administers this money in terms of selecting priority of location and the submission of projects, and we do not turn them down except for obvious reasons involving concentration density, style, physical form and so on. But it is totally at the discretion of the provincial government to allocate that money to the various communities.
6092	COMMONS DEBATES	April 20, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In addition to that, $105 million was put into section 16 housing. I grant that the initial distribution of that money is going into large urban centres at the present time, but we will be moving beyond that stage a very few weeks from now and going to other areas. On top of that, $200 million is being reserved for what I describe as innovated experimental projects. It will be distributed among the other urban centres, including the one to which I think my hon. friend is referring. There is still much to unfold, but essentially one cannot do both. We cannot look after all the private sector through loans made under section 40 and at the same time have all the social housing programs that we want, even with an increased but still restrained budget. If the hon. member can give me specifics in private communication, I will be delighted to do my best to see if there are any particular problems I might help smooth out.



HISTORIC SITES-ACQUISITION OF RESIDENCE OF SIR ROBERT BORDEN

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: 
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I do
not intend to try to answer in the eloquent terms which the hon. member has used, Mr. Speaker. This house was designated by the minister as being of national historic significance upon recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The board recommended that every effort be made to preserve the building and that it be marked by a plaque. Having studied Sir Robert Borden's life a little, I think he might have been glad that the area where he lived should provide accommodation for so many people in need of homes.
DEBATES	6093
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It is my understanding that shortly after the designation of the house by the minister as being of national significance, it was sold by the previous owner, a foreign government, to a developer for use as the site of a high-rise apartment building. This developer has, I believe, now commenced demolition of the house and it is my understanding that the roof is already partially removed and the interior gutted. I am sorry to say, therefore, that it is in fact too late to preserve the house.
It should be mentioned that designation of a house by the minister as being of national significance does not imply any obligation on the part of the minister to ensure that such a building continues to be preserved, although it does imply an effort at preservation. A number of buildings of this kind have been thus designated by the minister in recent years and very often the act of designation has ensured the preservation of the house by local interests. In some instances co-operative agreements have been entered into with local groups whereby costs of preservation have been shared.
In this instance it is, unfortunately, too late to take any appropriate action. Even if action had been feasible it must be pointed out that it would have cost almost half a million dollars to acquire the house and ensure its preservation, and this sum would have been disproportionately high in relation to the total budget of the National Historic Sites Service. I would further mention that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is well aware that the department operates on a very limited budget for historic preservation, especially at this time. The budget for contingencies is necessarily a very small one and there were no funds available at the time the emergency arose concerning the demolition of this house.


Thomas Miller Bell: Did you get the plaque back?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Tuesday, April 21, 1970