1970-10-23

Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the adoption of a federal identity program for all operations of the federal government and administration.
The main purpose of this program is to provide a co-ordinated and readily recognizable means of identifying federal activities. We believe that the interests of Canadian confederation are served when the people of Canada understand the realms of responsibility of the governments which serve them, and when they are able to identify the source of government services available to them. For this reason, it seems desirable to have a simple system of distinguishing designs, familiar to all Canadians, to identify federal activities. The program which we are adopting does not supplant any existing emblem of Canada. There has never been an emblem which represents the Canadian government as an entity within the Canadian nation. This program is intended to fill that need.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)

Mr. Speaker, the design consists of two devices from the flag; a red bar with a red maple leaf on a white square to its right, followed on the right by the bilingual identification in black of the Canadian government, the department, agency or other unit or function of the federal government. The bar and leaf may, on occasion, be rendered in black when use of colour is not practical.
Members may be aware that, in the absence of an identification system designed for all federal activities, departments have increasingly adopted their own designs so that, at the moment, there are more than two dozen different identifying designs in use by federal departments, to say nothing of boards and agencies. Many of them contain no element suggesting a relationship with the government of Canada. The new federal identity program will replace this multiplicity of designs in everyday use.
The coat of arms and the flag, of course, will continue to be used and honoured as emblems of Canada, the
nation. Indeed, we believe that the adoption of a distinct design for identifying federal government activities will enhance the prestige and dignity of those symbols representing the nation as a whole.
The new program will be implemented gradually, starting on a limited basis immediately. During the next three months, a careful evaluation will be made of its application to stationery, signs, advertising, and so on. General introduction will commence early in the new year and continue until the end of 1973, as existing stationery stocks are exhausted and signs or vehicles need repainting or replacement.
When the new design has come into full use, Canadians will be able to identify more readily the activities of their federal government and its role in our nation. In this respect the program should be a significant means of strengthening Canadian confederation itself.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his courtesy in providing us with a copy of this two-page document half an hour ago. I will be equally as brief in my comments as he was in making the announcement because, quite frankly, the substance of the document deserves brevity, to say the least.
I must say I believe that statement made by the minister today is a sad reflection of the priorities of this government which seems to be preoccupied with pomp, circumstance and symbols rather than with the substance of nation-building. The bread and butter issues seem to go out the window and we are supposed to have symbols and cake in our bellies rather than policies of this government. As all hon. members know, this is an unprecedented time in our history; yet the minister stands up in this House and puts forward a mouse that the mountain has produced, a policy on symbols for this land which makes me wonder whether the situation in Canada is as serious as we have been led to believe, or is it a sham? Are the minister and the government completely insulting and showing no respect for the intelligence of the Canadian people and displaying their usual nerve in bringing forward this statement, or is it just naivete on the part of this minister? We want statements on policy, not symbols on paper, and it is high time we got them.
Is this symbol of the government of Canada another step on the road to big brother in 1984? This country has had a symbol for Canada which we have all respected, a coat of arms which spells out Canada. Are the House of Commons and the people to have a government of Canada symbol, which right now should be in black or are they to continue with the coat of arms? There are many questions we could ask, but I shall not take the time of the House today in insulting the intelligence of the people of Canada any more than they have been

October 23, 1970
Information Canada
insulted by this statement. We want statements on the War Measures Act, on the right to counsel, the protection of our rights, and on where the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stands in respect of FRAP.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that his comments at this time should be on the statement and not on what might have been, should have been or ought to have been in the statement. I would ask him to direct his remarks to the statement.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with about one sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Words fail me in trying to comment-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -positively and constructively on this statement. I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the government that the people of this country will understand the relationship between the government of Canada and the people of this nation only when this government produces policies on matters such as social security so that we can get away from paper and get down to policies that the people understand.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, the thought
that came to my mind after listening to the minister's announcement about the simple colours involved is that the Minister of Finance must have had some hand in the decision which was made. Apparently the federal government has found a way to be in the red and the black at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barry Mather: Actually, I think the announcement is one of the least harmful that the government has made for some time. The minister is in charge of Information Canada. I wish to take this opportunity to urge him to give us and the country as soon as possible more worthwhile and important information as to what Information Canada is actually doing for the benefit of the public. I believe there are 40 requests for the product on of papers on the order paper, which would supply information to the members of the House and to their constituents. Instead of concerning itself so much with symbols, colours and other harmless trappings, Information Canada and the government as a whole ought to give the people the kind of information the people want and not the kind of information the government wishes them to have.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister this morning follows up, I believe, previous statements made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), in which he said, for instance, that if a province did not want to
give recognition to the federal government's participation in some project, Ottawa would withhold its contribution.
According to the statement made this morning, the federal government wants its participation in any project to be recognized by the provinces, as, for example, the building of hospitals and technical schools and also the development of eastern or western Canada. Symbols will be used to show people that the federal government has really contributed to the establishment of hundreds of services, something people are often unaware of.
I think that people should be informed about provincial developments in which Ottawa is sharing. They should even be acquainted with municipal and school projects. They should be told what level of government is building roads.
But I wonder if this matter is so important at a time when many other things should be attended to and when legislation should be brought in to boost the Canadian economy.
Let us use symbols to inform people about the participation of the federal government and the provincial, municipal or school authorities in certain projects. Canadians will then know what the federal government is doing. As for the latter, it will do all it can to get the Canadian economy moving again.


[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)



ELECTION EXPENSES


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 21, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That a Special Committee be established to consider the question of the limitation and control of election expenses in Canada and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon;
That the Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee; and to delegate to subcommittees any of its powers, except the power to report directly to the House;
That the evidence adduced by the Committee during the past Session in relation thereto be referred to the said Committee; and
That the Members of the Committee be designated at a later date.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:

October 23, 1970
[Stage Direction]
October 21, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That in relation to S. 22 of the Representation Commissioner Act, Statutes of Canada 1963, C. 40, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be empowered to review the provisions of the Representation Commissioner Act and recommend to the House any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that to the said Committee shall appear to be necessary or desirable, and the evidence adduced by the Committee during the past Session in relation thereto be referred to the said Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 21, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its Committees, including the legal, procedural, and technical aspects thereof, and the question of arrangements made for reporters for the electronic media in the Parliament Buildings, and the evidence adduced by the Committee during the past Session in relation thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



REFERENCE OF QUESTION OF MEASURES TO ENSURE SECURITY OF GALLERIES TO STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 21, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That the question of measures to be taken to ensure the security of the galleries of the House, and the evidence adduced by the Committee during the past Session in relation thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 21, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 1969, and the Auditor General's Report thereon, and the evidence adduced by the Committee during the past Session in relation thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 21, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That the papers entitled "Foreign Policy for Canadians", laid before the House June 25, 1970, be referred to the Standing Com-mitttee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. It is now nearly three weeks since the kidnapping of James Cross, one week since the invocation of the War Measures Act and almost a week since the foul murder of Pierre Laporte. Can the Solicitor General explain to the House the apparent lack of success of police efforts and the reports now being made that they are at a dead end and are relying upon tips? Can the Solicitor General give the country any assurance in this regard?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with three difficult criminal offences, and I am now speaking of that aspect of the whole situation. The two kidnappings and the murder and under investigation and it is not possible to give from time to time all the information I would like to give. I cannot accept the proposition that the police are at a dead end in this matter.


An hon. Member:: That is what the police said.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member wishes he can accept the words of those who said it, but I must speak as best I can in answering a responsible question by the Leader of the Opposition. The information I have received from our federal police sources does not support the statement that they are at a dead end. I am not able to give the bits and pieces of information that I might like to give in order to develop the subject. I regret that under the circum-
510

October 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
stances at the moment I am not in a position to give more complete information in that regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Solicitor General explain why the government has not acted on the suggestion made some time ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert that a reward be offered, especially since in the course of the last week the government has been relying upon all resources of pursuit and there are indications that tips are now quite important to the police, as presumably they always have been?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter of a reward has daily been receiving very close attention. The decision not to offer an award was made in circumstances that were relevant from day to day but it was considered and was made for very good reasons that I will be happy to explain to the House as soon as we can do so.


An hon. Member:: When?


George James McIlraith: The hon. member asks when. I am sorry I cannot give that information at the moment. The fact that warrants have been issued for the arrest of two persons has been well publicized. One cannot give information in the House of Commons that might be helpful to these persons, much as it might be attractive and desirable to do so. I regret being in this awkward position. I do not like it, but I believe there is an element of responsibility that must be exercised in these cases, however regrettable it may be that we cannot satisfy the curiosity of some hon. members.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I must say it is not at all clear to any of us why the offer of a reward should create any difficulty, but may I ask the Solicitor General this question: In view of the time which has elapsed and the difficulties to which he has referred, and in view of the experience of police forces in other parts of the world in connection with the detection and tracing of terrorists and kidnappers, have the Solicitor General, the government and the authorities generally brought in experts from around the world to assist in the pursuit?


George James McIlraith: We have some experts on this subject quite outside the police forces concerned and we have been using their services on different aspects of the investigation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the minister's difficulty with regard to giving details of what has been going on in the last week or so, but can he tell this House what federal initiatives, if any, were taken by himself and his law officers after receiving the information presented by Mayor Drapeau and Mr. Saulnier last December when they appeared before the committee investigating the Company of Young Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that the supplementary question is very much broader than the question originally asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It might be acceptable later, but not as a supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was because of the long and laborious answer given by the minister that this subject was opened up. I can appreciate his difficulties in pursuing the horrible criminals. I am trying to pursue the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: His laborious answer opened up this field, and I submit that my question is perfectly proper.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has an opinion and lie is, of course, entitled to it. I do not think the question is a proper supplementary but I will return to the hon. member in due course.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Would the Prime Minister explain to the House on motions why the government did not decide to use the sedition act months ago when the FLQ was known to be in possession of large quantities of explosives?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will be glad to consider that point if the hon. member will tell me what the sedition act is. I have never heard of such an act.



INFORMATION LEADING TO INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Last Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 427 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Prime Minister and the right hon. gentleman promised he would take it under consideration. My question arose out of the fact that at least three ministers, both inside the House and outside, have referred to confidential intelligence reports and evidence upon which they based their conclusion that a state of apprehended insurrection obtained in this country. I asked the Prime Minister at that time whether he was prepared to give the House such information or such evidence, or whether he felt it would be better to postpone any public statement until later. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to give this information to the leaders of the various parties? I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement in the course of the next few days as to the course the government intends to pursue, whether he will give the House, either publicly or privately, the basis of the information upon which they took the step they did in determining there was a state of apprehended insurrection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: By now I
would have thought this information was in the hands of everybody. We have at various times explained why the War Measures Act was brought in at the time it was. The first fact was that there had been kidnappings of two very important people in Canada and that they were being held for ransom under threat of death. The second was that the government of the province of Quebec and the authorities of the city of Montreal asked the federal government to permit the use of exceptional measures

October 23, 1970

because, in their own words, a state of apprehended insurrection existed. The third reason was our assessment of all the surrounding facts, which are known to the country by now-the state of confusion that existed in the province of Quebec in regard to these matters.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government had any evidence of a conspiracy to bring about an insurrection, and of the statement made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that there were thousands of rifles, machine guns and bombs in the possession of the FLQ? Is the government prepared to tell the House whether or not that information was in its possession, and is the government prepared to produce the source of that information? Or is the government acting entirely on the basis of statements made to it by other authorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, not entirely on the recommendations made by other authorities, though that was obviously an important element in our decision. When the authorities of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal say that there is a state of apprehended insurrection existing, then we take that statement to be a serious one. They are elected by the people and are responsible governments. But that is not the only source of information; of course it is not. There are other facts which have been made known to the public-that a great quantity of dynamite has been stolen in Quebec during the last year and not recovered, that there is a great quantity-1 do not know the exact number but at any rate it is substantial-of rifles and small arms that have disappeared.
I wish the leader of the New Democratic Party would ask himself how much information Kerensky had in the spring and summer of 1917 when he was pooh-poohing the possibility of an insurrection which in fact happened in October, 1917.



ALLEGATION BY MAYOR OF MONTREAL THAT FRAP IS HAVEN FOR TERRORISTS AND REVOLUTIONARIES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question arising out of this matter to the Solicitor General. May I ask the minister about the statement made yesterday by the mayor of Montreal to the effect that the FRAP organization is a haven for terrorists, criminals and revolutionaries? Does the information that the Solicitor General has from the police authorities substantiate that charge and, if so, is he taking any action with respect thereto?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of entering the Montreal civic election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: I do not think it is appropriate to ask me to comment on statements made outside the House by someone who is not a member of the House. I am quite prepared to answer such questions as I am able to answer relating to matters that are properly the concern of Parliament.



INFORMATION LEADING TO INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, who as I understood him is now suggesting that the public had available to it the information upon which the government based its decision. May I ask the Prime Minister how he reconciles this statement with the statement made by the Minister of Justice that it might not ever be possible to disclose to the public the information upon which the government based its decision, since it might endanger the lives of innocent people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the facts that I have recited and which are known to the House were sufficient for us to take the steps we did. I am not saying that beyond that there are not other facts which may or may not be known to the public. It is a matter that will be left to the police, as far as I am concerned. I say that the facts that are known to the House are the facts on which we acted, and it is on that that we stand.



WAR MEASURES ACT-OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN LETTERS TO PRIME MINISTER

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I might reply to a question put yesterday by the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste as to whether I had received letters or telegrams approving implementation of the War Measures Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have received 2,500 telegrams and 2,600 letters, 97 per cent of them supporting government action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ALLEGATION BY MAYOR OF MONTREAL THAT FRAP IS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question put to him already, but may I put it in a different way. May I ask the Solicitor General whether the federal police or any other police force, to his knowledge, has information to the effect that FRAP is a haven for terrorists, criminals and revolutionaries? Does he have such information?


George James McIlraith: To my knowledge at the moment, no, Mr. Speaker.
512

October 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



WAR MEASURES ACT-SUGGESTED INDEPENDENT COMMISSION TO SUPERVISE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Solicitor General has been in touch with this matter, but last Wednesday I asked the Minister of Justice whether he or any other minister of the government or the Attorney General of Quebec was considering the appointment of an independent committee to be in contact with the people arrested, a suggestion that is now supported, I believe, by all the churches of Canada. May I ask the Solicitor General whether he knows if this is being considered and if there is any intention of appointing such a committee?


George James McIlraith: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal I can usefully add to what the Minister of Justice has said on this subject-


David Lewis: The minister said that he would draw it to the attention of the Attorney General of Quebec.


George James McIlraith: I thank the hon. member for correcting his leader on that point. There is very little I can add to what the Minister of Justice said in explaining the situation to the House. It is my understanding that it is being considered by the justice minister of the province under whose immediate responsibility the matter falls.



ACTIVITIES OF PAUL CLICHE, PRESIDENT OF FRAP

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
If the minister to whom this question was put a moment ago by a representative of the New Democratic Party is aware that Mr. Paul Cliche is president of FRAP and that this movement is a cover for the terrorists in Montreal, does he know that Mr. Paul Cliche is also a strong supporter of the New Democratic Party in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Lewis: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York South rising on a question of privilege?


David Lewis: I certainly am, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to hon. members and to Your Honour that when a charge is made by a minister of the crown smearing an entire group of people, and that charge is repeated by the mayor of Montreal, it is the worst kind of McCarthyism for the hon. member for Temiscamingue to do the kind of thing he did, smearing a named person, Paul Cliche-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may resent it but that does not make it a question of privilege. I am sure he appreciates that.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Paul Cliche is not in this House and he ought not to be smeared by an irresponsible reactionary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that we are entering the field of debate at the present time; I suggest to the hon. member that this is a point of debate, not a question of privilege in any event.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I do not wish to contradict the member for York South, but I would like to point out to the House that I have been personally acquainted with Mr. Paul Cliche for many years and that he belongs to the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a supplementary question which I am sure is not related to the exchange we have just had between hon. members. The hon. member for Joliette.



REQUEST BY QUEBEC GOVERNMENT AND MONTREAL MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES FOR INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister in order to define, I think, a matter that many Canadians are concerned about.
Is it really a fact that the Quebec and Montreal authorities asked the federal government for assistance concerning the problems of which we are all aware?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can only repeat what I said a moment ago and last Friday morning when I announced that the government had taken those measures at the request of the authorities mentioned. I even tabled in the House the letters in which the government of the province of Quebec and Montreal municipal authorities expressed their fear of an insurrection. Besides, those letters have appeared in the official report of the House of Commons' debates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow a supplementary question to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. In view of the few minutes left during the question period, perhaps we might then try to cover a few other subjects.



ACTIVITIES OF FLQ-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Because of the smearing effect on innocent people as

October 23, 1970

individuals and groups of the statement made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to the effect that the FLQ had infiltrated virtually all the major institutions in Quebec, including our political party among others, would the Prime Minister consider making a statement as soon as possible in the House providing documentary evidence of this statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
accept the premise, Mr. Speaker, so I have no intention of making such a statement.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has the decision to close the Canadian Armed Forces base at Rivers, Manitoba, been reconsidered, since it is the only suitable airfield available for transporting troops in any emergency from Camp Shilo, as was shown by the extreme difficulties experienced last week in the enforced reactivating of Rivers in order to move troops to Montreal?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, these facts were very much taken into account when the earlier decisions were arrived at but there has been no reconsideration since the event the hon. member has referred to.
:je si! sfc



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Can he indicate whether the contentions of Mr. Drapeau concerning the FRAP organization in Montreal, which has been widely publicized during the last day, were communicated to the federal government or to the RCMP and, if so, were they communicated with supporting information and evidence?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is an election in Montreal this weekend and the question seems to be designed to bring out information with relation to that election. As I indicated earlier, I have no intention whatever of being drawn into this municipal election by any member of this House. It would not be a proper use of my role in the House to let myself be drawn into that situation. I will look at the hon. member's question very carefully and if there is any information sought in the question that can be provided on Monday I will try to do so.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ADVERTISEMENTS IN ALLEGED REVOLUTIONARY MAGAZINE

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with FLQ infiltration in all circles.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Civil Service Commission is attempting to recruit civil servants through competitions advertised in Le Quartier Latin, a clearly revolutionary sheet supporting separatism and the FLQ?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can find
this information. He is asking if the right hon. Prime Minister is aware of this fact, and I do not believe that the question asked in this manner is acceptable.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has any decision been made on the further reduction of the phosphate content in detergents under the provisions of the Canada Water Act?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government banned the content of phosphorous pentox-ide in detergents to the extent of 20 per cent by weight as of August 1, and banned the use of phosphates altogether by January 1, 1972. At the time of the ban the industry said it was scientifically impossible to achieve these two objectives, either the 20 per cent by August 1 or the January 1, 1972, total ban. I note now that some of the industry has full page advertisements to the effect that they have already achieved 100 per cent removal of phosphates from detergents, and we are reviewing to see whether or not the January 1, 1972, date can be brought forward.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Before asking my supplementary I would urge the minister first to proceed as quickly as possible. Is any intermediate order intended between now and the final ban?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that a diminishing of quantities would be useful. It would be technically difficult and would not do a great deal of good. I think the thing to investigate, now that the industry has been able to make their scientific progress much more rapid than they had anticipated, and the most useful exercise to perform, is to find out how quickly we can push the January 1, 1972, date forward.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether his department
October 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
has under review the substance or substances that manufacturers may be using instead of phosphates, and has he any information he can give the House on whether or not they may have any pollutant effect?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, NTA, which is the major substitute, has been used in Sweden for some years and our scientists have investigated the effect there and have also consulted Swedish scientists in this regard. We are also continuing our own independent research in this area. To date, while we are satisfied that the banning of phosphates was the proper decision, there is no complete and comprehensive scientific conclusion which can be made as to NTA. We are satisfied to date that it is a substitute which is worth while.



PHOSPHATES-NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES FOR CONTINENTAL BAN

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, since 80 per cent of phosphorous pollution emanates from the United States, has the minister negotiated with the United States government with a view to effecting a continental agreement banning phosphates, either through talks with the U.S. cabinet or through the International Joint Commission?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, on June 23, I believe it was, we had international meetings with the United States, the Canadian team being led by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the United States team led by Russell Train, the president's environmental council director. That committee is continuing to sit. One of the recommendations at that time was a total ban on phosphates on both sides of the border. We are continuing our representations with the United States in this regard, but to date we have achieved no agreement.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I tried to catch your attention a few minutes ago because it relates to an earlier topic. In light of a statement by the Minister of Justice yesterday, is it the position of the government that the police should inform the families of all those detained under the War Measures Act, and I underline the word "all"? If this has not yet been the case, would the Prime Minister explain on motions or otherwise what regulation or statute empowers the police to withhold such information?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in the statement of the Minister of Justice of Quebec, which was tabled yesterday in the House by the Attorney General of Canada and I believe printed in Hansard, the Minister of Justice of Quebec said that all those who have been detained and
have requested access either to their families or to counsel have received it. The hon. member can read the statement.
lLater:l


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the appendix in yesterday's Hansard. It might be well if my answer was given in the context of the following words which appeared in Hansard yesterday:
...the police have already contacted the families or individuals the detained persons have requested to have informed.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a question for the Prime Minister. Prior to any government financial settlement with the shareholders of Dosco, will this matter be brought before the House for agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and refer it to the appropriate minister.


Donald MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In taking the question as notice, will the Prime Minister also inquire of the Minister of Justice whether the list of shareholders will be made available along with the dates when the shares were acquired by the individuals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is supplementary to a question which I asked him two weeks ago today. Is the minister yet in a position to report to the House on his discussions with the CNR concerning the increases in pensions by the Canadian National as recommended by a standing committee of this House and concurred in by the House itself?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker. I am not at all certain whether it would be appropriate for me to report to the House regarding discussions between myself and officials of CNR. I can advise the hon. member that I have conveyed to the CNR officially the findings of the committee and the decision of the House. If there is anything subsequent to that which I can appropriately report I will, but I assume that this matter will emerge in the normal way through questioning before committees or in some other fashion.

October 23, 1970



HOUSING


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio charged with housing. Can the minister give an assurance that CMHC financing will be refused in developments near airports which violate the transport ministry's compatible land use table?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: It
is my understanding that information has not yet been published regarding the compatible land use table, but I can assure the hon. member that consultations with the Department of Transport are proceeding with regard to revising CMHC requirements for residential developments to make sure they are compatible with their views.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider deferring such financing for potential violations until the table is published?


Robert Knight Andras: We will give that consideration.



WELFARE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
right hon. Prime Minister. As the number of people receiving welfare assistance in metropolitan Toronto rose to a record of 47,079 last month, an increase of approximately 50 per cent compared with the same time last year, and as that figure is predicted to rise by 50 per cent over the next five months, will the government give emergency relief payments to that city and to other cities in Canada with the same problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, the federal government pays 50 per cent of every dollar through the Canada Assistance Plan. I would think this is a sufficient answer.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: In view of the fact that employables are now coming on the rolls in great numbers and that the 50 per cent payment is not sufficient to take care of the situation, would the government consider giving relief to the extent of 100 per cent in respect of employables in view of the fact that the city says this situation is due to the anti-inflationary policy of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The last part of the hon. member's question put him out of order.



FINANCE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him whether
Inquiries of the Ministry
it is in accordance with government policy that chartered banks should reduce their interest rates on money lent in line with the recent reductions by the Bank of Canada and, if so, will he consult these banks to determine why they are reluctant to give up their high interest rates which do nothing toward fighting unemployment?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: I think they should, and I will be glad to consult them.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will he report back to the House on this?


Edgar John Benson: Certainly.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that there seems to be some discrepancy between the figure which the minister gave the House on Wednesday with respect to the number of persons who have been detained under the War Measures Act regulations and that issued by the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, may I ask the minister whether he can now give us the figures he has regarding the number of persons who have been detained and the number who have been released? Can the minister also tell us the number of persons who have been charged and whether or not all these individuals have had a chance to communicate with their families and to secure counsel?


George James McIlraith: I am very glad of the opportunity to clear up that matter. The number of persons released following detention under the special powers was 102 as of last night. The number still held as of last night was 232. The hon. member will notice that when those figures are added together the total of 334 is smaller than the figure which had previously been given of the number of people detained. I am getting precise information on that, but it appears-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are running out of time and there are a number of hon. members who appear to have questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. It seems to me extremely important that when the minister tells us that 379 people have been detained and now we have a figure of 334 we should know what has happened to these people. I will not press the point now at this late hour, but the minister should undertake to make a full statement on Monday regarding the number of people who have been detained, the number who have been released and other particulars.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my suggestion that this can be done early next week, but we have about reached the end of

October 23, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
the question period and I was hoping I could recognize one or two hon. members before we call orders of the day.



REPORTING OF COMMITTEE EXPENSES

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Keni):: I should like to direct my question to the Government House Leader. In order that the House may have better control of its activities and expenses, will the Government House Leader bring in a motion referring to the Committee on Procedure and Organization for report the need of all committees of the House to file a complete report of the expenses incurred during the previous session?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: This subject was touched upon in our debate on the establishment of the Constitutional Committee and I believe there was general agreement that we should look at this question. How we do it is a matter that I will be happy to consider.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Would the minister also consider including in any motion when setting up a special committee the matter of the estimated cost? The figures of $300,000 to $500,000 are being bandied about regarding certain committees, and this is very nerveracking.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago, when I suggested that the Solicitor General might make a statement early next week giving the information for which I asked, the minister indicated he was willing to give it now. Would the House agree to revert to motions to allow the minister to make his statement because it is exceedingly important to the House to know what persons have been detained and what disposition has been made of these persons?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: that Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act,
be read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago if there were to be an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act the chances are that it would not even cause a ripple of excitement, except among the relatively small shipping community. However, over the last few years that situation clearly has changed, and as I speak to this proposed amending bill today I am very conscious of an incident which occurred several months ago, in fact in February of this year. At that time, I flew over a very attractive part of Nova Scotia known as Chedabucto Bay and saw the appalling damage that had already been caused as a result of the grounding of the tanker Arrow and the subsequent spill of many hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil on to the waters and shoreline of that particular area.
This incident was probably the most dramatic of many that have occured in recent months and years. It brought home to us all very clearly the necessity for significant changes in the powers that the government must have, that the people of Canada must have, to ensure first of all that such incidents are kept to an absolute minimum and, secondly, that when these do occur there is a means through which we can ensure that the responsible parties cover the costs involved in any clean-up operation.
It might be useful, Mr. Speaker, if on this occasion I took a moment or two to discuss the Arrow incident and its aftermath. In doing so my first responsibility, and indeed it is a pleasure, is to compliment Dr. McTaggart-Cowan and the members of his task force on the excellent job they did in cleaning up and controlling the aftermath and the effects of the Arrow oil spill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It may be, Mr. Speaker, on this particular occasion and in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in Canada today, that it is also appropriate for me to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly those stationed on the east coast of Canada, did a superb job under very difficult conditions. They illustrated in that case, as they have in the past and I have no doubt will again in the future, their ability to cope with an extreme situation of this sort whether it be in terms of the environment or in any other way. So, I do want as well to pay a well deserved tribute to Canada's Armed Forces and their leaders for the invaluable help they gave us in connection with the Arrow disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, when I was in the broadcasting profession, I could not possibly imagine any field in which there were more instant experts. Almost invariably I discovered that the total population of Canada knew far more about broadcasting than I did, but I can now report to you with a great deal of accuracy that there is one other subject on which all Canadians appear to feel they are experts. I refer to the method of cleaning up oil spills and coping with these problems generally.

October 23. 1970

From the very first day that the Arrow disaster occurred, I received literally an avalanche of letters, phone calls and other forms of communication, all purporting to have the total answer to the problem. The fact of the matter, as of course we can see now in retrospect and in particular on the basis of the excellent report of the McTaggart-Cowan task force, is that there is no simple or unique solution that can be applied everywhere oil spills occur. The circumstances will vary from one part of our coastline to another. They will vary substantially depending on the time of year at which an oil spill occurs, and they will vary, too, depending on the kind of oil that happens to be involved.
Of course, the circumstances in the Chedabucto Bay area were amongst the worst we are likely to encounter in that the incident occurred in February, in the dead of winter. Water temperatures were extremely cold. The oil involved was a very thick type, commonly called bunker C type oil. This combination of circumstances created what, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, must be among the worst circumstances we could have encountered.
As a result of that difficulty, I believe we have now devised within Canada a competence with regard to dealing with oil spills that is superior to that known to authorities in almost any other part of the world. One of the examples I may give in support of that contention is the fact that for the first time in the case of the Arrow disaster means were devised, again with the co-operation of our Armed Forces, through which it was possible to attach valves to the vessel under water, and pump the oil through quite an involved system of heating coils so that it could be brought up to a point where it would flow.
The whole story of the operation is one that I believe would impress hon. members both with the ingenuity, and in some respects the courage, of Canada's Armed Forces whose divers went down in that very murky, cold and difficult water to carry out the exercise. But at the moment the important point to emphasize is that, although we have that known competence now in the circumstances surrounding the Arrow disaster, I would not want to mislead the House into thinking that we know everything there is to know about how to deal with an oil spillage of major magnitude.
The one that occurred more recently in the gulf near Prince Edward Island was of a completely different nature, and therefore we had to apply different techniques in that case. Mercifully, I may say, the bad effects of that particular spill were kept to a minimum. However, this was due as much to the fact that it occurred in the summer and that we were able to employ different techniques, rather than to the fact that we know everything there is to know about clean-up operations. I want to make that clear for a reason that will become apparent in a few moments in more detail.
The real objective of this legislation is not to so much, as has been emphasized, to ensure that somebody else pays for the clean-up operation. The real objective of this legislation is to guarantee to the maximum degree possible, to the extent that it is humanly possible, that oil spills will not occur at all. That must be our objective.
Canada Shipping Act
Now, Mr. Speaker, although I was born and lived all my life with the sea at my doorstep, I was not what might be called an expert on marine law until I became involved in these rather difficult problems during the current year. However, I have been fascinated during the past several months to study the evolution of marine law, and some of the rather strange and wonderful involvements that there have been of various groups in determining how shipping is controlled, not only in Canada and Canadian waters but throughout the world.
I do not propose to subject hon. members to a lengthy history lesson, but I do want to mention the fact that for centuries the great bulk of marine law was designed to do one of two things, either to protect the shipping community in one way or another or to protect life at sea. Indeed, when one looks at the quite massive amount of legislation within our own country on this subject, it is apparent that through all the years the main concern of our legislators has been to ensure that seamen were given the maximum amount of protection. We have commendable success in that regard, particularly when one sees the conditions that exist on most vessels today and compares them with the circumstances that existed on vessels even 20 or 25 years ago. But the truth is that until comparatively recent times no thought was given to pollution and its effects in terms of ocean shipping.
I suppose that is only natural, when one considers that up until fairly recent times the size of vessels was somewhat limited and we did not have what constitutes the greatest menace of our day, these massive tankers which now ply the sea routes and, in many cases, move into and out of Canadian waters. So, this bill we are now proposing and commending to hon. members, is designed to give to the Canada Shipping Act what might be described as a new look. We are hoping that through this measure we will add this new dimension to marine law, and will ensure that the shipping community assumes a greater measure of responsibility for the potential hazards that are inherent in the movement of large quantities of various items, but particularly oil, which can be a potential threat to the environment.
e (12:10 p.m.)
Let me now return to what I mentioned a few moments ago as the main objective of this legislation. Hon. members, I hope, will feel free in the committee stage on the bill to examine it thoroughly. For that reason I shall not burden the House today with the specifics of what we intend to do. Rather I shall try, with a rather broad brush, to outline the general principles involved and then permit members during the committee stage on this bill to question not only expert witnesses but myself, if they so desire, concerning what the specifics are.
Essentially, in terms of the insurance, I can point out specifically that one of the things the commission investigating the Arrow disaster discovered was that this was, in every sense of the word, a tramp. This was a very badly constructed ancient vessel which had not been kept
518

October 23, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
up to standard. The record, as now publicized in the report of the committee, indicates that two navigation items were not operative and that in a whole series of ways this was not a vessel which could be classed as being suitable for the transportation of oil. May I point out to hon. members that in terms of today's standards of transport this was literally a toy ship in size. It was only a comparatively small ship in terms of the 250,000, 300,000, 400,000 and even 500,000 ton vessels now being constructed or designed. Yet, we have seen the appalling effects of this spill. This legislation will give us the right, in a sense as Canadian citizens, to legislate to establish standards for vessels carrying major pollutants which we will permit into our waters.
In other words, we will say, as we did in the case of the voyage of the Manhattan, that there are standards we as the Canadian government will lay down. If these standards are not followed, the ship cannot be used in the transportation trade of Canada. In addition, there are considerations in respect of hull design, such as the number of compartments that ought to be in the vessel and other things having to do with the structure itself. We will have the authority to ensure that navigation aids of various kinds are up to scratch, and that the vessel is properly equipped in every respect as well as adequately and skillfully manned to the point where the hazards can be reduced to the minimum.
But we will not simply leave it at this because it is also possible, as particularly those of us from the coastal parts of our country know, for even the best constructed vessel to run into trouble for reasons beyond the control of the captain. I believe there are phrases in Marine law such as, "acts of God" and "beyond the control of the captain and crew". So, we must do something to ensure that the vessels are sound and that they operate in our waters only under conditions which ensure that there is the minimum amount of risk.
There is, therefore, provision in these amendments in respect of the establishment of pollution control to give those who will be designated from time to time by the government the right to go on board vessels in our waters and issue instructions to those vessels not to come into a port or, conversely, not to leave port because of weather conditions and so on in order, again, to minimize the hazards. The work, particularly in respect of the Arrow, has indicated the necessity for this kind of legislation. The Arrow incident occurred on an extremely bad and foggy day, so we had the worst possible combination of conditions. The crew may or may not have been in some measure familiar with the area and may or may not have been totally competent but, in addition, there were bad weather conditions. So, in this legislation we are moving to ensure that such a situation cannot occur again. In other words, the legislation provides us with more power than we have had up until now to designate traffic patterns.	,
One comment Dr. McTaggart-Cowan made was that, in terms of international air transport, corridors are established and rights of way are declared. This also is our ideal. We propose the same kind of measures in terms of

water transport within Canada's territorial waters. We will designate routes and will have the opportunity to control traffic so that there are not two or more vessels in the same region at the same time, if there should be a potential for collision or anything of that nature. We hope that through this combination of measures we will reduce very drastically the prospects of any major disaster of this nature occurring again. In this connection I might say we have also in this legislation proposed that not only the cargo of the vessels, that is the oil cargo, but that also the bunkering be included as part of the total package subject to control measures.
In many cases large vessels, such as I referred to earlier, actually carry for bunkering purposes, even though they may carry all manner of cargo aboard, more oil than was carried by the Arrow. So there would be a gap in our control if we said that a small ship carrying a cargo of oil would be liable but that another ship carrying a larger quantity of oil for its own fuel requirements would be outside the law. Therefore, we have embraced in this legislation the bunkering of vessels.
What is important in our experience is that, so far as I am aware, up to the present time there has been no law of the sea which applies to unmanned vessels. This again is because of the historic impetus of marine law which was originally for the protection of individuals. If no persons were on board vessels, there was no law governing those vessels. We saw evidence of this in the case of the sinking of the Irving Whale a few months ago near my hon. friend's delightful province of Prince Edward Island. This vessel carried something in the order of 11 million gallons of oil but because it was being towed it was not a vessel and therefore, inferentially at least, there was no risk to human life involved. This indicates a wide open gap in the legislation. So we do, indeed, include unmanned barges of any type used for the transfer of oil.
Without minimizing the problem, let me tell you what we propose to do about it. I have already told you of the establishment of the task force at the time of the Arrow incident and the additional competence we obtained at the time of the incident near Prince Edward Island. We are now moving ahead on the basis of Dr. McTaggart-Cowan's excellent report with a view to establishing certain depots throughout Canada where various materials which we now know are useful for the control of pollution can be stored, and where there can be a qualified team that can move to wherever an incident occurs.
I believe hon. members will appreciate the scope of the problem here. Canada has, I assume, the longest coastline in the world. Possibly the Soviet Union may have a little more, but my friends, for example, from Newfoundland and Labrador know that the coastline of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is longer than the entire eastern seaboard of the United States. Canada has, as I say, a fantastic amount of coast to protect.


Mr. Lundrigan:: I have most of it in my area.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member says that he has most of it in his area, and what he does not have I have. I
*v.:
October 23, 1970

represent the only constituency in Canada, Mr. Speaker, that is 700 miles long and halt a mile wide. This actually is the case. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are parts of it that are so narrow I have difficulty in getting all of me within it.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, as I have already said, we cannot exercise pollution control over the whole coastline at any one time so, we are proposing to establish depots for mobile teams at various points.
I have not touched on what is perhaps the most important part of the legislation. I will do that quickly. It is that part of the legislation which is designed to reinforce and enhance our contention that where there is pollution the polluter must pay. As hon. members will see when the legislation goes to committee, we have provided for several ways in which this can be achieved. In the first place, we have provided that various ship owners must give evidence that they have covered their liability through insurance, bonds and various other ways; that the insurance is in force and their liability is covered before they can move in to or out of Canadian waters. Secondly, we are proposing to level up to 15 cents per ton, not only on oil shipments entering Canada but on all movements of oil by water within Canada. In other words, we wish to cover the kind of situation which we encountered in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The provisions of the legislation will extend to such situations. We do not really know exactly how much this toll is likely to generate, although on the basis of 15 cents per ton it should be in the neighbourhood of $300,000 annually. And, just to show that that is not an excessive amount may I say-and I believe hon. members already know this-that the cost of cleaning up the oil spill by the Arrow alone exceeded $300,000 by a very wide margin. Therefore, we have proposed the establishment of this fund.
One of the things about the fund which I think hon. members will appreciate and which I am very pleased about-I am very proud to be able to introduce this because I think hon. members opposite representing the Maritimes will also be pleased about it-is this: the fund will be and can be used to cover loss of income by fishermen as a result of pollution. Up to now there has been no means through which fishermen could be compensated. Individuals have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to take action in the courts and the like. There has been no means, other than government largess of one type or another, for making up the loss of income. Under this plan, the pollution fund will be used to clean up a pollution incident. From it payments can also be made to fishermen in order to cover their loss of income.
There are two ways actually in which the fishermen will be protected. On the one hand, the fund will cover income losses and, on the other hand, the liability provi-
Canada Shipping Act
sions which I have outlined and which involve insurance and the like will be applied to any damage that may occur to the gear of fishermen, to their wharves, to their boats or anything of that kind. So, there is a clearcut distinction here which I think will work very satisfactorily. In other words, there is a clear insurance provision covering situations in which boats are damaged, nets are soiled or anything like that. On the other hand, the fund can take care of the loss of income and, through this means, we shall be able to make payments to fishermen much more quickly than otherwise would be the case in order to bridge them over any difficult period which they inevitably face under these circumstances.
A number of questions have been asked about this legislation. I have not attempted today to cover all of them by any means. I can only say that there is unanimity, I believe, within the shipping community that we have gone further, much further, than any other country in using this type of legislation in order to protect ourselves. I make absolutely no apologies for that, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned. We have seen that historically, as I tried to document earlier in my remarks, the law of the sea generally has been weighted for centuries in favour of the shipping community. I believe it is high time that we reversed the circumstances and attempted at least to correct the balance somewhat on our own account and in our own interest.
I therefore believe that what we have proposed will do two things-perhaps it will do many other things, too. It will do two things at least. First, it will make the shipping community much more conscious of what I contend is its fundamental and basic responsibility in this regard. There will no longer be any inducement for those who want to exploit the shipments of oil and the like to the maximum degree to use rotten or rusty tubs in which to carry this highly dangerous and highly polluting substance. Second, I think it will help us to achieve what we ultimately wish to see: international agreement on the whole question of the control of pollution, not only within coastal or territorial waters but on the high seas as well. Third, and this is incidental to the other two points I have made, we want to make ship operators, those being the crews and captains of vessels, more conscious of their responsibilities when they are in our waters, not merely in terms of navigating carefully but also in terms of what they do with such things as oil bilge, the flushings from their tanks, garbage, and such other things which, unfortunately, crews and captains at the present do not seem to feel are important.
To cover this kind of situation, we have increased what was essentially a token fine of $5,000 for this kind of pollution to $100,000. Furthermore, as the legal gentlemen in the House will know and will see when the legislation is considered in committee, we have broadened the base on which we can take action against a ship operating in this way. We have tried, during the past several months of intensive examination and study of this matter, to determine just exactly what kinds of package measures were needed. I believe we have come up with what is at the moment the maximum that we can achieve unilaterally.
23226-34J

October 23, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
I am aware that there are those who feel we should go even farther. Indeed I, as the head of the Canadian delegation at Brussels last November, advocated that there be unlimited liability with regard to oil spills of this sort. Unfortunately, the world community was not prepared to accept anything like this. I can say to them through you, Mr. Speaker, that the instant the world community comes around to agreeing on the magnitude of this problem and on the potential threat it poses to us all, Canada will not wish to act unilaterally but will be quite prepared to fall in line with whatever is achieved through international agreements.
We cannot wait around for another Arrow to sail its wobbly way up Chedabucto Bay; we cannot wait around while perhaps the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence Seaway are polluted and find ourselves helpless and powerless as we were in many respects when the two major incidents as well as some smaller ones occurred this year. That is why, on an urgent basis, I have brought this legislation before the House. I believe it will commend itself to hon. members. I shall be more than pleased, as I said earlier, to deal with it in detail in committee. I have not the slightest doubt that it will be approved unanimously. When this legislation is coupled with the improvements in the Fisheries Act, which my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) helped to bring forward, and when it is coupled with the Arctic bill which hon. members approved unanimously earlier this year and with other measures which will be taken within this area, we shall have devised within the short space of less than one year a comprehensive package which will ensure that our coastline and coastal waters are protected to the maximum degree that is humanly possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question has to do with the fund. The minister did not clarify this in his remarks, and I ask my question because the matter is not clear from my reading of the bill. Perhaps I should put my question this way. If there were two or three major disasters close together, is it possible that the fund could operate on an overdraft basis, since the amount in the fund would be insufficient to cover all charges against it, in order that the people who needed to be helped may be compensated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer the question. I can only hope that we will not, in a sense, enter the committee stage at this point because, the answers to any of the questions with regard to this measure will need to be fairly lengthy. To be specific about the question asked by the hon. member, I see no problem with regard to having the fund operate in an overdraft state or something of that nature. Indeed, we anticipate that from the outset there might perhaps be some government advance into the fund on a loan basis to ensure that it becomes operative. I will be glad to discuss this with the hon. member in committee.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That covers the situation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Before beginning my remarks, may I be permitted to ask the minister a question which I feel is important? In view of the fact that the legislation is being sent to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, does the government eventually intend to transfer the responsibility for this section of the Canada Shipping Act to the new department of environmental affairs?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no such intention in the legal sense, but my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and I recognize the necessity of co-ordinated effort in this regard. The Canada Shipping Act has so many ramifications it is generally felt, and I think all hon. members will agree, that the Department of Transport has the greatest competence in this area. It involves the coastguard and this sort of thing. These provisions will remain the responsibility of the Department of Transport.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It seems we are getting into the committee aspect of the discussion. The Chair will permit one further question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the minister indicate under whose purview will fall the matter of oil drilling and any spills that might occur?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Here again, Mr. Speaker, there is no short answer. In so far as this legislation is concerned, it does not concern itself with anything other than shipping. Because we have to use the Canada Shipping Act to establish where the liability lies, that question is not resolved in this measure. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources licenses oil drills, etc., and something in their regulations covers this field. I plead with the hon. member to give me time so that when we get to committee I can then give the answers.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his brief explanation of the objectives of this bill. I assure him that we in the Progressive Conservative Party support the objectives of this bill absolutely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: This bill is intended to reduce the dangers of pollution of our waters by ships and their cargoes. To this particular objective we are absolutely committed. I am sure the minister understands that any comments, criticisms or suggestions that may be made by my colleagues or myself will be directed solely toward strengthening the bill, making it workable and effective, and clearing up some of the obvious administrative difficulties with which the minister is faced.

October 23, 1970

I join the minister in congratulating the task force "Operation Oil" which had the job of cleaning up the mess at Chedabucto Bay earlier this year. I was one of several hon. members who had the privilege of visiting this area. We saw the exact location of the disaster and the terrible results along the coastline, around the ship and for many miles in all directions. It was obvious that immediate measures were required to eliminate further spills. Even more important, and I place this first although the minister may have placed it second, when spills occur a group should be ready to deal with them.
The minister has expressed the extent of the bill. As far as marine regulations are concerned, there has been an effort to strengthen these in order to prevent spills. The minister referred to establishing groups throughout the country which might deal effectively with spills that occur. My main criticism of the bill is that it is not specific in setting up crews which could act immediately on situations such as occurred at Chedabucto Bay. I will deal with that later. Although this bill may not have intended to deal with that, I think it should. One of our most urgent concerns should be that we are prepared for disasters of this kind.
In a recent report prepared for the Progressive Conservative Party, of which I was a co-author, certain recommendations were made along these lines in very brief terms. I wish to quote paragraph 4 of this report:
Contingency plans for oil or other spills from ships in Canadian waters need to be set down more specifically. We will set up, train and equip mobile crews to deal immediately with the actual or imminent spill of hazardous substances into water, drawing from the experience gained at Chedabucto Bay and elsewhere. To eliminate delays and arguments in emergency situations, we will embark on legislative procedures to give a Canadian government agency authority to immediately take control of any vessel carrying a hazardous substance which is in imminent danger of losing its contents into the water.
That is a brief, general description of our objective. The greatest concern I have at the moment is the ability of the government to enforce the provisions outlined by the minister. As he stated, they are not based on any international agreement or understanding. I agree that we cannot wait for years for such an agreement to be established.
There are other problems. We do not have a coastguard service sufficient to aid an inspector who may seek to board a foreign vessel for the purpose of inspection. The subject of a coastguard has been raised in this House quite often. We are now beginning to see the need. It would be a brave man indeed who would attempt to board certain foreign vessels and demand to inspect their facilities without sufficient backing. He requires the full force of the Canadian Parliament and a naval force to back him up when making such an inspection. Otherwise, the whole bill will be useless.
With regard to jurisdiction, we are concerned about the fact that fishing zones prescribed under the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act have not yet been defined. It is going to be very difficult to enforce this bill under present conditions. The definition of the application of this bill is in sub-section (2)(c). It applies:
Canada Shipping Act
to any fishing zones of Canada prescribed pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act:-
I hope the government will act quickly to establish these zones so that the bill now under consideration will be effective. If they are not, jurisdiction is gone and so are the prescribed areas. In certain parts of eastern Canada, these zones have not yet been prescribed.
* (12:40p.m.)
I have not been able to discover in the bill any provision for the setting up and training of mobile crews to deal with emergency situations. The minister has said this is a desirable objective and that a beginning has been made in several locations. I had hoped to see the relevant provision written into the bill itself, bearing in mind the message we got from the special task force, "Operation Oil", on page 41 of its report:
We carry no brief for the ratio of successes and failures in our own operations but we do hope that if there is another major spill in Canadian waters those responsible for the cleanup will be able to do a better job because of our experience and our recommendations.
We are of the firm opinion that the only way that oil spills are going to be cleaned up effectively, when the responsibility rests at the federal level, is to have a small task force such as ours given the full responsibility and the authority to deal with it. This task force must, as it was in our case, be responsible to a single minister.
Further on, at page 42, the recommendation reads as follows:
On the basis of these experiences we recommend that the Minister of Transport have the responsibility for dealing with pollution arising from oil spilled In water when the extent and nature of the spill makes it a federal responsibility.
We recommend that this responsibility of the Minister of Transport be focussed in a small team at the headquarters level and comprise a minimum of one physical scientist, one biological scientist and one operations expert, the physical scientist being the leader.
This is somewhat similar to the operation which was set up at Chedabucto Bay. The minister did refer during the course of his remarks to such a force or forces but the bill itself gives no authority for setting them up in specific terms. I hope he is proceeding promptly to get these forces into operation.
With regard to taking charge of vessels in danger of allowing pollutants to enter the water, an existing section of the Canada Shipping Act, section 495(c), has been quoted. I am pleased to see that the section has been redrafted in clause 738 of the new bill. Correction Mr Speaker. On first reading, at least, the new clause'does not seem to be much different from the old one certainly not so different as to give us cause for confidence that enforcement will be carried out more effectively. As I say, the provision exists already in the Canada Shipping Act. Yet we have found twice in the past year that ships in distress, foundering, with their cargoes likely to spill, have become involved in arguments between owners charterers, masters and insurers as to just who would take charge and where responsibility lay. Delays in this connection could have serious consequences. Immediate action must be taken when spillage begins and sufficient

October 23, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
authority must be secured from Parliament to enable the Department of Transport to take any necessary steps. I do not see that the new drafting brings about any improvement in the situation, and this subject will certainly have to be fully reviewed when the bill goes before the committee.
The report of the special task force on the oil clean-up at Chedabucto Bay recommends certain areas of action which, it says, should be specifically dealt with in the present bill. For example, it recommends provision for the setting up of a series of laboratories to identify oil products and, in particular, to conduct research into the effects of pollution on marine life. The minister told us that this was not really the idea of the bill he was presenting, but to the extent that there are no such provisions in the measure it falls short of what is required to give effect to the recommendations of the task force.
The task force also recommended that tugboats should be properly equipped and, again, there appears to be nothing in the bill in this regard. The special committee was particularly concerned about the need to instal dykes surrounding land installations and pipelines carrying oil products which might get into the sea. Here again, the minister may have decided that this is someone else's responsibility and would not come within the purview of the Shipping Act but we would certainly like to be assured that if it does not appear in this bill it will appear elsewhere. Again, I point out that these are recommendations which stem from experience and concern, not just from theory.
As I mentioned previously, the bill could easily have contained provision for the organizational framework for the setting up of emergency crews to deal with oil spills. As we all know, the time factor in these situations is of vital importance; remedial procedures ought to be spelled out beforehand and carried out quickly. The minister did make some reference to the matter but, again, he was not specific as to how the arrangements would be carried out or, indeed, whether they would be carried out at all.
There is one other subject I should like to mention and it has to do with the co-ordination of these efforts. Coordination between not only the various federal departments concerned but with provincial and other agencies is a most important factor in making anti-pollution measures work effectively. Here again, though the minister said he was prepared to co-operate, we do not see in the bill any provision for the establishment of anti-pollution forces in the event of an emergency. An ad hoc organization was certainly build up during the Chedabucto Bay emergency but arrangements to deal with such situations might have been spelt out more specifically in the present bill, stating who should be in charge and what departments should be involved. We raised this question before in connection with the Canada Water Act.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
This bill provides for inspectors, and there is no question that pollution inspectors is what they are. The
[Mr. Aiken.l
Canada Water Act also made provision for inspectors. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) has his departmental inspectors. Undoubtedly, the provincial authorities have their inspectors in jurisdictions close to the shore. I am wondering, as I have wondered once before, how the activities of all these inspectors will be co-ordinated if a situation arises where all of them have some interest or authority to exercise. Our minds are directed, of course, to Chedabucto Bay on the east coast of Canada, but a similar situation to that could easily arise on the Great Lakes.
The situation right now is terribly complicated. If there were a spill into the Great Lakes within the provincial jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, in addition to their own inspectors the inspectors of the Water Resources Commission as well as the International Joint Commission would become involved, as would any administration set up by that body on the recommendation made at the Great Lakes conference fairly recently. I hope that co-operation between all these bodies will be made effective; and I think that it could be made effective if the bill provided for the nucleus of an emergency team which would have overriding authority in such cases.
It may be the intention of the minister to consult with other government departments and with the provincial authorities with regard to making this very desirable addition to the bill. If that is the case it would meet this particular objection. Although at the moment arguments as to responsibility for pollution may exist between shipowners, charterers, insurers and the masters of ships, I hope we will not also end up with arguments between inspectors appointed under the Canada Shipping Act, inspectors appointed under the Fisheries Act and inspectors appointed under the Canada Water Act. I suggest to the minister that this might very well be made a subject for the consideration of the committee, and I hope if my criticism is valid-and I believe it is-the minister will move an amendment in this regard at the appropriate time.
As a member of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, I am a little perturbed and perplexed at the fact that this bill is being sent to that committee. I think the committee is competent to deal with it, but at its last meeting last session and its first meeting in this new session, the committee decided that it would like to undertake a general, broad study of environmental pollution in Canada rather than be tied down with legislation that would distract it from its original purposes.
I had thought that since the bill was being referred to that committee this might mean that a special responsibility would be placed on the new department. Certainly, I would like someone to explain to me what is going to happen about the desire of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution to undertake a broad survey of the picture. Nevertheless, as a member of the committee may I assure the minister that we will be happy to give full and complete consideration to the bill if it is the wish of the House that this committee deal with the bill.
In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, we support the aims and objectives of the bill and we wish the
October 23, 1970

minister and his special committee well in their considerations. In particular, I hope the committee will hear the members of the "Operation Oil" task force, and that it will also hear legal witnesses on the question of jurisdiction as well as representatives of shipping interests. It is quite obvious that the implementation of the bill will prove inconvenient and perhaps unpleasant to certain shipping interests, but I think they ought to be heard and given the opportunity to set their position forth so that we can deal with it.
I mention this point in particular because it was always a matter of regret when we were considering the Canada Water Act that representatives from the detergent industry were not called before the committee to speak to the special section of the bill relating to detergent phosphates. I hope this mistake will not be repeated, that those people against whom in large part this legislation is directed will come before the committee to give the committee their story, and that they receive a full hearing.
With those remarks I conclude. We will to the best of our ability make this bill an effective part of the pollution control efforts of Canada.


Mr. Mark  Hose@Fraser Valley West: Mr. Speaker, I should like to share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and to say that our party too supports the objectives of the measure. I should like also to say how much I enjoyed listening to the minister. I find him articulate, persuasive, and extremely adept at pouring oil on troubled waters.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, since we are very close to our adjournment time for lunch, I wonder whether I may be permitted to call it one o'clock.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Does the House agree to call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being one o'clock 1 do now leave the Chair. The House will meet again at two p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.10 p.m.
Mr. Rose:: I realize the difficulties we have had finding a quorum this afternoon but I would like to observe that members of my party are here in proportionately much larger strength than members of some other parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is this quantitative or qualitative?
Canada Shipping Act


Mark Willson Rose: Before the lunch break, I said that the NDP supported the aims and objectives of this bill. We do not regard this piece of legislation as a particularly contentious one. I think I also thanked the minister for his excellent introductory and explanatory remarks.
I should like to start by saying that my remarks will be quite general this afternoon and will emphasize two very important concerns related to this measure. First, I wish to say that an otherwise perfectly good piece of legislation is being made ineffective, or not as effective as it might be, by the government's timidity in its jurisdictional approach to this matter. The government has designed this bill to apply only 12 miles off our shores. We think it should apply at least 100 miles, as it does in the government's own Arctic Pollution Prevention Act of last year.
Second, although this bill seeks to prevent

and I emphasize the word "prevent" because I think the minister made a great deal of this-further oil spills, it is unlikely that any bill can ever prevent such disasters. Therefore, we in this party believe we should press for very specific provisions to enable immediate clean-up operations on both our coasts in the event of some future spill which is almost certain to come. Fines levied after the event are not sufficient, and that is what this bill envisages.
Before I develop these two main points, let me review some of the recent history of Canadian oil spills legislation. We heard some of the history from the minister this morning and we were fascinated by his remarks. But I should like to add my own rather brief notes. Prompted by the ecological tragedies, such as the one that happened in the case of the famed Torrey Canyon off the coast of England, on December 8 of 1968, Bill S-23 was introduced to the other place for consideration. The bill included a very tough provision which was contained in clause 495(d) defining very effective measures known as unlimited liability to be charged to any carrier, shipowner or master of the ship. This provision made such persons responsible for not only the cost equal to that of the cargo and the value of the ship but also provided that the responsibility for the total damage, even though it exceeded the cost of the ship and its cargo, would be borne by the carrier, in this case the ship.
This was a tough but nevertheless thoughtful provision. During the committee hearings in the other place on Bill S-23 much concern was expressed by various interested people about this very tough provision. Shipowners, insurance companies and various oil interest representatives who were called as witnesses objected to this tough provision on the grounds that it would make the ship and its cargo uninsurable, and that that would effectively prevent any tanker from ever again calling at Canadian ports. The western oilmen would have probably applauded such a measure. The concern expressed by the insurance companies and the shipowners, although it was not meant to, gives the people some idea of the size of the risks involved. If the cost of the total damage of any spill and the consequent cost of clean-up is so immense that huge insurance and shipping companies cannot bear it, consider the immensity of the cost of any major oil disaster to be borne by the general public.


James Aloysius McGrath: What are we doing now?


Mark Willson Rose: At that time nothing was done. No legislation was introduced, and then we had the terrible tragedy known as the Arrow disaster. We know how involved the minister was; how worried he was, and how hard he worked during that disaster. We do not take anything away from him on that score, but the point is that Canada was going to go it alone, and only now are we going it alone, exactly one year later.
That brings the story up to date, Mr. Speaker. Today now we are considering a piece of legislation that falls

somewhat short of the concept of unlimited liability. The liability is limited. It is limited to $14 million if negligence can be shown, and the remainder of the damage costs will be met from a fund. This is far short of unlimited liability, but still this bill is much stronger and has far more teeth than any legislation presently on the books.
I return now to my No. 1 objection, which I raised earlier, about the jurisdictional aspects of the bill. We are considering a bill the provisions of which are to apply only south of the sixtieth parallel north latitude, or in any area not covered by the Arctic Pollution Bill. Further, this jurisdiction extends only 12 miles from Canada's shoreline. I think we are entitled to ask a number of questions about this 12 mile limit. How can anyone justify the suggestion that the ecology south of the sixtieth parallel north latitude is less sensitive to pollution than that north of it? Certainly, there is greater population south of the sixtieth; certainly there is greater marine traffic, and certainly any oil spill could cause greater immediate damage in our main traffic areas, greater than is likely to occur when a spill takes place away from population centres.
Since the International Oil Pollution Convention has established an area 100 miles off shore-the minister reiterated this in his remarks-for the dumping of bilge, why has he not sought to make his jurisdiction congruent with that? Canada's jurisdiction is congruent in terms of the dumping of bilge, but here we are talking about how this legislation will apply to oil tankers close to our shores or moving about in inter-coastal traffic. In the case of the Arrow, the oil pollutants travelled 100 miles from Chedabucto Bay and substantial damage was done to Sable Island. How would this legislation apply in relation to damage of that kind?
Since the task force dealing with the Arrow spill recommended the establishment of pollution control zones extending 100 miles out, why has that recommendation been ignored, particularly when this bill is a direct government response not only to its failure to get international agreement but to the Arrow disaster? I think hon. members of the House should make it quite clear that this limited jurisdiction ruins the whole bill. It severely limits its effectiveness as a preventer of oil spills beyond the 12 mile limit. I think we should insist that an amendment be brought forward to overcome this limitation. I hope the minister will do this.
After World War II, the United States of America extended its jurisdiction to cover the whole of its continental shelf. South American states, such as Peru and other nations, have claimed exclusive fishing rights as far out as 200 miles off shore. Last year our own government, with much tub-thumping, extended pollution control zones in the Arctic to 100 miles off shore. Should not the same apply in this case? The minister shakes his head. Perhaps he knows something that I don't.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Never.


Mark Willson Rose: This is not the first time members of the government have known something that I don't, and it
October 23, 1970

probably won't be the last since they are privy to all kinds of secret information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mark Willson Rose: Leaving aside the catcalls from the very smug government benches, Mr. Speaker, I point out that we are no longer in the days of the sailing ship. Big spills have caused and will continue to cause extensive damage. The minister recognizes this. That is why we are here. That is why we are discussing this bill. We are dealing with ships not weighing 18,000 tons as was the Arrow but with ships of up to 400,000 tons. Let us see what the task force has to say when comparing shipping with aviation:
The sailing of ships is inherently easier and should be safer than the operation of commercial aircraft. They are substantially slower and it is a two dimensional rather than a three-dimensional problem. It is our judgment that until the nations of the world get together and sign a shipping convention, embodying the principles that have existed since the end of World War II in the civil aviation convention, of positive control and discipline, of proper standards of adequacy of equipment. . .the world is paying lip service to a problem of growing dimensions.
I am sure the minister will agree with that. International agreement has been sought on that point, and will continue to be sought.
If the example of the Arctic Pollution Prevention Act is to be a precedent for us, may I point out that international law is often made by recognizing existing national laws. We can take a lead in this area as well.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We are.


Mark Willson Rose: I turn now to my second major criticism of the bill, concerning the lack of preparedness in Canada to deal with oil disasters both before the Arrow incident and also today.
On October 1, in an issue of The 4th Estate, an article appeared dealing with the Irving Whale, the oil barge which sunk off Prince Edward Island, and to which the minister referred today. I quote the following excerpts from it:
The federal government still has no contingency plan to deal with major oil spills that occur in Canadian waters.
Had deep sea divers been summoned in the initial hours (of the sinking of the Irving Whale) they would have been able to plug the vent pipes. Naval divers were available for this purpose Instead, civilian divers were hired eight days after the barge sank and the oil, chilled in 30 degree water 240 feet down, had congealed and practically stopped of its own accord.
To be fair it should be pointed out that two coastguard vessels dumped several tons of peat moss on the fringes of part of the slick to absorb the oil and make it easier to clean up if it went ashore. This action had more propaganda value than real effect.
The real problem is that Canada has no properly equipped and experienced salvage firm capable of dealing with the special problems posed by stricken vessels carrying petroleum products. Super tankers are now calling regularly at maritime ports. It is only a matter of time until the next serious oil spill occurs in this area.
We were just lucky, observes the writer of the article, Norman Pascoe.
Canada Shipping Act
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I do not see anywhere in this bill any reference to protective plans and equipment facilities to look after the next disaster. The minister alluded to them in his opening remarks. Why aren't they in the bill? Without them we can expect further oil to be poured upon troubled waters. Let us have a look at some of the things the Arrow task force had to say in an effort to see whether consideration has been given to its recommendations in Bill C-2. The following appears at page 43 of the task force recommendations:
We recommend that the federal government should have the operational responsibility and authority for all major spills at sea and should reach agreement urgently with the provincial governments concerning the responsibility for all other major
spills.
Then, on page 42 we find this:
We recommend that this responsibility of the Minister of Transport be focused in a small team at the headquarters level and comprising a minimum of one physical scientist, one biological scientist and one operations expert, with the physical scientist being the leader.
The following appears on page 55:
We recommend that stockpiles of material be located at strategic ports. These would include peat moss or other absorbents, booms and boom components, and a variety of equipment not readily available, which will vary with each location.
Then the task force recommends that at least one sliek-licker be placed at each major port on the Canadian coast and that at least two others be held in a central contingency packet. Then, there is a recommendation that the Canadian coast guard should have primary responsibility for the recovery of oil floating on the water, which will include slick-lickers, containment booming and all other ramifications. And finally, the task force recommends that the Canadian coast guard be responsible for steam-cleaning operations. Lack of specific clean-up provisions is the type of oversight which concerns our party. I am not suggesting that the minister is not concerned about these things. These are matters we will be discussing when the bill is before us. It is very easy for one who does not have the responsibility of the minister to adopt a position of, "I told you so". I think we should be fair about acknowledging this. The point, however, is that the bill is silent in this regard. A quotation I just read from The 4th Estate suggested that preparedness is sadly lacking. What does the minister intend to do about this?
Earlier I spoke about unlimited liability and the difficulties surrounding that idea. This bill attempts a compromise through limited liability insurance, with the remainder of any damage to be paid from the consolidated revenue fund financed by a maximum of 15 cents a ton being levied on the shippers. If we take the figures for last year's imports and exports, which represented some 61 million tons, we find that our total revenue would amount to about $9 million. Earlier, the minister said $3 million. Obviously he is dealing with different figures. The total costs for the Arrow clean-up were approximately $3 million.

October 23, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
According to the minister's figures the fund would have been completely used up in the first year had there been a fund during the Arrow tragedy. The total does not include any compensation and, in addition, all the damage was not repaired. The clean-up extended to only about 30 of the 190 miles contaminated. The Arrow contained 18,000 tons and would have paid only $2,700 into the fund. The amount of damage done can be much greater than might appear from the tonnage of the ship, depending on water currents, weather conditions and so on. When we consider the damage caused by an
18.000	ton Arrow, we have an idea of the damage that might have been caused by a larger vessel, say of up to
400.000	tons.
There are many more points with which I could deal at this time, but I am certain other speakers will touch on them. I am certain also that members of our party and other parties will be extremely alert during the committee hearings and during further stages of the bill. I shall touch, however, on one or two further items of concern before I resume my seat. Although it cost the people of Canada over $3 million to clean up the Arrow mess, not one dime to my knowledge was recovered from the owners of the Arrow.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes.


Mark Willson Rose: Not one dime?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Does the hon. member wish me to clarify this?


Mark Willson Rose: Certainly.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is an international fund to which the owners of vessels contribute. While the hon. member is correct in saying that we have not received anything, there is an amount of about $1,300,000 which should be available.


Mark Willson Rose: That is very reassuring. I do agree that $1,300,000 is essentially a much larger sum than one dime. However, this still leaves about $2 million which the people of Canada will have to pay. Although the owner of the cargo, Imperial Oil, assisted in the clean-up operation no one, according to my information-and again the minister may care to interject-can legally establish the ownership of the vessel. This is a particular problem when dealing with foreign registry, flags of convenience and remote interlocking directorships. We do not know who owns the Arrow. We have our suspicions but nobody really knows. This will make the future collection of any damages somewhat of a problem because the Arrow, like most American and other national vessels really was flying the Jolly Roger. That is what it was doing; it was flying a flag of convenience in order to escape the responsibility for wages, working conditions, benefits and improvements in respect of its seamen, about whom the minister spoke so glowingly before lunch. Seamen aboard these ships do not enjoy modern living conditions, nor are they paid decent wages, nor are these vessels properly maintained. How will this bill
assist in establishing true ownership, so that a claim against the owner has validity? I believe ownership should be declared before any ship enters our waters. Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, who was the chairman of the task force, had this to say about this situation:
In my opinion, the flag of convenience is merely a device to enable shipowners to do an end run in avoiding proper regulation of their vessels. In the case of the Arrow almost none of the navigational equipment was found to be in proper working order. Shipwrecks of this nature are increasing at an alarming rate and severe steps must be taken to stop these idiotic losses.
Again the minister agrees with me. That is the reason the bill is before us. I understand that. Another point is that assessment at the rate of 15 cents per ton bears no relationship to the damage a wreck could cause. It is quite conceivable that a relatively small vessel, depending on the population density near the wreck location, could cause $1 billion in damage while a larger vessel could cause a smaller amount of damage, depending upon the situation. In other words, the assessment based on ship tonnage bears little relationships to the amount of damage its wreckage could cause.
We are pleased about the protective provisions in respect of fishermen relating to their boats and gear. However, I note that they have but a period of two years in which to make up their minds concerning whether or not there has been damage. The results of an ecological disaster may or may not show in a period of two years. Therefore, future claims of fishermen are limited for a period of two years when this period might not cover the situation. I have no suggestion in respect of a way around this situation although it would seem to me it should be covered in the legislation which is before us. I think we should also take a very careful look at this. Many of the areas in which wrecks could occur are the wetlands or tidelands. These are precisely the areas in which fish breed, and where an oil spill can cause the greatest ecological havoc. How does one compensate for birds and fish; how does one compensate in respect of such things? We should take a look in order to determine what kind of system might be devised.
I share the feelings of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) about this bill being brought before the committee on environmental pollution. I realize that at first glance that is the obvious committee to which the bill should be directed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: What else?


Mark Willson Rose: That is the difficulty. In the past, amendments to the Shipping Act were considered by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I should like to voice my misgivings about this bill going to the Environmental committee mentioned on two grounds. They are; first, that the committee is too small. It is representative, but it is too small, only one member of our party being on its membership; and second, as mentioned by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka

October 23, 1970

the committee has other things to do. Perhaps it might be worth enlarging this committee so that the various things that committee must do may be covered.


An hon. Member:: This bill will not go to the Transport Committee.


Mark Willson Rose: I know it will not; that is what I am complaining about.
In conclusion, may I say that we shall watch this bill as it goes through its various stages and try to change its direction here and there. I compliment the minister on the legislation. I reiterate my main objections to it: the bill encompasses too limited a geographical jurisdiction. I think it should go farther. We feel that the kind of mobile clean-up operational methods the Task Force envisaged should be clearly outlined and instituted, either in the provisions of this legislation or in the regulations resulting therefrom.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, may I just clarify a matter for the hon. member? I have no particular insistence on taking this bill to this particular committee. I wish to advise the House that it seemed to us that that committee was the most logical place for a consideration of the bill under all the circumstances. However, if the House is disposed to change that, there is certainly no objection on my part.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, first may I be permitted to take this opportunity of extending my congratulations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who has had conferred upon him an honorary doctorate by the Memorial University of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: He is now Dr. Jamieson.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have no hesitation in saying that I welcome the fact that the minister has been honoured by our university. I think he truly deserves that honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: It may be a coincidence that the minister's first action after having had conferred on him an honorary laws degree was to delve into the rather hazy and mixed up field of admiralty law.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) put forward the principal views of my party and some of our reservations about the bill we are debating. He pointed out some of the shortcomings of the bill, although indicating to the House, as I am pleased to reiterate, our support of the principle of the bill.
There are one or two points I should like to put forward which are of particular interest to that part of the country I represent. Certainly, I know they are of special interest to the minister. Perhaps he will have a chance to deal with these points when the bill goes to committee. I notice that a number of the major recommendations of
Canada Shipping Act
the McTaggart-Cowan Task Force have largely been ignored in the drafting of this bill. I should point out also that, to my knowledge, this report was never tabled in the House. I find it difficult to understand why it was not tabled and why a ministerial statement was not made.
While on the subject of statements, sir, may I say this. When the minister participated in the Brussels conference on pollution of the high seas last year he also promised, after being prompted by members of the opposition who were questioning him, to make a statement on the outcome of that conference in respect of the position that Canada took there and the course that Canada intends to pursue in subsequent international conferences. We were denied the opportunity of hearing that statement in the House and the opportunity of commenting on it. The minister can certainly correct me if I am wrong in that respect.
My reference to the Brussels conference reminds me of what I consider to be the major weakness of the legislation now before us: the fact that Canada has found it necessary to take unilateral action in a field where effective action can only be taken on a multilateral basis. All we shall be doing by passing this legislation is attempting to enforce the regulations set out in the bill within our limited territorial fishing zones. It is well known that some of the larger super tankers in the world today, tankers of the size of the Manhattan, require at least nine miles in order to get a full stop from full ahead. One can readily appreciate the difficulty connected with our jurisdiction being so limited, as well as the difficulty of enforcing any meaningful control over this very serious form of pollution.
Even though we may go along with the idea of enforcing this legislation within the territorial fishing zones of Canada, we shall immediately get into trouble when we come to the minister's own constituency or when we get to the province of Newfoundland and certain areas of the east coast. The one area of the country with respect to which the government has not been able to enforce effectively the fishing zone regulations is that area off the south and east coasts of Newfoundland. There is a very good reason for that. The reason is that the government has found its hands tied by international treaties which Canada, as a country, inherited from Great Britain and to which the government maintains we must live up. Those treaties involve the fishing rights of other countries, in addition to traditional rights of other countries the fishermen of which have fished off the coasts of Newfoundland for centuries.
The difficulty has been made even more serious by the fact that Newfoundland recently signed an agreement with an international consortium to build a 100,000 barrel oil refinery at Come-By-Chance on Placentia Bay, on the southeast coast of Newfoundland, that being the one area where the bill as it now stands would be ineffective and inoperative. The largest oil refinery in eastern Canada today is a 50,000 barrel refinery, which is either in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. So, one can see the importance of the new refinery to the east coast and the serious pollution hazard it poses to that one area of Newfoundland where this bill will not have jurisdiction.

October 23, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
That is something, Sir-and I say this with all sincerity- that concerns me very much. We should not have needed to put up with such limitations in a bill of this kind if we had been able to reach some sort of meaningful international agreement. Indeed, the task force refers to this matter. I quote from page 3 of the report:
We see no reason why the countries which have signed and lived up to the civil aviation convention for the past many years should find it impossible to adopt a similar convention to bring order out of chaos in marine navigation and particularly in tanker operation.
As Dr. McTaggart-Cowan points out, the precedent is there. It is a very good example. I refer to the International Civil Aviation Organization which, as hon. members know, is headquartered in Montreal.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Another well known expert in the field of pollution is from the minister's own honorary alma mater, the Memorial University of Newfoundland. Dr. Richard E. Warner, in a very useful and learned paper entitled "Environmental Effects of Oil Pollution in Canada", dated August 14, 1969, refers to the complication which we have in terms of the lack of a meaningful international agreement. I quote:
Communication between interested scientists and organisations has also been hampered by the lack of a suitable international forum for reporting research results, proposed projects, and circulating other information which could materially improve research coordination and reduce duplication of effort.
I think that the bill, commendable as its objectives are, will not protect us from the very serious consequences of pollution from oil. The only meaningful protection we can hope for, and for which there is any hope of enforcement, would be to have some internation convention similar to the civil aviation agreement which operates under the aegis of the United Nations.
The increase in the tanker fleets of the world is a cause for very serious concern. Another very interesting shortcoming in the bill, which is of particular interest to the part of the country I represent, is that it will only tax carriers of oil. As hon. members know, other pollutants probably have even more serious consequences. I need only refer to the phosphorous pollution which occurred recently in Placentia Bay, where the consequences were so serious the whole fishing industry of Eastern Canada was affected.
Freighters from the southern United States daily carry phosphorous to the Erco plant at Long Harbour in Placentia Bay where it is refined into various by-products. This pollutant is not included in the tax which will be levied by this legislation only on the carriers of oil and oil products. These are some of the major shortcomings of this bill.
This bill points out the importance of continuing our international pursuits in the area of those treaties we have inherited from Great Britain which in my opinion should be revoked. One treaty which is causing great difficulties in enforcing our territorial fishing zones in
Newfoundland is the Treaty of Utrecht. This not only gives France permission to operate within the 12-mile limit, but to operate within the three-mile limit, right up to our beaches. I repeat that we have not been able to enforce our territorial fishing zones area where enforcement is needed most, the fishing grounds off the south coast of Newfoundland. This legislation creates no jurisdiction in that area.
I also have reservations about having this bill referred to the special committee on environmental pollution. The same case that the minister made for this bill being under the administration of his department could be made for referring the bill to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I was happy to hear the minister indicate that he has no strong views on this aspect of our proceedings. I am speaking personally, and not on behalf of my party, when I say that I hope the minister will agree to referring the bill to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. In my view, this committee is much better equipped to handle this bill.
Regardless of which committee examines the bill, I am sure hon. members will press for the hearing of witnesses. I am sure hon. members of the committee will want to hear from members of the McTaggart-Cowan task force. The committee should also hear Dr. Richard E. Warner who is internationally renowned in the field of oil pollution and environmental consequences stemming from oil pollution. I am certain there are other interested and interesting witnesses who may be able to throw some light on this very serious and complex matter.
I feel a mistake has been made by proceeding unilaterally in this field without having first obtained some form of international agreement. At the same time I believe it is a mistake to incorporate the principle of limited liability. If there is to be liability, it should be unlimited because we are now only beginning to realize how drastic the consequences are from oil pollution.
Not enough attention has been given to jurisdiction over the possibility of accidental spills as a result of tapping the potential oil resources on the continental shelf on our east or west coasts. We know of the unfortunate experience in Santa Barbara off the coast of California. We also know of the more recent experience off the coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. I repeat my concern over the fact that this bill will have no application in enforcing the regulations in an area where enforcement is badly needed. I refer to the south and southeast coast of Newfoundland where there is a prospect of a 100,000 barrels per day refinery being put into production at Come-By-Chance.
I will be directing further questions to the minister. I look forward to hearing witnesses who can shed some light on this very complex matter. Working together with the minister, hopefully we will come up with some meaningful amendments to the bill so that when it is presented to this House for third reading it will be a better bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order please. Pursuant to special order made Thursday, October 22nd, 1970,

October 23. 1970

it is my duty to interrupt proceedings on this bill in order that the House may resume debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
[DOT]i*	^



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: wish to continue the remarks I started last night, Mr. Speaker. When the proceedings were interrupted at ten o'clock, I was intending to speak about the importance of marine resources to the Atlantic area. I intend to be a bit parochial in the few minutes remaining to me because this is one of the few opportunities a member has to speak about matters which affect his constituency.
[DOT] (3:00 D.m.)
I want to talk particularly about wharves and harbours in my area. Last year the estimates of the Department of Public Works never came before the House for consideration; they never came before the committee, either. The Committee on National Resources and Public Works, which normally studies these estimates, was bogged down by legislation having to do with the pollution of our waters and no questions could be asked on the estimates of the Department of Public Works. As I said last night, my area is heavily dependent upon fisheries and marine resources. Perhaps I should say it used to be dependent, Mr. Speaker, because right now the situation is very serious. This applies to the whole of Nova Scotia-in fact, to all the Atlantic provinces.
I represent a most beautiful part of Canada. The people down there are intelligent, they are tough, they are strong, they are industrious. Moreover, they are independent; they do not ask for much from the government. They do not care about all these highfalutin' buildings.


Mr. McBride:: Is that why they sent you here?


Louis-Roland Comeau: They sent me here because I care about their problems. I might add that they do not care much for partisan interruptions, either. They ask only for what is due to them. But they know what is going on. They see, they hear, they listen and they read about money which is being spent on different government projects, money they sometimes consider is being wasted though they cannot get a nickel from the government to repair a wharf so that they can tie up their boats. There is hardly a fishing village I have visited where people did not complain about the condition of their harbour or their wharf.
In the past two years I have received hundreds of letters asking for repairs, dredging or new construction
The Address-Mr. Comeau
to be undertaken. In some cases I have been successful and there have been improvements. But not enough has been done. Remember, the people in my riding depend heavily upon harbour facilities without which they cannot berth their boats or carry on their fishing enterprises. Every time I make an inquiry, the engineers in the Department of Public Works go to my riding, investigate and make a report. The reports are always favourable, Mr. Speaker. I feel the engineers do a good job. Then the report reaches Ottawa, the minister takes out his big axe, and goodbye, wharf; goodbye, dredging!
Coming from British Columbia, the minister does not understand the need. He does not understand that we experience high tides and seas varying up to 30 feet. He does not understand that we need sturdy facilities unlike those little floating docks they have on the British Columbia coast. He does not understand that good harbours are the basis of the economy of my riding and, for that matter, the economy of all the Atlantic provinces.
Two years ago I made it clear to the minister that I have in my riding 25 per cent of the harbours and wharves in the whole province of Nova Scotia. This is why my file on public works is growing bigger and bigger all the time. I do not know how many wharves I have inquired about: it is becoming ridiculous-Yarmouth Bar, Stoney Island, Camp Cove, Cape St. Mary, Church Point, Comeauville, Delap's Cove, Digby, Freeport, Ingomar, Lower East Pubnico Meteghan, New Edinburgh, Newellton, Pinkney's Point, Sandy Cove and Whale Cove, Saulnierville-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Boulanger:: Change cars; all aboard!


Louis-Roland Comeau: I could go on and name them all. I make no apology for referring to these matters because this is one of the few opportunities we have to do so. Last year the government took away from Parliament the right to study the estimates of this department. There are many other areas in which there is urgent need for wharf maintenance and harbour repair: West Head, Wood's Harbour, Yarmouth Harbour, Abbott's Harbour, Shag Harbour, Annapolis-


Murray Arndell McBride: There are too many.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Yes, there are probably too many. In response to my requests I was told that the government intended to concentrate its efforts in building two or three extremely good harbours. I said: Fine; you come up with the good harbours and then I will listen. Yarmouth was supposed to have one of these good harbours, yet only the other day the papers came out with the headline: "Critical Yarmouth Wharfage Situation". What has the department been doing in the past three years? If it had built these harbours I would not be inquiring into all these things today. This situation makes one mad.
In Yarmouth we have two ferries, one going to Bar Harbour, a daily run, and the other, the Prince of Fundy, going to Portland, Maine, bringing in between 1,000 and 1,200 tourists a day in the summer season. The situation

October 23, 1970
The Address-Mr. Comeau
which faces us is that one of these boats, the Bluenose, which has been operating in my riding for quite a while, has to leave the wharf in order that the other vessel can come in. What a situation! The captain of the Bluenose needs to remain at the wharf. He needs telephone and water services; he cannot just put out to sea at any time. Nevertheless, he has to get out simply because the other ferry is coming in.
This summer all kinds of foreign vessels docked at Yarmouth. People from Digby, who are faced with a similar situation, were making use of the harbour. They were told, as I was two years ago, that Digby harbour was to be developed as a fantastic harbour serving the needs of Dibgy county as a whole. Nothing happened. This summer, Mr. Speaker, part of the wharf collapsed and a fellow almost got killed before tenders were put out for the repair of the structure.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Louis-Roland Comeau: It is a terrible situation when you have to wait for structures to collapse before action is taken. The engineers in Halifax, in the regional offices, have been recommending that work be done for years. But the minister in Ottawa cannot understand the situation. With regard to another place in my riding Annapolis Royal, the minister told me, as an excuse for not building a wharf, that the export trade was slackening off. What kind of nonsense is that? Where did he get his statistics? I have not found such statistics anywhere. Certainly the government of Nova Scotia did not give him those figures. What bothers me is that the Speech from the Throne refers to the need for anticipating and planning. The government waits for the walls to collapse around it before taking any action. I suggest the government does not know the meaning of the word "planning".
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I return to my main topic. The Department of Fisheries issued a statement two days ago stating that the ICNAF nations have agreed not to fish for haddock on the Grand Banks, effective as of today, October 23, until the end of the year. This is really quite amusing because in fact there is now no haddock on the Grand Banks. The government should have taken action a few years ago in this regard. It should have called a Law of the Sea Conference for the purpose of planning proper conservation methods. Had that been done, there would be no need for the present restrictions. The situation, Mr. Speaker, is becoming very serious. The minister has made some fantastic speeches on the subject of the fisheries, but either he does not have the influence he should have with his colleagues or he is unable to convince them that action should be taken. Many times he seems to be talking in the right vein, but it seems he cannot get their co-operation.
I have before me a bulletin issued by the Fisheries Council of Canada in September last. I shall read one paragraph from the bulletin as follows;
It is now generally agreed that stocks of haddock and red fish are virtually extinct on the Grand Banks and flounder is in
the process of being depleted. Furthermore, it is unmistakably clear that inshore cod stocks are less and less dependable due to continuing fishing efforts by foreign fleets.
Five years ago no one talked about the fisheries being depleted. Everybody thought there was a great deal of fish in the sea. Today there is evidence that haddock, herring, halibut, flounder and cod have almost become a rarity. Because of the shortage of these fish they are becoming expensive to buy. The inshore fishery is having a hard time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Soon there will be no Department of Fisheries.


Louis-Roland Comeau: And soon there will be no Department of Fisheries. Where has the government been for the last couple of years? Why did it take an accident on the west coast before Canada and Russia got together? Two ships had to collide to get both countries together to talk about the depletion of the fisheries on the west coast. No mention was made of the east coast, so I suppose it will need an accident on the east coast to bring these two countries together to talk about the problems of the fishery on the east coast. When you have foreign fishing fleets consisting of 70 vessels, 50 vessels, 35 vessels fishing off the east coast, believe me, Mr. Speaker, the problems are very serious.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has an interest in the fisheries and know that fishing is vital to the Atlantic provinces. Yet Canada has taken no initiative in the calling of a Law of the Sea Conference. Although the subject has been talked about for many years, Canada has taken no initiative in this regard. According to the Fisheries Council of Canada, it may already be too late. It may be that we cannot afford to wait for a Law of the Sea Conference. We must take the initiative to bring the fishing countries together, because Canada is heavily dependent upon the fisheries.
The department must convince Canadians that there is a livelihood to be derived from fishing and that that means of livelihood should be maintained. I am not saying that our fishermen are starving, but I am saying that we must do much more planning to conserve the fisheries than has been the case in the past. We must take proper conservation measures so that we put an end to the depletion of our fishing stocks.
Some Canadians think that the programs under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion benefit Atlantic Canada only. That sort of thing makes me mad. Grants are given to all regions of Canada under this program, not only to Atlantic Canada. Let us not try to create the impression that the central government is pouring too much money into the Atlantic provinces. If the government had carried out proper planning in the past, it would not be necessary to spend this money today. The Atlantic provinces are not getting any more than they need and deserve.
As I have said, the fisheries are vital to the Atlantic provinces. Another vital issue is the establishment of a 12-mile limit. Although we have been since 1964 talking of doing this, there are still eight nations which can come

October 23, 1970

to within three miles of our shores to fish without let or hindrance. This is because the government says these nations have historical treaty rights. Let me remind the government that last year it had no worries about breaking the treaty with Washington.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Gaspe rising to ask a question? If so, he will have to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, as the time alloted to the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has completely expired.

Does the House agree to allow the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) to ask the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Western Nova is apparently saying that there are far too many small fishing harbours in his constituency and I would like to ask him whether he has suggested to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) or to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) which ones were to be closed and where operations should be centralized?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I see no purpose in offering suggestions since the minister himself already has suggested his own solutions which I have agreed to but which were not followed-up. I was somewhat disappointed, and when I went to Gaspe about three weeks ago, I saw all those harbours along the Gaspe coast where there was not a single boat to be seen.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all enjoyed listening to the eloquent argument of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). I did not find too much to quarrel with in what he said, except that I thought he went a little far when he suggested that he represented the most beautiful part of Canada. If he said "one of the most beautiful", I might go along with him.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I suppose at this stage of the debate we should not participate in a general discussion as to which of our constituencies is the most beautiful. We are at the point where we will shortly be asked to thank His Excellency for the gracious words of his speech. As is usually the case, not too much of the discussion has centred on those gracious words. Like other hon. members, perhaps particularly those on the opposition side, I am much more concerned about seeking-out those elusive advisers to His Excellency. It is one of the facts of life that during this debate, as a rule the particular adviser to whom one
The Address-Mr. Barnett
wants to speak is not to be found in the chamber at any given moment.
I could say some words to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), for example, who despite what the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) says comes from the province of British Columbia. I suggest he also has displayed a fairly wide lack of knowledge about some of the improvements required on the Pacific coast of Canada. I shall not go into detail on that question this afternoon because if I did I would find myself talking to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who impose harsh restrictions upon the amount of money their colleague the Minister of Public Works has to spend.
A short while ago I was going to say that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) was the only person to come to the defence of the government, but I see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Barnell@: He is being vigorously applauded by his supporters on that side of the House. He can listen to the words that may be addressed to one of the advisers to His Excellency, as I have described them. Earlier today, under another order, we listened to quite an eloquent speech by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) on a very important subject. This indicates that he is moving to take action in a direction which obviously will meet with the general approval of the House. I should like this afternoon to mention one or two areas of his responsibility in respect of which there has been singular lack of action, not only during his tenure of office but going back to when the portfolio was held by two or three of his predecessors.
This lack of action certainly goes back to a former Minister of Transport, the then hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, now president of the Canadian Transport Commission. As a matter of fact, when the hon. member for South Western Nova took us on a geographic tour of his constituency and mentioned all those places along the coast, I began to think he had been reading a speech of the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In the speech to which I refer, the then hon. member took us on an even more extensive tour around the coves and outports of Bonavista-Twillingate. That was when he sat on the opposition side of the House. Some hon. members may remember that geographic excursion.
The point I want to emphasize is the complete lack of action on the part of the minister and the Department of Transport to do anything to cope with the mess in the administration of small harbours in the province of British Columbia. I have raised this question many times and it was the subject of a previous debate. This mess reached the point, as some hon. members may recall, where the fishermen on our Pacific coast were prepared to allow themselves to be charged, and even sent to jail, before they would continue tolerating the unfair and inequitable arrangement which existed in respect of

October 23, 1970
The Address-Mr. Barnett
levying side wharfage fees. It reached the point where the minister who is now president of the Canadian Transport Commission appointed an officer of the Department of Transport, Dr. Tom How, to inquire into the situation. He filed an extensive report, with recommendations on this subject, in the fall of 1967.
As I travelled through my constituency during the concerned, a review of the situation on the coast of British Columbia shows that nothing has been done. The situation has steadily deteriorated and the administrative people in the area have an impossible and frustrating task upon their hands. I raised this question with the Minister of Transport when he assumed the portfolio. I raised it in a way which would indicate that I was prepared to give him some time to look into the situation, as indeed I did when the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) held that portfolio. I suggest that the time has long passed when one can allow the government to hide behind the excuse of frequent changes in ministers of transport.
There have been recent announcements about a new national harbours arrangement and authority. I am not decrying the importance of that move or the need for restructuring the management of our major harbours, but I suggest it is not good enough to have the whole question of a proper administrative arrangement for smaller harbours, which are important to the local commercial traffic up and down our coasts, left on ice. The Minister of Transport months ago said he would ask his colleagues the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to look into possible changes in the administrative arrangement. From that time until now, neither the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Fisheries nor the Minister of Public Works has said one word in this House about what they intend to do, if anything.
As I travelled through my constituency during the summer recess I saw that the situation had become a festering sore. It is creating much doubt about the administrative capability of this government. I think the time has come when we should have from the Minister of Transport, on whose shoulders the responsibility rests, a statement regarding a definite plan or proposal to be put before this House for our assessment and examination. We should know whether the government is going to accept any or all of the recommendations made in the How report. We should know, after the review of this report-which presumably has been studied by the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Fisheries-whether the government has any useful idea as to how small harbours could be better administered. Let us not play around with this subject any longer.
In my area the commercial fishermen, the towboat operators, the commercial users and all those interested in having facilities for mooring pleasure craft are concerned. This is not only a very important matter because of the industrial and commercial activity that is going on, but it involves thousands of pleasure craft which are using the coastal waters of British Columbia.
When we had before us the new transport act, the government announced a general policy that the users of facilities should pay at least part of the cost of providing
those facilities. I refer to transportation terminals for travellers by air and by water. That policy was adopted and settled in this House. At that time I believed, and still do, that it was the logical approach to take.
0	(3:30 p.m.)
The commercial fishermen of B.C. have now, almost to a man, come to accept the concept of paying a reasonable annual fee for the use of public harbour and other facilities along the coast of British Columbia. But they want to know what the situation is. On the surface, I think the proposal of the Minister of Transport to unload some harbours on the Minister of Public Works and some on the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry can only bring about confusion, lack of co-ordination, overduplication in the case of some harbour facilities and unnecessary restriction in the use of others.
If any one of those ministers can put forward a logical argument as to why this kind of arrangement might be suitable, I for one would like to hear them in order to assess and consider the arrangement on its merits. My constituents and I are no longer content-indeed, for a long time we have not been content-with a situation about which month after month, year after year nothing is done.
I wish one other adviser to His Excellency were here at the moment. I refer to the man who recently accepted responsibility for the administration of postal affairs. I want him to reconsider the position taken by the erstwhile Postmaster General and the discriminatory policy of not extending postal services to communities which are entitled by law and under the regulations to have them. There is at least one such community in my constituency, namely, the city of Courtenay, which should have had these services over two years ago. The last time
1	raised this question there were, I think, at least 30 other communities in Canada in exactly the same boat.
The Postmaster General was hiding behind the excuse that this policy was instituted as a result of the government's restrictions on spending. When are these unfair restrictions on spending to be lifted? When will this government cease to discriminate against the citizens of some communities in Canada because its policies have resulted in a lack of adequate funds with which to administer the necessary services of departments of government?
I know that the genial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if he were to answer me, would probably off-the-cuff and in the pleasant way he has put forward a plausible argument as to why his colleagues the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance were justified in imposing this kind of restriction. This situation has existed for quite a long time. The government has had a chance to adjust the policies which it considered necessary and brought about with the meat-axe technique, as I have described it, in slashing expenditures.
Now is the time when at least we should know how much longer this kind of restriction on the extension of normal and essential services to communities will be

October 23, 1970

continued. I hope that the minister, who has had previous experience with the Post Office Department, will very shortly rise in the House and make a statement ot new government policy on this subject. I hope he will indicate that this discriminatory treatment in respect ot some communities in Canada, including the city ot Courtenay in my constituency, will be lifted so that they will have the same rights and privileges in the area of government services as their fellow Canadians in other communities.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech was a rather interesting document because, to my knowledge, it is the first time that a government has attempted to outline its philosophic approach to government problem-solving. Among the subjects with which the government dealt quite extensively was the matter of the environment in the 1970s, the matter of pollution. These are very important questions and I thought I would bring to the attention of the House a specific example of the impact of pollution on certain segments of the country, an impact which can be out of all proportion.
I want to deal with the mercury pollution situation which has been particularly prevalent in northwestern and other parts of Ontario, and Manitoba. It has hit those industries which are dependent upon fish. It is said in my constituency, which depends on the tourist industry, that the local fishermen may get 35 cents per pound of fish but that the tourist who comes up to fish pays as much as $10 per pound of fish; yet the tourist industry provides about 10 per cent of the employment in my constituency.
Another group affected by mercury pollution is commercial fishermen. But perhaps the most important group and those who are most significantly affected by mercury pollution are the Indian people who live in areas in which mercury has destroyed their livelihood and, more important, has destroyed their way of life. No amount of compensation can provide adequate payment for what they have lost.
When we deal with pollution let me point out that there are all sorts of interpretations as to who is to blame. To some it is the company which pollutes, and to others it is the consumer who pollutes because he has been unwilling to pay the cost of the waste disposal of the process that brings to him a particular product. But let us look at the whole situation and find out who really is responsible for pollution. There are Crown corporations, as in Saskatchewan, and the private enterprise corporations; their shareholders, the management of the local mill, the workers who make the process work; and there are the service industries which are built around a particular centre of production, people such as small businessmen, school teachers and lawyers.
Another group is the consumers who, as I mentioned before, have had the benefit of low prices because they have not had to pay the cost of disposing the waste or the by-product of the products they purchase. Lastly, of course, and perhaps the greatest culprit of all, is government which represents the people, which taxes these
The Address-Mr. Reid
industries, which regulates these industries and prescribes anti-pollution measures for them. I think hon. members will see, therefore, that the people who are basically responsible for pollution are not a particular group, such as a company, its shareholders or the workers; society as a whole has utilized this method ^ of increasing its gross national product, thereby creating an effluent society.
When mercury was discovered in my constituency it had an immediate effect on the tourist industry and on the commercial fishermen. With all respect to the federal government and the province of Ontario, one must say that they moved in very quickly to look after the commercial fishermen, a small industry which in the province of Ontario has an income of about $6 million per year. But they ignored the tourist industry which has perhaps an annual income of around $200 million and was dependent upon the same product as the commercial fishermen, that is, fish.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The areas most affected by mercury were the English River system, the Winnipeg River and Lake of the Woods. In the first two areas the government moved swiftly to provide compensation to the commercial fishermen affected. But at Lake of the Woods we have had another problem because the mercury levels were not considered high enough to close down the lake. The federal and provincial governments, along with their chosen instrument the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation, devised an arrangement whereby that corporation would buy all the fish produced from this lake and other lakes, test it for mercury, and that portion which was polluted would be destroyed.
The two governments agreed to compensate the board for the expense; the fishermen were not to take a loss. However, during the summer we had a great deal of difficulty because all the fish coming out of Lake of the Woods had to be frozen and later tested. At the end of the summer I went to Winnipeg to discuss the matter with the officials of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. We came to an agreement whereby they would send a sampler to Kenora to take samples of fish, rush them to Winnipeg, make a test, and if the fish passed the test the catch could be sold as fresh fish. If there were some doubt, the fish would be frozen and tested again. The consequence of this was hopefully to put another $25,000 in the pockets of the fishermen.
What did the provincial and federal governments do then, Mr. Speaker? It would be only reasonable to suggest that they would allow a system that had been in effect for the spring and summer to continue into the fall. But halfway through the fall fishing season the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation sent out a new price schedule, the effect of which was to penalize the fishermen on Lake of the Woods for mercury pollution, because instead of the government bearing the cost of the fish which were infected, the fishermen would have to bear the cost.
The result is that production of fish from Lake of the Woods has dropped by half, the fishermen's income has

October 23, 1970
The Address-Mr. Reid
dropped by 25 per cent and a great many of them have ceased to fish. I would have had no objection to the government taking a step like this in the fall after the fishing season was over, but why in the name of sanity would the government do this in the middle of the fishing season? That is beyond my knowledge and I suspect it is probably beyond the knowledge of the ministers concerned, because while they speak pretty-sounding words about environmental pollution, the fact is that the government is not yet prepared to move. Therefore, society as a whole does not have to pay the penalty at this time, but only a few fishermen who are already living at the bottom of the economic margin. The government apparently is willing to see them pick up the full cost. Mr. Speaker, this is unjust as well as being stupid and unreasonable.
It is all right to speak of the dangers to the environment but there is another problem which has to be faced. That is the problem of these people who have been hurt by pollution through no fault of their own; in other words, the innocent bystanders must pay. It was not the fishermen who polluted the waterways, it was not the touiist industry which polluted the waterways, and it certainly was not the Indians who depend upon fishing for their living and income.
What are the alternatives? We have ministers from both the Ontario government and the federal government going around saying to these people, "You can sue the polluters." These are supposed to be intelligent men I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but lawyers tell me that anybody who is stupid enough to think that a small fisherman or tourist camp operator could sue a polluter, that he would have the resources to go that far, is ignorant of the law and especially of law practice.
It seems to me there is a definite role for society to play, acting through governments, to compensate people who are affected by pollution. I do not refer only to mercury pollution, because as we examine our environment I am sure we will find there are other substances which are polluting it. Other people, equally as innocent as fishermen and tourist camp operators, will be affected.
I believe the government should be working on a policy to provide some form of compensation to them. It is unjust to allow the whole burden of pollution to fall upon marginal producers of various items when the responsibility clearly is not theirs, when they did not cause the pollution but are being asked to pay the whole price.
I would now like to say a few words about the way in which Indians living along polluted waterways were affected. First of all, Mr. Speaker, they were wiped out of commercial fishing. This was not so important to them as a cash crop, but it was important as a means of supporting themselves, as a means of combating lack of jobs and lack of other income. Now they have been told they can no longer fish commercially. Their traditional fishing grounds have been eliminated from their use. Furthermore, they have been informed by officials of the provincial department of lands and forests that on no account
[Mr. Eeid.l
are their women to touch mercury-polluted fish because mercury tends to concentrate in the foetus.
We have eliminated their traditional source of food. We have increased their cost of living. We have eliminated a certain amount of their cash income from fishing. We have also destroyed another source of income which they had, outside some logging and lumbering. That income was from the tourist industry. Work in the tourist camps may not seem important to many people, but in northwestern Ontario it accounts for 10 per cent of the available jobs. You cannot eliminate these big employers of men in one step and not produce a detrimental effect.
What should the federal government be doing in these cases? The Indians do not understand the concept of compensation for something they have lost. To them it is just another form of government welfare. Those who wish to improve themselves, who wish to go out and work in the tourist camps, now have this opportunity denied them; and there is no evidence that the government is prepared to move in some way and provide assistance for these people. Ministers of government are still sitting on the bottom of their big, round, stuffed chairs waiting for the problem to disappear.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot provide what we have taken away from the Indian people, which is a way of life and a way of adjustment into the society which has grown up around them. We have destroyed that, and nothing we do can compensate for it. The Indians know this. We can go to other people and buy them out, compensate them, and they will understand. But the Indians do not understand it. When we consider what we have taken away from the Indian we, too, know we cannot compensate him and we know the Indian is quite right.
I would like to say a few words in more detail about the plight of the tourist camp operators and of the people who normally sought employment from them. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, fishing is the basis of the tourist industry in northwestern Ontario. Now that we have taken away the use of fish from a great part of the region, in effect we have destroyed these people's capital investment and the legitimate return through profits that they might have expected-and this all in one blow. We have provided no compensation for them.
I am prepared to admit that the regulation of the tourist industry is probably a provincial affair. Certainly the province issues tourist camp licences. But this is an industry that lives off fish, which is a federal responsibility. It is something the federal government cannot ignore, particularly when one notices that in this case pollution flows from my constituency into the province of Manitoba. The mercury also flows into the province of Manitoba from the Assiniboine River through Saskatchewan. It is quite apparent that no federal government can hide behind the pretext that this is a matter of provincial responsibility, because it just won't wash.
What happened to the tourist camp industry in my area, Mr. Speaker? I can give two examples. Perhaps the largest and most expensive camp, after a careful survey to decide whether its guests would come as normal,
October 23. 1970

decided to close down. It so believed that tourists would not come to it because of the mercury-infected fish. Another camp, which competes directly with the first one, stayed open and the results have been disastrous for it. At the beginning of the year it had reservations for 95 per cent of its available cabins, etc., but it ended up with less than 10 per cent filled. For the smaller camps along that waterway, the English River waterway, this year's results have not been as good as anticipated. Where they expected a good year, for most of them it has been disaster; and in the coming year obviously they will be put out of business if they are not helped.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The question is one of compensation, not only for the camp owners who saw their investment wiped out in one blow when the announcement in respect of mercury was made but for those who normally sought employment in the tourist camps. We cannot ignore these people, either. This is an area to which the federal government should be turning its attention, together with the provinces. It might well be that this matter should be on the agenda of a Federal-Provincial Conference to discuss the third party effects of environmental pollution, because I do not believe the innocent should suffer and the guilty get off scot-free. I include the government in the latter category.
What is the solution? Let me outline a proposal. About 15 years ago in the Sein River System, including Rainy Lake, Rainy River, Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg, there was a great deal of pollution caused by the development of a new mine at Steep Rock Lake, Ontario. The mine experts went out there, examined the damage to the commercial fishermen and the tourist camp operators, agreed on a price, bought the property, and the next day sold all the property back to these people for the sum of $1.
That is an example of compensation. Perhaps we should be looking at the position of the commercial fishermen in areas in which we feel there will be no possibility of cleaning up the water in the future, with the idea of compensating them in this way. I do not believe it is a healthy situation when people are compensated on a year by year or a month by month basis. They are not encouraged to take advantage of other training so long as they receive compensation from the government. This might be an opportunity for the government to begin making another form of compensation, such as I described before.
Also, I believe we should look at the position of tourist camp operators who are in the same position and provide a formula whereby the government would assist those affected, on the basis of a system of paying them the capital value of their asset. Furthermore, the government should consider the situation of the people who normally sought employment in these areas in an effort to find a way to adequately compensate them for the employment opportunities they have lost.
I realize there are limits to how far we can go. However, another matter at which I think the government should look is that which pertains to gas station opera-
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis tors and others in the tertiary areas. I realize it is difficult to provide adequate compensation, but perhaps it might be provided on a community basis, such as changing the designation of the area to assist resource-based industries. It seems to me the government should address itself to this situation particularly as we examine our environment, determine what substances we are discharging into the air, water and life and their effect upon other innocent bystanders.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when this nation needs a most positive form of government and government direction, it is regrettable that this government should produce for the House a Throne Speech such as this, which has been referred to by the preceding Liberal speaker, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), as a philosophical outline. One would think that at a time such as this the government would be more interested in providing the House with an economic policy and an economic outline of its intentions.
It is also regrettable that this government has underlined its incompetence by producing such a document at this time. I say this keeping in mind that before I left Cape Breton I made it quite clear that I stood behind the implementation of the War Measures Act to cure the regrettable situation which has developed in the province of Quebec. I consider the proper implementation of that act to be the duty of this government. At this time of the death of an outstanding Canadian and when we continue day by day to hope that we will see the safe return of Mr. Cross, it is very regrettable that the government has not taken the proper action.
It is further regrettable that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) passed up the opportunity to put the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) in his place when he objected to the fact that our forces in the province of Quebec are English-speaking. Our armed forces have gone to Quebec in order to protect its people, yet when a member of the House raises a question such as he did, the Minister of National Defence fails to come to the support of these men.
Are we to believe that the Canadian forces in Cyprus or the Canadian forces in Germany would be withdrawn because the members of the forces are English-speaking. I believe the Minister of National Defence owed it to his troops to stand up and defend them in that situation. When the integration of the armed forces was before us there was no complaint about their being English-speaking. In this country, which from the early hours of Sunday has seemed finally to be showing a united front, it is regrettable that a member of this House should seek to divide the country by complaining about English-speaking soldiers being in the province of Quebec. It is also very regrettable that the Minister of National Defence did not defend his troops. When I rose to speak I did not think, and I still do not think, I could surpass the criticism directed at the government by the last speaker, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. He questioned the sanity of his own government. He said it is unjust and

October 23, 1970
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
stupid. He also said that it is unreasonable, and that no action is being taken.


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Donald MacInnis: I thought somebody would pick me up on that. I would ask the hon. member to refer to the remarks in Hansard, because these words will appear in Hansard unless the hon. member goes up and fools around with the "blues", as quite often is done. The hon. member also referred to federal responsibility. It is very regrettable that we have had so much lack of action on the part of the government.
It is further regrettable that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) interfered with the civic election in Montreal. I am not concerned about it one way or the other, but it would seem to me that he has attacked his own party and that his resignation has been called for because of the statement he made about the election in Montreal. I could not care less who is elected in Montreal. No matter who is elected there, Canadians will be faced with another big bill from that city. That city has had write-offs before and we must be prepared again to write off the expense of the Olympics which are to be held there. I recall the statement made earlier that there would be no cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Anyone who would believe this is experiencing a pipe-dream. The Minister of Regional Eonomic Expansion has been criticized for the statement he made. He has been asked to withdraw the statement and resign his seat because of it.
I should now like to speak about the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who at the eleventh hour of the election in Nova Scotia appeared before an audience in Cape Breton and told the people what cannot be classed as other than a lie. The proof that this minister lied can be found in the bill which was placed before this House by the government, Bill C-5, dealing with the situation in respect of Deuterium of Canada Limited, in Cape Breton. The minister gave blanket approval. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) questioned the status of the provincial government in Nova Scotia, because he could not have been talking about Prince Edward Island.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
According to the President of the Privy Council, everything is sunshine. He gave blanket approval for Liberal candidates in the Nova Scotia election to say-I have the tapes to prove this-that if elected they would improve the situation with regard to old age security. That is fine. The President of the Privy Council went before a Cape Breton audience and gave his blanket approval to this. That was done on behalf of Liberal candidates because the minister wished to hide from the people what little confidence those candidates had in their federal cabinet member. Almost everybody in this House has made representations to the government to increase old age security, yet the President of the Privy Council said, "If

you elect the Liberals in Nova Scotia we will take care of old age security."


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Donald MacInnis: The President of the Privy Council gave his blanket approval to this.


Mr. Pepin:: Let us hear the tapes.


An hon. Member:: Which party was elected?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let us hear the tapes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: If the minister wants to hear the tapes, I will provide them to him later. In the meantime I suggest that he will obtain his answer most quickly if he asks his colleague, the President of the Privy Council, to come into this House and deny that he lied to the people of Cape Breton.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Donald MacInnis: The tapes will back me up. Further proof that the minister was wrong in his actions is contained in Bill C-5. In addition to promising to look after the matter of old age security, if elected to the legislature in Halifax, these people made claims with respect to the Nova Scotia government and the coal division of Devco. That was another lie-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to intervene at this moment. There must be some reason, I suggest, for the approach taken in speeches made in the House of Commons. I think certain words are most unbecoming. The hon. member will have a chance to speak in a moment; the Chair also has rights in this House.
I suggest to the hon. member that it is against the long-established practice of the House of Commons to ascribe lies to another hon. member. There are other ways of conveying the impression that one thinks the facts have not been stated correctly by another hon. member. I realize, of course, that there is a different aspect in this situation in that the hon. member referred to events which did not take place in the House. The hon. member is referring to the participation of another hon. member in a provincial election and says that the statements made during that election were untrue or did not accord with reality.
Whether the hon. member is correct or not-and he may very well be correct-I suggest to him that the language used is not in accordance with the customs, traditions and usages of the House of Commons. I am sure the hon. member would wish to keep that in the back of his mind as he proceeds with his remarks. I apologize for interrupting him. He has every right to say what he thinks in this House.
October 23, 1970


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wondered whether on October 20, three days ago, when the word "lie" was used in the House, a few of the rules and customs of the House went through the window. I thought that the rules and procedures of this House applied to all backbenchers as well as to prime ministers and members of the cabinet. I draw Your Honour's attention to page 392 of Hansard for October 20. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is reported to have used the following phrase: "or is he just interested in telling lies to the House?" He was replying to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He then went on to say, "Is it a lie or not?". Strangely enough, in that case, sir, no one was in a position to know whether or not a lie was involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point made by the hon. member is very well taken. I assure him that I am in full agreement with him. No matter whether such language is used by senior members of the House or by less senior members such as the hon. member, it still is not correct. I certainly would not condone the use of such words by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or by the most senior or the most junior member.
May I say that if the hon. member had been in the Chair at that time he would have heard quite a bit of noise. Certainly, the exchange which took place between the two right hon. gentlemen was not audible to the Chair. It was picked up by the Hansard reporters; they obviously have better ears than the Speaker. That is how those unfortunate words got on the record. I noticed them the next day and felt badly about them. I certainly would not want the use of such words, even by the Prime Minister, to set a precedent.
The hon. member is quite right to bring his point forward. We cannot allow even right hon. members of the House to use words that are prohibited in the language of other hon. members. I tell the hon. member that I am sorry I was not on my feet at the time, to mention or bring home a point of order to the right hon. gentleman in the sense that I am now doing in the case of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis). Again I must apologize for interrupting him. I am sure his speech is much more interesting than mine.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in the language of the House of Commons, the statement made in the press with regard to the blanket approval on the part of the President of the Privy Council to the approach to be used by Liberals seeking office in Nova Scotia was far removed from the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I commend the hon. member for his choice of language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: The matter I am talking about touches on the responsibilities of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), the Minister of Labour
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
(Mr. Mackasey) and all members of this House. During the past two years I have been fighting on behalf of the miners who were retired before retirement age by the Cape Breton Development Corporation which is a Crown company. Certain officers there enjoying executive positions, expensive cars and expense accounts, have been given the protection of the civil service, while others more deserving of that protection are without it.
There are men there who ought to be given the protection that has been extended to certain Englishmen who have come over here and taken our jobs. The men who are employed by the Crown corporation are entitled to the same protection afforded by the Civil Service Act as has been extended to Englishmen who have come over here and bumped out of their jobs men in the coal industry in Cape Breton who are more qualified than them. I say without fear of contradiction that the men who were brought in, replaced men who are far superior in the coal mining industry. They were brought over to this country and given these jobs. They were extended the protection of the civil service. That protection ought to have been extended to other employees of this Crown corporation.
While I am on the subject of mining in Cape Breton, I appeal to the government, as I have appealed to it in the past, to take a good look at the legislation that was passed to set up the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The minister at times has been a little annoyed at remarks I have made. I say that Messrs. Ord and Black-more have misinformed the minister on a number of occasions and told him things that do not accord with the facts. I ask all members of this House, including the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the minister who represents Cape Breton in this House, to examine the involvement of UIC funds in the subsidization of the pre-retirement plan of the Cape Breton miners. We should look at that legislation. As I do not have a copy of the legislation here, I will paraphrase it. Section 18 specifically states that the funds to be used to pay the men on pre-retirement are to be from the coal division fund. That is spelled out in black and white in the legislation. The Cape Breton Development Corporation has nothing to do with the UIC fund. Although they have absolutely no administrative responsibility, they are using the money the miners have paid into the fund, some for as long as 45 years.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
When Mr. Blackmore arrived from England he walked into a cushy job. He is the man who set this up. Nowhere in the legislation passed by this House has Devco been given authority to touch UIC funds. Many men receive their UIC cheque every second week and Devco makes up the balance to $2,500 or $3,000. It is not possible for a man in his first year of retirement to receive more than $300 or $400 from Devco, yet the legislation states that the least he shall receive is $2,500, with a maximum of $3,000. That is an abuse of the privilege of the members of this House who voted in support of that legislation.

October 23, 1970
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Mr. Blackmore is making a fool of everyone in the House. Where in the legislation is authority given to Mr. Blackmore to take the UIC fund from the miners? There are distinct instructions in the legislation that the pre-retirement leave fund is to be put into coal division moneys, yet the Minister of Labour states there are hundreds of similar situations throughout the country.
I could make some remarks about the competence of Mr. Ord as well as many other statements about Mr. Blackmore. If it were not for the fact that a capable Nova Scotian has proven himself, this situation would still be running wild. These men spent the money of Cape Bretoners as if it were going out of style. They failed to realize that even with this government there is a bottom to the barrel. Why are these men receiving protection under the Civil Service Act, when it is being denied to the rank and file members of that Crown corporation? The legislation dealing with the situation was passed by this House.
Mr. Blackmore came to Canada and set himself up as a Caesar in Cape Breton Island. In defiance of legislation passed in this House he dictates to the government and to Cape Bretoners. When he appeared before our committee he made statements which are not in accord with the facts. If anyone questions this statement, I can show him the many contradictions of Mr. Blackmore which appear in the reports of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. If Mr. Blackmore appears before this committee again, I hope it is as a sworn witness. This man cannot be depended upon for anything unless he is under oath. I ask you gentlemen to examine the worth while legislation you passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I apologize to the hon. member, but I must remind him that he should not address himself to gentlemen but to the Chair.


Donald MacInnis: I keep going wrong, Mr. Speaker. However, this matter has been bothering me for some time. It has been very difficult for me to get the point across to the minister responsible, despite the fact that we see eye-to-eye on many drawbacks and pitfalls these men place before the government through the incompetent handling of many situations in this area.
Mr. R. B. Cameron has now taken over this task. He has saved this government many millions of dollars. If Mr. Cameron had not taken over this task there would be no money left to provide for what the legislation originally intended. Hon. members should examine this legislation to see what they supported. Are they going to allow this man to continue to affect in a detrimental way, not only the miners but the communities involved? Can we allow him to deny the good legislation passed in this House and allow suffering in the communities affected?
If any member questions the accuracy of these statements, I can verify them by correspondence I have received from the minister and by the reports of the Standing Committee in which there are pages of contradictions. This is a very serious situation. The legis-

lation was supposed to be beneficial, yet there are detrimental effects in the mining communities in and around Cape Breton. Because of this situation the legislation was passed. These communities have not received the benefits that were promised through the establishment of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
I ask that the protection being given to the executives of the Cape Breton Development Corporation be extended to the working man so that any future lay-offs will come under the Civil Service Commission. I appeal to hon. members to examine the legislation with respect to the use of the UIC fund. Devco had no business touching this fund. In fact, they are instructed where the moneys for the pre-retirement leave will come from.
It is ironic, but I have witnessed Devco, with their bleeding hearts and pronouncements, "taking care" of the Cape Breton miners. I have seen a cheque in the amount of two cents which was paid to a retired miner for a two-week period. Unfortunately, the cheque is no longer available. It would have been a worth while document to table in this House. However, Mr. Speaker, there would be no problem in obtaining many cheques with a value under $10 which are paid every second week, cheques to the Cape Breton miners on pre-retirement leave.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This is not what our legislation intended, and I hope gentlemen, that among you, along with Liberals elected to Halifax who were given blanket approval by the President of the Privy Council, means can be found to impress upon this government the need to do the right thing by the miners of Cape Breton who are suffering because of this import who is pushing his weight around.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being the end of the debate, pursuant to the Special Order made on Thursday, October 22, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings forthwith and to put any question necessary to dispose of the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion (Mr. Trudel) agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That an Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 58 I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin):
That this House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 23. 1970

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us whether the business on Monday will be the same as was announced last night?
Business of the House


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I know of no change in the business as announced last evening by my colleague.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) the House adjourned at 4.25 p.m.

Monday, October 26, 1970