1970-05-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Laniel.
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada-Mr. Mac-Guigan.
lEditor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.1
Hon. Milchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I said the other day that I would table copies of correspondence relating to the Olympic games, including a letter from the Prime Minister to the Mayor of Montreal, and I do so now.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	In the constituency of Richmond how many persons were arrested for robbery or crimes of violence in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	What percentage of persons arrested for such offences were (a) 20 years of age or under (b) 21 to 40 (c) 40 and over?
3.	For the same age groups, how many were sentenced to a term of imprisonment?
4.	For the same age groups, how many were required to pay a fine and, what was the total amount collected?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports: 1 and 2. In the constituency of Richmond, only five municipalities report separately to DBS; they are Asbestos, Bromptonville, Danville, Richmond and Windsor. Table I shows persons charged-criminal code offences against the person, reported for 1965 to 1968. No age breakdowns other than "adult" and "juvenile" are available. In Quebec, the juvenile age limits are 7 to 17 years. The Quebec Provincial Police are responsible for police activities in the other towns and villages within the constituency, but they do not report by detachment.
3 and 4. Information on the number of persons charged cannot be directly related to the persons appearing in court or persons convicted in court. As the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility this information can only be obtained from the Minister of Justice for the Province of Quebec. DBS collects data on the number of persons charged from the police not on the individuals charged.


TABLE I
[Stage Direction]
Persons charged-Criminal Code Offences' against the person, as reported by police in 5 municipalities in the Electoral District of
Richmond2 Quebec,	1965-1968	
Year	Adult	Juvenile1965	10	41966	13	41967	10	21968	11	-1	Refers to Criminal Code Offences against the person. Data for the four years includes persons charged for attempted murder-2, rape-1, other sexual offences-15, woundings -13, assaults (not indecent)-22, robbery-1.2	The 5 towns are Asbestos, Bromptonville, Danville, Richmond and Windsor. However, in 1965 and 1966, Danville is not included. We are endeavouring to supply small area data to the extent permissable under secrecy provisions of the Statistics Act, which protects the confidentiality of information affecting the individual.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
May 20, 1970

Mr. Corbin: 1.	Approximately how much did the federal government contribute to the 1967-68 annual budget of the Province of Prince Edward Island, in the form of direct subsidies, special agreements, shared-cost programs, etc.?
2.	What percentage of the total budget does this contribution represent?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.
Federal conditional and unconditional transfers to Prince Edward Island amounted to $27,714,000 in fiscal year 1967-68.
2.	The federal transfers represented 57 per cent of the province's gross general revenue of $48,499,000 for the 1967-68 fiscal year.


INSTRUCTIONS TO FISHERIES AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES NOT TO ATTEND MEETING ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Were any instructions or suggestions made to employees working for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry from anyone in the said Department that such employees were not to attend a public meeting in Prince Rupert, B.C. called for the purpose of discussing environmental control matters with representatives of the Society for Pollution and Environment Control and, if so (a) who gave such instructions or suggestions (b) by what authority (c) for what reason?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes. (a) The Regional Director of Fisheries in Vancouver, (b) The Regional Director is a senior officer who is responsible for the staff and work of the Fisheries Service in British Columbia, (c) It has not been the practice to attend the numerous public meetings of the Society for Pollution and Environmental Control. Such meetings invariably centre around technical matters and involve our technical staffs based in Vancouver. The Regional Director has indicated that his people will gladly convene meetings with the Society for Pollution and Environmental Control to discuss specific problems in this field and such meetings have already been held. This practice has my support.


ALLOTMENT OF $75 MILLION FOR SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Gilbert: 1.	What is the appropriation, by province, regarding the $75 million allotment on sewage and water 
treatment capital projects under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the present fiscal year?
2.	What criteria was used for the above provincial distribution?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for Hon. Robert IC. Andras):: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not assist in financing the construction of water treatment projects. The provincial allocation for loans for sewage treatment projects for 1970 follows:
Amount
Province	($000)
N ewfoundland	-
Prince Edward Island	1,250
Nova Scotia	4,000
New Brunswick	1,250
Quebec	13,500
Ontario	25,000
Manitoba	5,000
Saskatchewan	5,000
Alberta	6,000
British Columbia	14,000
These provincial allocations are based on	
a percentage of the known requirements of municipalities in each province for 1970, with previous commitments made in each province being taken into consideration.


WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION PLAN
Mr. Southam: In relation to the government's Wheat Acreage Reduction Plan, what steps are being taken to meet the demand for a supply of forage crop seeds at a reasonable price?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: It is considered that domestic stocks of forage crop seed are adequate to meet necessary requirements for the program.


CANADA COUNCIL-GRANTS TO MARITIME UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Cotneau: Is it the intention of the Canada Council to set up a program of grants which would held the less favoured Maritime universities to form research centres in the social sciences?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: In view of other demands on its current financial resources the Canada Council does not at present have plans to set up a program of this kind.
May 20, 1970


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT-APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Soulham: Will the government give consideration to the suggestion of amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act in order to facilitate the appointment of a representative from each of the Departments of Agriculture of the three Prairie Provinces to the Board?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: No.


AIR CANADA-NAMES OF CATERING COMPANIES AND HOTELS ACCOMMODATING FLIGHT CREWS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What are the names of companies that cater for meals on Air Canada flights?
2.	What hotels, if any, have contracts with Air Canada for accommodating flight crews when necessary?
3.	What is the duration of the contract and its value in each case in Parts 1 and 2?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The names of the companies that provide meals for Air Canada flights are as follows: Vancouver, Cara Operations Limited; Calgary, Cara Operations Limited; Edmonton, Cara Operations Limited; Saskatoon, Cara Operations Limited; Regina, Cara Operations Limited; Winnipeg, Cara Operations Limited; Toronto, Cara Operations Limited; Montreal, Cara Operations Limited; Moncton, Cara Operations Limited; Saint John, N.B., Cara Operations Limited; Halifax, Cara Operations Limited; Sydney, Cara Operations Limited; Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay Flying Club; Timmins, Empire Hotel Co. of Timmins Ltd.; North Bay, Arcadian Restaurant Ltd.; Windsor, Mr. Michael D. Mady; Ottawa, Golden Totem Restaurants Ltd.; Gander, Commercial Caterers; St. John's, Nfld., E. W. Harvey Limited; Fredericton, Oromocto Hotel; Quebec, Restaurant Adeline; Sept-Isles, Airline Food Limited; Chicago, Marriott In-Flite Services; Cleveland, Sky Chiefs Inc.; New York, Chef's Orchid Airline Caterers Inc.; Tampa, West Coast Caterers Inc.; Miami, Jerry's of Miami Inc.; Los Angeles, Marriott In-Flite Services; Boston, Sky Chiefs Inc.; Shannon, Shannon Airport Caterers; Bermuda, Bermuda Aviation Services Ltd.; Nassau, Nassau Airport Caterers Ltd.; Kingston-Jamaica, Liner Diner Ltd.; Port of Spain, Bel Air Hotel; Barbados, 22375-321
Questions
Goddard's Flight Kitchen Ltd. Seawell; Paris, Compagnie Internationale des Wagon-Lits; Frankfurt, Flughafen Restaurants, A Stei-genberger Hotel Gesellschaft KGAA; Montego Bay, E. S. Campbell & Co. Ltd.; Zurich, Swissair; Vienna, Restaurant Flughafen Wien; Freeport, Grand Bahamas Caterers Co. Ltd.; Copenhagen, Hammers Restaurant; Prestwick, Air Canada; London, England, Air Canada; Dorval, Air Canada; Brussels, Sabena Lignes Beiges.
2.	The only flight crew accommodation contract that Air Canada has is with Britannia Hotel Limited in London, England, because of heavy local overnighting in London compared to other points overseas. All other hotels are booked by letters from local Air Canada management indicating our shortterm accommodation requirements. These requirements vary considerably with changes in schedule and crew routing plans.
3.	The various arrangements described vary in nature, length and price according to local circumstances based upon the best price which can be obtained by the airline in relation to quality or type of service required. Because these are highly competitive areas of business, it is not deemed desirable to release the details of individual arrangements. However, as a matter of general information, Air Canada in 1969 spent approximately $15,100,000 on food and refreshment services and $1,700,000 on crew accommodation.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT EXPENDITURES IN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO 1968-69
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): What was the amount of money spent by the Department of Transport during the fiscal year 1968-69 in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?


Gérard Loiselle: In so far as the
Ministry of Transport is concerned: (a) $51,262,000; (b) $36,412,000.


APPLICATIONS FOR TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS
Mr. Woolliams: 1 In each year 1968, 1969 and 1970 to March 31, how many applications for registration of a trademark have been filed?
2.	Of these applications, how many, by year (a) have been granted (b) have been refused (c) are pending (d) have been withdrawn (e) have been otherwise disposed of, specifying how?

May 20, 1970
Questions
3.	What is the average or customary time which elapses between the filing of an application and its examination?
4.	What are the reasons lor the elapse of such a period between filing and examination?
5.	What is the average or customary time which elapses between receipt of an application and its preliminary acknowledgement on Form CCA-403?
6.	What are the reasons for the elapse of such a period between receipt and preliminary acknowledgement?
7.	Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs given any consideration to procedures or systems of expediting the processing of applications for trademarks and, if so, what plans have been made or are in preparation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Fiscal year 1967-68, 8,595; fiscal year 1968-69, 9,351; fiscal year 1969-70, 10,713.
2.	Registrations issued: in fiscal year 196768, 6,462; in fiscal year 1968-69, 5,976; in fiscal year 1969-70, 6,643. Statistics are not kept in respect of the disposition of the applications filed in a given calendar year, nor in respect of applications refused, pending, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of.
3.	The waiting period between the filing of an applica'ion and its examination is, in the case of proposed trade marks, approximately three months, and in the case of trade marks which have been in use, approximately six months. Applications are examined in order of filing date.
4.	A waiting period between filing and examination is unavoidable in many cases in view of the statutory provisions whereby Canada's obligations under the International Agreement are implemented. This permits filing of additional or supporting documents after the filing date of the application. Moreover there is a continuing increase in the number of applications filed annually.
5.	The time which elapses between the receipt of an application and preliminary acknowledgement varies from ten days to two weeks.
6.	The time between receipt and acknowledgement of applications depends in part on the volume received daily. When applications are received in the Department verification of moneys received must be made before transfer of the applications to the Branch Registry and thence to the Application Processing Unit of the Trade Marks Office for indexing and issuance of the filing certificate.
7.	Yes. Following a management study, new positions have been established; improved
[Mr. Woolliams.l
staff training and development program are in force; and new equipment designed to speed processing operations has been obtained.


OTTAWA-GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE
Mr. Rynard: 1 What are the names, duties and wages of any permanent staff employed at 7 Rideau Gate?
2.	What were the total estimated expenditures in connection with 7 Rideau Gate during 1969?
3.	What sum does the federal government pay to the City of Ottawa as municipal taxes in respect to 7 Rideau Gate, or as grant in lieu of taxes?
4.	How many official guests were accommodated overnight at 7 Rideau Gate during 1969?
5.	For how many person-nights was the bedroom accommodation at 7 Rideau Gate used by official guests during 1969?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Mrs. G. J. Blair, hostess, $10,873 per annum. Miss Catherine Gourlay, housekeeper, $2.77 an hour. Mr. R. J. Roy, steward, $3.57 an hour. Mr. J. White, chef, $3.42 an hour.
2.	$9,830.84, not including salaries.
3.	$4,901, City of Ottawa. $71.75, fire protection service charge paid to Regional Government.
4.	Sixty-six.
5.	137 (in addition a total of 1,936 guests attended official luncheons, dinners and receptions).


AFRICA-POSTING OF FRENCH-SPEAKING TEACHERS
Mr. Gleave: With respect to the posting of 450 French-speaking teachers to Africa from the Province of Quebec, will any part of the expenses or salaries of those teachers be paid by the federal government and, if so (a) how much (b) which department of government is responsible (c) what are the qualifications required (d) what annual salaries are such teachers to receive?


Mitchell William Sharp: With respect to the posting of 450 French-speaking teachers to Africa from the Province of Quebec, who are taken under contract by the Canadian International Development Agency, all expenses and salaries will be paid by the federal government except for housing which is normally provided by the host governments concerned, (a) The global amount involved for the academic year 1970-1971 will be approximately $9,000,000. (b) Responsibility for this program rests with the Canadian International Devel-
May 20, 1970



opment Agency. The selection of the candidates for such positions overseas is carried out by CIDA with the assistance of the various provincial departments of education, including that of the Province of Quebec, (c) Qualifications required vary somewhat according to the type of position teachers are to occupy. Teachers must normally have the same professional requirements as prevail in each of the Canadian provinces according to the level of teaching. The basic qualifications are therefore the appropriate teaching degrees, certificates, and diplomas plus a minimum of four years experience at the required level and in the subject for which the candidate is proposed to the host government, (d) The annual salaries which teachers on CIDA assignments receive are the same as they would be receiving were they working in Canada, plus certain overseas allowances which are calculated according to each teacher's family responsibilities and the living conditions of the particular country of service. The average amount paid, comprising salary and allowances, is approximately $15,000.


SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to prohibiting flights by civil aircraft over Canada at speeds that would cause a sonic boom to reach the ground?


Gérard Loiselle: Flights by supersonic civil aircraft will not be permitted over Canada in such a manner as to create a shock wave, the effect of which is to create, or likely to create, a hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground.


ARMED FORCES-PER CAPITA RATIO BETWEEN NUMBER OF MEDICAL OFFICERS AND PERSONNEL
Mr. Corbin: 1.	What is the per capita ratio at this date between the number of (a) medical (b) dental officers and the number of men and women now enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	What is the anticipated ratio for September 1, 1970?


Mr. W. D. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 1:284; (b) 1:618.
2. (a) 1:286; (b) 1:520. It should be noted that these ratios are misleading in that the Canadian Forces' medical and dental officers are required, in addition to providing a medi-
Questions
cal and dental service to members of the Canadian Forces, to provide full medical and dental services to entitled dependants abroad and in isolated areas of Canada. Further distortion is created by the requirement to provide medical coverage at high risk areas of military employment such as active flying stations, and to provide some medical and dental care for servicemen in Cyprus, etc., where the small numbers distort the per capita ratio generally. It should also be noted that additional distortion is created, when compared with civilian figures, by the requirement to train professional officers in military subjects, and by the need to have a proportion of these professionals in advisory and administrative appointments at various levels of command.


OXFORD, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Coales: 1.	Will the new federal building, now under construction at Oxford, Nova Scotia, be capable of handling the requirements of that community?
2.	Is the government considering additions to the building under construction and, if so, what will be the size of the addition?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes.
2. No.


PROVINCIAL TAX ON CIGARETTES
Mr. Maiher: Does the federal government have statistics on provincial taxes on cigarettes and, if so (a) which provinces have such a tax (b) what is the amount of tax in each province?


Jean-Luc Pepin: May 20, 1970
Questions


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Coales: 1.	How many individuals will be involved in the establishment of Information Canada and will the selection of the staff, with the exception of the Director, be carried out by the Public Service Commission and, if not, how will the selection of staff be carried out?
2.	Will any special consideration be given to Information Officers presently employed by government departments and, if so, what form of special consideration will be available to these employees?
3.	Will there be any reduction in the staff of Information Officers presently employed by the various federal departments and, if so, what will be the total reduction?


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Information Canada has 520 positions at all levels; 370 of these are already established in the Canadian Government Exhibition Commission and the publishing and selling arm of the Queen's Printer. All hiring will be done through the Public Service Commission.
2.	It is the practice of the Public Service Commission to look first for personnel within the ranks of the public service.
3.	Decision as to any reduction of departmental information officers rests with each department, and the usual Public Service procedures would apply.



Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the salary of Jean-Louis Gagnon in his position as Director of Information Canada?
2.	How many additional persons will be appointed to the directorship of Information Canada, have any of these appointments been made as yet and, if so, what are the names, qualifications and salaries of the individuals in question?
3.	What will be the salary range of the various positions available with Information Canada, how many positions will be open and what method will be followed in selecting personnel?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: 1. Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon is paid as a D.M.-l, whose salary range is between $28,000 and $33,000.
2.	Four senior officers will report to the Director of Information Canada. None of these appointments has been made yet.
3.	Once personnel classifications have been approved, all hiring will be done through the Public Service Commission. However, the classifications are still under review. See also the reply to question 1772.


SINO-CANADIAN NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date did the Canadian Government undertake negotiations with representatives of the People's Republic of China regarding the recognition of that Government?
2.	What is the name and what are the qualifications of the head of the Canadian delegation and how many individuals of the Canadian Government are involved in these negotiations?
3.	How many meetings have been held to date between representatives of the two Governments in question?
4.	What has been the total cost to date of maintaining the Canadian delegation and how long does the Canadian Government intend to continue with these negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. February 6, 1969.
2.	Miss Margaret Meagher, Canadian Ambassador to Stockholm. Miss Meagher is a senior career foreign service officer with broad experience in international negociations of various kinds. She is assisted by an officer at the Canadian Embassy in Stockholm and by an officer from the Far Eastern Division of the Department of External Affairs who is assigned to temporary duty in Stockholm from time to time for this purpose.
3.	In addition to less formal contacts, fourteen meetings have been held so far.
4.	The costs of providing additional assistance to the Canadian Embassy in Stockholm in connection with these negotiations amounted to $7,402.47 as of March 31, 1970. The negotiations will continue until either an agreement has been reached or it has become clear that an agreement is not possible at this time.


BRIDGEWATER, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has a site been purchased for a new federal building in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, and, if so, what is the location and size of the area selected?
2.	On what date will tenders be called for the construction of a new federal building in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No.
2. Not known until site acquired.


CAMBODIA
Mr. Skoberg: 1. Does the government consider it has conveyed the government's official position to other governments of the World by a Cabinet Minister or the
May 20, 1970

Prime Minister making a statement or answering a question in the House of Commons and, if not, what is the usual method of conveying Canada's position to other governments?
2.	Has Canada directly expressed her disapproval to the United States Government of the American invasion of Cambodia?
3.	Does Canada intend making her official views known to the United States and to the citizens of Canada?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secreiary of State for
Exiernal Affairs): 1, 2 and 3. On occasions when the Government wishes to make its official views known to the citizens of Canada and to other governments of the world, it may do so in a variety of ways. One of these would certainly be through statements in the House of Commons, such as those regarding Cambodia, which are followed closely not only by the media of communications but by the representatives of other governments in the same way as Canadian representatives abroad follow government statements in the parliaments of other countries.


MOST COSTLY ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY
Mr. Coales: 1.	What was the most costly Royal Commission established by the federal government and is that Commission still sitting or has it completed its work?
2.	Who was the Chairman of that Commission and what was the subject-matter of the Commission?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The Commission completed its work on March 31, 1970 and the expenditure to that date is $8,603,078.
2. The Co-Chairmen of the Commission were Messrs. Davidson Dunton and Jean-Louis Gagnon.


LEAST COSTLY ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY
Mr. Coates: What was the least costly of all Royal Commissions established to date, who was the Chairman, what was the subject-matter of the Commission and what was the final cost?


James Edgar Walker: A Royal Commission was appointed in December 1950 to inquire into, review and report upon rentals payable under the leases in the townsites and subdivisions of Banff and Jasper National Parks and the minimum value of buildings which may be erected on a lot in a townsite or subdivision
Questions
in said parks. The Chairman was Mr. Harry O. Patriquin and the final cost was $822. (Note: Accurate records are available only since 1945).


LONGEST ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY
Mr. Coatss: 1.	What Royal Commission continued its work for the longest period of time and has that Royal Commission completed its work or is it still actively engaged in its work?
2.	Who was the Chairman of that Commission and what was the subject-matter of the Commission?


James Edgar Walker: 1. Royal Commission on Pilotage. The Commission was appointed on November 1, 1962, and is expected to complete its work during the current calendar year.
2. The Chairman is Mr. Justice Y. Bernier. The Commission is engaged in a review of pilotage in Canada.


SHORTEST ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY
Mr. Coales: What Royal Commission operated for the shortest period of time, who was the Chairman, what was the subject-matter and what was the final cost?


James Edgar Walker: A Royal Commission to inquire into, review and report upon rentals payable under the leases in the Townsites and Sub-divisions of Banff and Jasper National Parks and the minimum value of buildings which may be erected on a lot in a townsite or subdivision in said parks. The Royal Commission was appointed on December 9, 1950, and presented its report on December 14, 1950. The Chairman was Mr. Harry O. Patriquin and the final cost was $822. (Note: Accurate records are available only since 1945.)



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Godin: 1.	Throughout the whole of Canada, how many accidents have occurred on CNR lines since January 1, 1967?
2.	Where did each occur?
3.	How was each caused?
4.	What was the cost of each?
Return tabled.

May 20, 1970
Motions to Adjourn


FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR TRANSPORT OF COAL
Mr. Harding: For the fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 (estimated) (a) what was the total subsidy paid by the federal government for the transport of coal (b) where, by province and company, did the subsidized coal shipments originate and in what quantities (c) to whom and in what amounts were the subsidies paid (d) of the total subsidized coal shipments, how much was (i) exported (ii) used in Canada?
Return tabled.


WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION FUND, SUPERANNUATION PENSION FUND AND CANADA PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	(a) Do male and female employees pay into the Workmen's Compensation Fund at the same rates (b) what benefits are available to widows and children under the death benefit provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act (c) what benefits are available to widowers and children under the death benefit provision of this Act (d) if Part (b) and (c) are differentiated, what is the basis (e) if Parts (b) and (c) are differentiated, is the government considering a change to eliminate this distinction?
2.	(a) Do male and female employees pay into the Superannuation Pension Fund at the same rates (b) what benefits are available to widows and children under the death benefit provision of the Superannuation Pension Fund (c) what benefits are available to widowers and children under the Death Benefit Provision of this Act (d) if Part (b) and (c) are differentiated, what is the basis (e) if Parts (b) and (c) are differentiated, is the government considering a change to eliminate this distinction?
3.	(a) Do male and female employees pay into the Canada Pension Plan at the same rates and, if not, for what reason (b) if there is a difference, is the government considering a change to eliminate this distinction?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 CRIMINAL CODE INADEQUACY OF ABORTION PROVISIONS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: 
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway has given notice of her intention to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to discuss the matter to which she has just referred. With respect, I have to suggest to the hon. member that, in my view, the situation to which she alludes is not one which falls procedurally within the terms of Standing Order 26.
The hon. member questions the adequacy of current legislation with respect to abortion. I suggest that it would be a questionable practice to initiate the consideration of amendments to statutes by way of debate under Standing Order 26. After giving the matter the most serious consideration, I must rule that the hon. member's proposed motion cannot be put to the House at this time.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 26 I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the exacerbation of the difficulties in labour-management relations in the Post Office Department resulting from the widely reported comments of the Postmaster General in reference to the proposals of the union representatives and also in reference to the conditions prevailing in the department which he heads.
Considering the gravity of this issue, the urgency in so far as time is concerned, and the possibility of an impending national crisis, I urge that the House discuss this serious national matter this day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough has filed the required notice which has given me an opportunity to give the most serious consideration to all aspects of the matter to which his proposed motion has reference. All hon. members are agreed, I am sure, that the postal situation and the
May 20, 1970

Motions jor Papers
immediate threat of a national strike is a matter of extreme importance and of grave concern. In this respect I have no doubt but that every single member of the House would agree with the hon. member in his assessment of the situation with which we are now confronted.
However, what the hon. member is proposing for discussion is not the threat of an impending work stoppage but rather the effect on the situation of statements made by the Postmaster General. I have some doubt whether the provisions of Standing Order 26 are applicable when the debate proposed is intended to discuss a ministerial statement. After considering all factors and circumstances, I must come to the conclusion that a debate at this time along the lines proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough cannot be justified procedurally under the terms of Standing Order 26.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion (papers) No. 403 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion 403 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, SASK.-LIST OF ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 403-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of all firms, individuals or government departments responsible for architectural and design work on each public works project carried out or commenced during 1968, 1969 and to date in 1970 in Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 411, 412, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 431, 432 and 433 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that the Notices of Motions which he has enumerated be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-STUDY BY DR. TATZ ON REACTION TO CONSULTATION PROCESS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 411-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Dr. Tatz regarding Indian reaction to the consultation process based on opinions of their leaders, undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 26 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 412-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by May, Pearson Associates Limited regarding the preparation of a proposal and making of recommendations involving a reorganization of Canadian Arctic Producers Limited, undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 25 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 414-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by P. S. Ross & Partners regarding six resource development studies undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 24 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 415-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by P. S. Ross & Partners regarding two economic development studies undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 534 at page 23 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 20, 1970
Motions for Papers GORDON'S AND MUSCOWEQUAN INDIAN STUDENT RESIDENCES-J. R. GORDON STUDY OF READING SKILLS
Motion No. 416-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Dr. J. R. Gordon of mastered and missed reading skills at Gordon's and Muscowequan Student Residences, and the report to the Department, undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 22 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 417-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Dr. J. R. Gordon on the testing program at Punnichy with Indian and nonIndian students and the statistical comparisons regarding vocabulary comprehension, listening, etc., undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 22 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 418-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Branman Associates Limited on the design, development, administration, evaluation and report on test instruments administered to students of E. D. Feehan High School who are involved in the Indian history and culture, course undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 22 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 419-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by C. W. Pool and Associates Limited regarding the investigation and relation to native people of information and facts relating to previous lease and assistance in developing future tourist potential in the area undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 21 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Howard (Skeena).)

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 421-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by C. W. Pool and Associates Limited regarding the development of lake shore lands, a review report on Regina Beach with seven Bands undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 21 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 422-Mr. Howard (Skesna):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Canadian Urban and Regional Planning of the economic and resource base of Reserve undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 21 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 423-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Strong, Lamb & Nelson Limited regarding a socio-economic land-use plan and design undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 21 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 424-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by P. S. Ross & Partners regarding two economic development studies undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 16 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 425-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Inkameep Lands Limited regarding a comprehensive land development plan undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 20 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.
May 20, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 426-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Capital City Reg., regarding economic planning and design undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 20 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 427-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Western Consultants Limited regarding a socio-economic plan and design undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 20 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.
Indian affairs-p. s. ross study of five

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 428-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by P. S. Ross & Partners regarding five socio-economic plan and design studies undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 20 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 429-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Quillian, Boychuk & Associates Limited regarding gas and oil evaluation undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 20 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 431-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by C. J. R. Wilde regarding the assessment of timber damage due to sulphur fumes from I.N.C.O. undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 19 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 432-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by P. S. Ross & Partners regarding resource development undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as mentioned in answer to Question Number 584 at page 19 of the Return.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 443-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports, papers or other documents relating to community development at the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve that are in the possession of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which were prepared for or within the said Department or came into its possession since January 1, 1965.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 34, 401 and 402?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Broadbeni:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Interdepartmental Task Force reviewing the government's industrial research and development policies.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, during the last session, in answer to question 1,723 on the Order Paper the President of the Treasury Board indicated that this was an interdepartmental study group and that the report was not drafted with a view to publication. It was intended only as a working document for internal use. The President of the Treasury Board, however, did agree during that session that a report on this subject would be made to the House. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce
71	COMMONS DEBATES	May 20, 1970
Motions for Papers
tabled such report in the House on Friday, Mr. Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this motion February 20, we would ask the hon. member might well be debated with the other one. to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD



&quot;ORONSAY&quot; TYPHOID INCIDENT-DR. COX-EMPLOYMENT, LEAVE AND PUBLICATION OP REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 401-Mr. Baldwin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and other documents between Dr. Cox, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and superiors of Dr. Cox in the Department of National Health and Welfare about the employment of Dr. Cox, the leave of Dr. Cox, and the preparation and publication of a report by Dr. Cox about the Oronsay typhoid incident.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to advise the hon. member that correspondence concerning employment and leave of employees, as well as the preparation of reports, is privileged information, and the minister is not prepared to table the documents requested. In view of the circumstances, the hon. member is requested to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Baldwin:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



REPORT ON ''ORONSAY'' TYPHOID INCIDENT-

[Stage Direction]
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT AND P & O REPRESENTATIVES
Motion No. 402-Mr. Baldwin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and other documents between the Minister of National Health and Welfare, officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and representatives of P & O Shipping Line about the preparation and publication of a report on the Oronsay typhoid incident in Vancouver.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to advise the hon. member that he does not consider it to be in the public interest to release this correspondence and is therefore not prepared to table these documents. The hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.



POST OFFICE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he intends to make any statement or comment, not necessarily during the question period, concerning the remarks of the Postmaster General that the unfortunate conditions in the Post Office Department as outlined by the Postmaster General are inevitable and cannot be dealt with at this time due to the delay in dealing with the matter by the Treasury Board and the cabinet. Does the Acting Prime Minister propose to make any comment on this or are we to assume that this is a correct statement of the facts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to make a comment but I will consider the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the view of the government that the second postal strike in two years appears to be inevitable, as was stated on May 19 in a labour news publication of the Minister of Labour?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Sneaker, I do not share the pessimism of the Leader of the Opposition about the inevitability of a postal strike. I do hope this will not happen. The government is prepared to sit down to negotiate with the leaders of the unions to that end.


Mr, Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I was not expressing any opinion other than that expressed in an official publication of the government, but I believe I could be forgiven for being a little pessimistic in view of the way in which the government has been behaving. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the government that those who try to provide a substitute postal service will be prosecuted.
May 20, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I first refer to the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about a bulletin of the labour department which predicted the inevitability of a strike. I am informed that that bulletin merely contained a list of newspaper articles in which this assumption is made. This is not the view of the Minister of Labour or of the Department of Labour. In reply to the second question may I say that we have this matter under consideration at the moment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to avoid any misunderstanding such as the Acting Prime Minister has tried to create. I would ask your permission to read the opening half dozen lines of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that would be in order. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might indicate what he has in mind rather than read the statement to which he referred.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the accuracy of what I at least implied in my question has been questioned by the Acting Prime Minister and I request an opportunity to remove any doubt from the minds of all members of the House as to what the situation is. The opening lines of Labour News Headlines issued by the Canada Department of Labour at an Ottawa address read as follows-


An hon. Member:: Those are headlines.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This does not purport to be a quotation of any newspaper headline. It is from a publication called Labour News Headlines. The quotation reads as follows:
Canada's second mail strike in less than two years appears inevitable today.
It goes on to read-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It goes on to read:
The 27,000 members of the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada and the Canadian Union of Postal Employees will take formal strike votes-
And so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for York South.



POSSIBLE NATIONAL STRIKE-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON UNION PROPOSAL FOR JOB SECURITY

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board the
Inquiries of the Ministry following question. In view of the fact that negotiations are likely to be resumed tomorrow between the Treasury Board and the postal unions and in view of the necessity to make certain that the union negotiators appear at the negotiating table without feeling that they have already been hit by the government before they even start to talk, will the President of the Treasury Board make clear to Parliament and to the postal employees that the accusation made by the Postmaster General that the unions have asked for money rather than for work in their request for job security was an unwarranted accusation, from his knowledge of the negotiations?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: I do not think I would agree with that interpretation of the Postmaster General's remarks.


An hon. Member:: We heard them.


David Lewis: May I then ask the President of the Treasury Board-I do not want to take the time to read what the Postmaster General said-to assure the House and the postal employees that from his knowledge of the negotiations the proposal of the unions for job security was a bona fide one?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think the government for a moment suggests that any of the claims advanced by the Council of Postal Unions is anything other than bona fide.


David Lewis: Tell Eric that.



POSSIBLE NATIONAL STRIKE-DELIVERY OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CHEQUES

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister.
A few moments ago he said he was not pessimistic. Perhaps it was for this reason that his colleagues mailed the social security cheques two months in advance.
I would like to ask him whether he can tell the House what measures he has in mind to counteract the effects of a postal strike on the delivery of unemployment insurance cheques and to enable the insured to get in touch with officials in unemployment insurance offices.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe this question was asked yesterday. However, I do not recall whether it was answered. If not, the minister

May 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry responsible might answer the question which has just been asked by the hon. member for Abitibi.



POSSIBLE NATIONAL STRIKE-COMMENTS BY POSTMASTER GENERAL

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister not believe that the chances of avoiding this unfortunate postal strike would be greatly improved if some means could be found to shut off the flow of inflammatory verbiage that pours from the mouth of the Postmaster General on every possible occasion?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHEAT-CHANGE IN PRICING POLICIES FOLLOWING REPORT OF TASK FORCE ON AGRICULTURE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the report of the Task Force on Agriculture recommends that Canada make no further concessions under the International Grains Arrangement until they are matched in full by other countries, and in view of the serious losses Canada has suffered since 1967 by making these sacrifices, will the government consider changing the pricing policies now being followed by the Canadian Wheat Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a non sequi-tur. The various negotiations that were carried on for an international wheat agreement were discussed with the farm leaders, who I have always understood have supported very strongly the idea of an international wheat agreement and I hope continue to do so.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of these statements in the task force report can he then assure the House that the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board will make a statement on motions on the pricing policies now being followed by the Canadian Wheat Board and any possible changes that may be made?
[Mr. Speaker.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is the kind of subject that would be better discussed in a standing committee of the House, where I have heard similar discussions take place. It is a very important subject, and it is not one that could be adequately discussed by means of a statement on motions in the House and replies thereto.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Are we then to assume the government is going to permit this policy to be continued even though it has been brought into disrepute as a result of the publication of the task force report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's further supplementary was asked in the form of a debate or argument, and I do not think it is acceptable in those terms.



CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It has to do with the suggestion that has been made to the effect that he intends to have copies of the Bill of Rights made available to the schools of Canada. Is that commendable objective in his mind, and is it being carried out?


Gérard Pelletier: It is certainly a very interesting suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask whether or not it is
being considered because it has been rumoured that the minister is going to do that. Has there been no action in that direction yet?


Gérard Pelletier: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but from the very moment that the right hon. member makes a suggestion to me it is under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Secretary of State for his wisdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In the meantime, while this matter receives his consideration will he see to it that a copy of the Bill of Rights is delivered to the Department of Justice?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 20, 1970



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
On many occasions, I have stated that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was infested with socialists and separatists. In view of the content of some programs, such as Les Couche-tard, for instance, in which Messrs. Landre and Norman ridicule equally the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the Credilistes, but never the socialists or the separatists, is the minister in a position to say whether an inquiry should be conducted now by an independent committee of the House in order to determine whether the CBC should actually be called to order?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question last week. I said that for the time being the government was not considering conducting any particular inquiry, and I feel I have to give the same reply to the hon. member today.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a supplementary question.
Is the hon. minister aware of the discrimination practised by the C.B.C. and, if so, why the delay in creating a commission instructed to recommend at least the clean-up called for within this corporation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is asking whether I am aware of what is taking place on a certain supposedly humourous program. As far as I am concerned, I am not tempted to take this program very seriously. However, since the member claims that all parties but one are a butt for the humourists' jokes, I might perhaps ask the C.B.C. not to spare that party either, if that is the wish of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Temiscamingue has a supplementary.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a further supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
The question is not whether such and such party should be held up to ridicule like the others, but whether the Secretary of State is
Inquiries of the Ministry prepared to ask the CBC not to make any discrimination, whether it be on the program Les Couche-tard, on the Lise Payette's program, or on any other one with a socialist content-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has now made his representations.



APPEARANCE OF CBC DIRECTORS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Considering that, for some time now, accusations from various quarters have been levelled at the CBC, could the Minister ask the directors of that Corporation to appear before the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts in order to answer such accusations?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the directors of the CBC appear regularly before that committee on the request of its members. They have never refused to appear and, if my information is correct, they will be appearing again very soon.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. When will the Secretary of State be able to make a firm decision on when National Film Board films will again be made available to the schools of this country free of charge?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at that question. The distribution of films by the National Film Board, according to the procedure in force before the decision of January 1st, is supposed to be back to normal. However, if such is not the case, I am willing to look into the question and to ask the National Film Board for a report on the matter.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State make sure that these films are available to the schools gratis by the start of the next school year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is now making a representation.
May 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



FINANCE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Finance about a statement made by Mr. Bourassa, Quebec premier, on a TV program last Sunday, to the effect that the new Liberal provincial government intended to recover the $200 million levied by the federal government for medicare. Is the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The hon. members should allow the hon. member for Sainte-Marie to ask his question.


Georges-J. Valade: I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is ready to repay this amount of $200 million to the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I must remind the hon.
member for Sainte-Marie that this question has already been asked several times and, more precisely, hardly a few days ago, when it was put to the Minister of Finance.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Would the hon.
member resume his seat? The hon. member, if I am not mistaken, wishes to rise on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Not on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but on a question of privilege.
I believe that under the rules of the House hon. members, even the members on the government side, are prohibited from using abusive language or from inciting the House to disorder through offensive remarks about one of their colleagues.
Liberal members, and specially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Loiselle), have said that I was not telling the truth. I affirm, Mr. Speaker, that I heard this statement on channel 10, in Montreal, last Sunday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should state as soon as possible his question of privilege.
Order. The hon. member should resume his seat until I have concluded my remarks. I

must remind him that there are only a few minutes left of the oral question period and that it would be helpful not to lose any time.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain my question of privilege. I have been accused by the hon. member of not telling the truth when I asked the minister a question, and this is in opposition to Standing Orders and to parliamentary procedure. Therefore I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to urge the hon. member to withdraw his remarks, because what I have said is absolutely true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is undoubtedly an argument between the hon. member for Sainte-Marie and another member concerning what might have been said in a statement made on the radio or on television. I do not think that this could be the matter of a question of privilege. I would ask all hon. members to authorize the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.



TAXATION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the trial balloon which the government sent up during the weekend in the form of the much publicized interview given by the vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in which he suggested five drastic changes in the white paper on taxation, which would be a great improvement, created enough public comment to persuade the government to make these very sensible changes suggested by the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious doubts as to the form of the hon. member's question. I am sure he will appreciate this also. However, since it has been asked, perhaps the minister may wish to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, no trial balloons were put up. So far as I understand, the hon. member, like the hon. member who has just spoken, speaks for himself.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As these suggestions are the first sensible ones coming from the government side in this whole matter, will the Acting
May 20. 1970

Prime Minister take them into consideration and bring some sense to the white paper on taxation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. In view of the comments on the white paper made by the vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, will the minister say whether we can anticipate that the far-ranging changes recommended by the vice-chairman will receive consideration by the government?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations made by the committee as a whole, consisting of members of all parties, will be considered seriously by the government.


Mr. Nowlan:: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. member for Etobicoke in his capacity pro tern as vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Has the hon. member communicated his proposals to the Minister of Finance? If so, what has been the result?


Mr. Speaker:: While the question is being pondered, perhaps the Chair will recognize another hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What action is the Canadian government taking in connection with the series of nuclear tests within the atmosphere begun recently by France in the Pacific?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as a Pacific power we naturally share the concern expressed by a number of other countries in the Pacific region about the current series of French nuclear weapons tests. France has not, of course, adhered to the nuclear test ban. I take this opportunity to express the hope that France will nevertheless respect the objectives of this international treaty so widely supported by all mankind.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the Canadian disturbances in Australia?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's junket, does he think that we are as great a Pacific power now as we were before we closed down three legations in the Pacific area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but since he is absent and since it is important I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Inasmuch as many members representing British Columbia constituencies received telegrams this morning informing them that the Vancouver local of the International Woodworkers of America has more than 4,000 members out of work out of a total membership of 7,000 as a result of the towboat strike, will the Acting Prime Minister consider issuing an official statement relative to the early drafting of proper regulations on safety, as we are advised that such a statement of policy will go a long way toward resolving the dispute in British Columbia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I also have received a copy of one of these representations. It is under consideration. I will have to reply to it, in the course of which I will be giving an answer and will let the House know.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the widespread economic dislocation which the towboat strike is causing and since neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Transport, the two ministers mainly concerned, are present, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will undertake to have a statement made by the responsible minister tomorrow in view of the great number of injunctions which have been issued which could undoubtedly lead to trouble on the Pacific coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under very urgent consideration. I gather that meetings are to be held tomorrow to discuss the question of safety regulations.

Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS
1976 SUMMER OLYMPICS-IMPLEMENTATION OF WHITE PAPER PROPOSALS TO ASSIST IN PREPARATION OF TEAMS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that Canada has been awarded the Olympic games for 1976, will the minister state whether his department is taking action to implement the proposals in the white paper on amateur sports so that our Canadian teams will be properly prepared?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that the hon.
member is asking such a general question that it can hardly be accepted at this time. He is inviting the minister to make a statement which should be made on motions.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Before directing my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I wish to welcome him back to the House after his trip abroad. Prior to his departure I asked him whether he had received a communication from Mr. Roy Daniels, President of the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, alleging that polluted water had caused the death of several adults and children in the community of Rae. The minister replied at that time that he had no knowledge of the matter but would be glad to check into it. Has the minister had a chance to check into this serious situation? If so, what action is being taken?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As a result of the hon. member's question, the attention of my departmental officials was directed to this matter. They are studying the situation and I hope to have a report shortly.




Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to indicate very briefly to the House the position of the government with regard to the request of various Asian countries for a conference to study the re-establishment of the International Control Commission. Can the minister indicate the
[Mr. Sharp.)
May 20. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry position of the government and at least mention the conditions under which the Canadian government would be interested in this proposal?


Mitchell William Sharp: We would be prepared to attend such a conference, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we support the idea of calling a conference on the very serious situation in Southeast Asia. We are also prepared, of course, to resume as a member of the International Control Commission. However, we have made it very clear that we do not want to return as a member of a commission that is as restricted in its operations as the commission that existed in Cambodia was before the Cambodian government asked us to leave.
We have indicated to the various countries primarily concerned the conditions that we think are essential, namely, that the terms of reference of the commission should be very clearly defined, that there should be provision for acting without unanimity, that there should be freedom of access to all regions, and that the commission should have the full support of all the parties that would be concerned in the area of conflict.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether in his view any progress is being made toward an international conference being called with regard to the Cambodian problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to say that very much progress has been made. A number of initiatives are under way. We are trying to support them, but I cannot report optimistically about the prospects. Some countries seem to be adamantly opposed. Until they change their minds, we doubt very much whether a useful purpose can be served.


SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER IN MALAYSIA ON CAMBODIAN SITUATION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is the
Secretary of State for External Affairs aware of the speech to be made tonight by the Prime Minister in Malaysia, and has the Department of External Affairs been consulted on the policy that is supposed to be declared by the Prime Minister with regard to the Cambodian situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My Under-Secretary is with him.
May 20. 1970



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. When will the minister be in a position to make an announcement about the plans of his department to find economic opportunities for Indian and Metis people?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I hope I will be in a position to do that very soon, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: The minister has been giving the same answer for quite a few months. I wonder if he can at least arrange to make this statement before the summer recess?


Jean Marchand: I will try, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: My question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the legal opinion of the Attorney General of Ontario, which was tabled in the Ontario legislature yesterday, that parts of the Canada Water Bill are unconstitutional, does the government intend to refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada before final passage?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member. I will come to him in a moment. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has a supplementary.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Will the Minister of Justice have another look at the bill to see whether further amendments are required before final passage by this House?


John Napier Turner: I will certainly read the opinion that has been tabled in the Ontario legislature.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Since the American government is about to pass a law to prevent some manufacturers of consumer goods and some banks to send unrequested credit cards to consumers, is the minister of the opinion that the Canadian government might follow suit?

Kon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance): I
would have to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I believe there is a difference in jurisdiction here. In Canada this would have to be done by the provinces. That is not a legal opinion.



FISHERIES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the controversy over the amendments to the Fisheries Act which permit the landing in Canada of large lobsters caught on our offshore banks, will the minister make a statement on motions giving an analysis of the study made leading up to this decision and at the same time table the actual study?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to make this information available.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question. I do not know whether the minister understood my previous question. Will he be making a statement on motions? If not, will he make the information available? Is the minister prepared to make a statement and also table this study?


John (Jack) Davis: I am not prepared to make a statement on motions. If the hon. member wants information, I will gladly give it to him personally.

May 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



ABORTION-INTRODUCTION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the public alarm due to the appalling suffering and the unknown numbers of deaths and mutilations caused by illegal abortions, will the minister consider emergency legislation to deal with this situation?


John Napier Turner: As I have stated on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, we are closely studying the medical experience under the recent amendments to the Criminal Code. When we achieve enough information from those statistics we may be in a position to report to the House. At the moment there are no imminent plans to amend the law.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question. Will the minister consider making an interim statement to give us some idea of the present thinking of the government regarding this matter?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How many abortions do you need, John?


John Napier Turner: I have to consider that, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On May 11 the minister indicated that he had asked for a report on the recent invasion of Blaine, Washington, by a group of persons from the Canadian side of the border. Has the minister received this report yet?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received a report on the incident. I have also discussed it informally with a member of the American Embassy here in Ottawa. We both agreed that the police and other authorities acted particularly well in this instance. I told the United States representative, as I said in the House, how greatly we regretted these events and deplored them. May I say I was greatly heartened by the action of those Canadians who went to Blaine and presented

an American flag to the people of Blaine. I think this is an indication of the attitude we all take toward the incident, and I think it would be best now to consider it closed.


FINANCE
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the small businessmen and farmers of Canada are having great difficulty in obtaining much needed funds from the chartered banks through the legislation set up on their behalf, would the minister tell us what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation?


Edgar John Benson: imagine the hon. member is speaking about guaranteed loans. I have not received any representations personally through the mail with respect to particular instances where difficulties have arisen. If such cases can be brought to my attention I will ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada or my officials to look into them.


William Marvin Howe: Will the minister not send his officials to some of the small communities to make inquiries? If he did, he would certainly find out what the situation is like at present.


Edgar John Benson: My officials will look into particular instances which are brought to my attention; I would be glad if the hon. member would bring particular cases to my notice.


William Marvin Howe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when I was in my bank yesterday in Arthur, Ontario, the manager said he had never heard about the Small Businesses Loans Act or the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. He has been a moving target this afternoon and I have been waiting for his return. Is postal service for all customs clearances in the rural communities in western Manitoba being centralized in the Winnipeg office and, if this policy is in process, why is the service being downgraded at the present time?
May 20. 1970


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is a question which might be placed on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, so many questions of the same nature have been asked and accepted today that it seems to me the minister might be allowed to reply if he wishes.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: I will take the question as notice. Mr. Speaker.




Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the position taken by the United Nations on Israeli activity in Lebanon on May 12, may I ask whether Canada supports the decision of the Security Council in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is not a relevant question, Mr. Speaker; we are not a member of the Security Council. I said yesterday that I deplored all these acts on both sides and that I did not think it would contribute greatly to the achievement of a settlement if I picked out particular incidents for comment.


Paul Yewchuk: Can I take it, then, the minister is indicating that Canada does not support the United Nations decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whiiby):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of recent reports that the United States government is urging the Canadian government to abandon the protective safeguards in the Canada-United States auto pact and in view of the uncertain nature of the answer given to a question on this subject yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, would the hon. gentleman assure the House that the Canadian government will insist on the protective safeguards which exist in the auto pact being maintained?


Mitchell William Sharp: As is the case in any negotiations it is
Inquiries of the Ministry very difficult to say how they will turn out. All I want to do is to support what the minister has said, namely, that this is our purpose.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Bearing in mind his announcement regarding oral contraceptives and the report of the advisory committee, based almost wholly on the findings of research in Great Britain and indicating that a very small risk is involved if the dosage of the birth control drug is reduced to 50 milligrams of Mestranol, I should like to ask whether all doctors in Canada will be warned directly of these findings by the food and drug directorate and whether in future packages of oral contraceptives will carry the necessary cautions and warning signals of danger?


John Carr Munro: With regard to the first part of the question the answer is yes, all doctors have been advised to take all necessary precautions. As to the second part, we have not yet decided whether warnings shall be placed on the packages and will not do so until we get a final report from the committee of experts set up to advise us on this matter. But we have insisted that the manufacturers enclose full instructions along with their supplies.


LEGISLATION RESPECTING CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister of National Health and Welfare.
On December 18, 1969, the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs made its report to the House and recommended that many steps be taken to control advertising regarding the sale and use of cigarettes in Canada. Would the minister be in a position to introduce soon in the House a bill in that connection, in accordance with the many recommendations made along that line?


John Carr Munro: The policy with respect

May 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry to the whole cigarette question is now under active consideration by the government and I expect to be in a position to make an announcement on it fairly soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


POST OFFICE
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


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


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is related to the question I put to the Acting Prime Minister earlier this afternoon about distribution of unemployment insurance benefits.
The minister made no reply yesterday to the same question, put at that time by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). In view of the great need of these payments by those who are unemployed in order to cope with their day-to-day expenses, and since at eleven o'clock this morning no decision had been arrived at in unemployment insurance offices in order to avoid the effects of a possible Post Office strike, again I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to measures concerning the distribution of these benefits and aimed at easing communications between the unemployed and officials in unemployment insurance offices?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether this is a bona fide question of privilege. However, perhaps the House would allow the Acting Prime Minister to answer the question as asked by the hon. member for Abitibi.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, you were correct in your recollection that a similar question had been asked. I said-and perhaps my answer was misunderstood-that we had found it possible to distribute the old age pension cheques, for example, in advance; there seemed no other way of distributing the money. But when it came to the question of unemployment insurance, we examined what could be done and concluded that the matter could be dealt with

more satisfactorily by other means. If I can get further details I will be glad to report to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have really two points of order to raise, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to get to the Secretary of State. It is the first time we have both been in the House at the same time. But I will not put that question now because we have gone beyond the oral question period.
I was hoping to direct a supplementary question to the hon. member for Etobicoke, the vice-chairman of the Finance Committee. I hoped he would reply to the question I put to him about his proposals, which are most interesting and constructive. Were they put to the Minister of Finance and, if so, what was his reply?


Mr. Speaker:: The questions asked by the hon. member, both the original question and the supplementary, may be very interesting but he will recognize that it is not in order for a member to address a question of this nature to the chairman of a committee. If the hon. member will look at the precedents, and they are ample, he will see that the only questions which are acceptable when directed to the chairman of a committee are questions which relate to procedural matters-whether a meeting is to be held, whether a committee will be convened, at what time a committee will be held, and so on; certainly not whether the chairman of a committee has conveyed to a member of the government or of the executive certain recommendations or decisions. Perhaps the hon. member might wish to ask, when he has an opportunity, whether the minister has received such a communication from the chairman of a committee. But he cannot ask the chairman of a committee whether he has communicated with a minister in this connection.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, sympathize and more or less agree with your ruling, but the dilemma in my mind was whether the hon. member for Etobicoke was making his pronouncements as an official of the committee or as an individual member. This goes to the work of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot agree with the hon. member's very liberal interpretation of the rules in this respect. I think the question period can get a little complicated if we involve not only members of the cabinet
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
but committee chairmen, vice-chairmen and representatives of committees. I think there has to be a very strict limit on questions that may be asked chairmen of committees. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked goes beyond these terms, and I have to rule that the question is not acceptable in those terms.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I quite agree that at times I have some most liberal traits, but as a member of the House I have not yet seen such a liberal emancipation as a chairman or a vice-chairman of a committee making proposals that run counter to government policy, as did the hon. member for Etobicoke.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point made by the hon. member may be a very interesting one, but again it is a point for debate. I have made my ruling and I have to call Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members who have studied the Order Paper have had an opportunity to consider, I am sure, the numerous and very interesting amendments proposed therein to the House under the terms of Standing Order 75(5). I have spent quite a bit of time studying the proposed motions and have sought the advice of the Clerk at the table, and I have to indicate to hon. members at this time that I have serious reservations about some of these proposed amendments-procedural	reservations, of
course.
If I might deal with the amendments in a general way, I suggest that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are perhaps substantive proposals which might very well go beyond the scope of
DEBATES	7127
Water Resources Programs the interpretation clauses of the bill. I am not going to go into the details of my submissions at this time, because it may well be that hon. members would like to give their views of these several motions from a procedural point of view.
Motion No. 5 is in the same class as Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and I have the same reservation to make with regard to it.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 would appear to be in order. Unless hon. members have objections to them, I suggest they ought to be submitted to the House for consideration.
Motions Nos. 8 and 9 appear to be on the same question, and I might suggest here for the consideration of hon. members that they be combined for purposes of debate, but that the question be put on motion No. 9 and the vote be considered as a vote on motion No. 8.
Motions Nos. 10, 12 and 13 bear in the financial provisions of the bill, and I would like to suggest that these motions be combined for purposes of debate, with the House taking one single vote thereon.
Motion No. 11 might be considered and disposed of separately. As I have suggested, motions 12 and 13 are to be combined with motion 10.
I should like to suggest to hon. members that motions Nos. 14 and 15 be considered and disposed of separately.
Motion No. 16 raises very serious procedural difficulties. I am not prepared to rule on the acceptability of the motion, but in due course I might hear argument on it, and perhaps it might be allowed to stand for the time being. When the motion is reached, or when ever hon. members may wish to do so, we might hear argument on whether proposed motion No. 16 should be accepted from the procedural standpoint and put to the House.
Motions Nos. 17 and 18 might be combined for purposes of debate and the questions put separately.
Motion No. 19 would then also be considered separately.
Since motions Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 relate to the offence section of the bill, it is suggested that these amendments be combined for purposes of debate; that the question on motions Nos. 20, 21 and 22 be put on one division, if necessary; and that motion No. 23 be disposed of separately.
Motions Nos. 24 and 25 should be considered and disposed of separately.
May 20, 1970

Water Resources Programs
To summarize the foregoing, may I reiterate that I have difficulty about motions Nos. 1 to 5 inclusive, and motion No. 16.
On the other motions, eight separate debates might arise, as follows: first, motions Nos. 6 and 7; second, motions Nos. 8 and 9; third, motions 10, 12 and 13; fourth, motions Nos. 11, 14 and 15; fifth, motions Nos. 17 and 18; sixth, motions 20, 21, 22 and 23; and finally, a debate in each case on motions 24 and 25.
I realize that this is extremely complicated, but if hon. members would take a look at all of the proposed motions they would see that the matter is complex. We will at least have a record on Hansard which hon. members might like to consider overnight.
Divisions might occur as follows: one each on motions 6 and 7; a division on combined motions 8 and 9; a division on combined motions 10, 12 and 13; then three divisions, one each on motions 11, 14 and 15; three divisions, one each on motions 17, 18 and 19; one division on combined motions 20, 21 and 22; and three divisions, one each on motions 23, 24 and 25.
Again, I apologize to hon. members for having to make these suggestions to them. These are, of course, suggestions for the guidance of the House. It may be that hon. members would like to consider the whole matter between themselves and decide whether we are embarking upon a proper and orderly consideration of all of these motions. I gather that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) might have some suggestions to make in this regard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have one suggestion. I wonder whether Your Honour would take under consideration, for ruling at a later date, the question whether motion No. 25 does not also go beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore in a procedural sense should not be received.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I raise what I believe to be a serious point of order. I believe it really goes to the heart of much of what is contained in the bill. It is a point that I think I can say has been raised by me at least in private conversation with the Parliamentary Secretary. Had some action been taken on what I raised privately, I would not be raising it at this time when we are back in the House

of Commons. The very neat point I raised concerns the lack of use of the word "quality" and as it relates to water quality in the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General. I believe this strikes at the heart of the proceedings. I did not want to raise it in the committee because, while I thought the Committee proceedings were probably out of order, none the less I felt we should complete the study of the bill and try to make the best of it. Probably I was too reticent in that regard, and should have raised cain at the first opportunity and every opportunity thereafter. However, I make the point now because I believe it is important, especially since the House Leader for the government raises the point that my amendment may be out of order.
The original recommendation contained in Bill C-144 is as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources; to provide also that all expenditures for the purposes of the Act, including any expenses or allowances of any advisory committee, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor.
The amendments are contained at page xi of the Notice Paper before us today. I would read them into the record, except that I know Your Honour will look at them when considering my point of order. Nowhere is there any approach to the question of the quality of water. My point of order is neatly put in this way. I shall not spend a lot of time on this, but I say there really are two parts to the measure before us. One part deals with water management and the second part deals with water quality. I suggest there is a great deal of difference between the two. No matter what state water is in, it can still be managed. It can be allowed to pour down this way, it can be dammed up that way or it can be sent off in another direction. Perhaps I have a humble mind, but as I see it the management of water means its physical control. The quality, however, in my opinion, is quite another thing.
I think my friend the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with me when I say that I did ask him why in heaven's name the government would not sanctify all the process we have gone through and slip in a reference to the quality of the water we are supposed to manage. There are two very important aspects of this problem. I am not ashamed to
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
raise this even at this late date. The only thing I am ashamed of is that I did not raise it earlier. Perhaps I was too remiss or too trusting in hoping that a remedy would be found.
Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, may I make this one point? I believe I am leaving with you a thorny but very important problem. The only word I can find which even comes close to referring to the quality of water is the word "conservation". I suggest there are so many differences between the idea of conservation and the idea of quality that one cannot even see a relationship between them. So, I present this point to you, Mr. Speaker. I think the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General, on the advice of Her Majesty's advisers, simply is not sufficient to cover what we have here this afternoon.
I also suggest that I do not intend to allow myself, any member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, our friends to my left or our friends even further south of us in this chamber, to be caught in the bind that we did not raise this point now so that Your Honour might rule on it and so that the recommendation which must accompany this bill might be put in order. Perhaps while I am on that particular point I might say it illustrates that while we did not give up too much when we said we should not debate the resolution incorporating these recommendations, this is a very positive example of a situation in which we could be giving up a great deal in this Parliament or in any future parliament if we should allow something like this to pass without being questioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we do not take any objection to the grouping of the amendments you have discussed. We also think there is common sense in the suggestions you have made about the divisions that would be necessary. However, I confess we do have a real concern about your reservations with regard to some of the proposed amendments. If I made my notes correctly, I understand that you question motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 16. I shall not argue that all of these in their entirety are proeedurally admissible. It does seem to me, however, that some of them are proeedurally admissible and that there is a fundamental point close to the point the hon. member has just made which Your Honour should take into consideration.
As we all know, this bill is entitled an act to provide for the management of the water 22375-33
DEBATES	7129
Water Resources Programs resources of Canada. But the recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General includes a reference to planning and implementation of programs relating to conservation, development and utilization of water resources. I know the word "conservation" could be given a very narrow meaning of merely holding onto a quantity. But surely, that is not the only meaning of the word "conservation". Surely, if water is a concern it must be a concern in respect of quality as well as quantity.
Lest Your Honour should think I am still trying to bring in something that is not already here, I draw your attention to the words in the preamble of the bill. In particular, I ask Your Honour to read the first part of paragraph 2 of the preamble which reads as follows:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
And Whereas pollution of the water resources of Canada is a significant and rapidly increasing threat to the health, well-being and prosperity of the people of Canada and to the quality of the Canadian environment at large and as result it has become a matter of urgent national concern that measures be taken to provide for water quality management in those areas of Canada most critically affected;
I ask Your Honour to put that paragraph in the preamble to the bill alongside the title, and alongside the reference to conservation. It seems to me that you should agree with us that the subject of water quality, the subject of preserving or conserving the quality of our water, is within the four corners of this bill.
It is on that basis that I think some of the amendments which Your Honour questions should be allowed. One never likes to admit that any part of what he is proposing has any weakness, but in the hope that the stronger ones will stand I am prepared to admit that there are one or two places where an expenditure of money seems to be involved and there is a reference to a federal grant. I suppose that a reference to an expenditure of money, or even a suggestion in the interpretation section that there be created a certain board which would seem to involve an expenditure of certain money, might make Your Honour feels we are going a little too far. I am not prepared, even yet, to concede that, but when I look, for example, at motion No. 2 which seeks to write into the interpretation section a subclause having to do with water quality standards, I plead with Your Honour to think some more about it.
7130	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs
I suggest that motion No. 2 is within the four corners of the bill, that it does not go beyond the terms of reference, that it does not go beyond the Governor General's recommendation, and that it is not beyond the concept contained in the preamble to the bill. I will also call as my witness none other than Your Honour, because you did say that motion No. 14 was in order, if my notes are correct, and that motion does provide for the prescribing of specific water quality standards. If it is in order to include in the bill the authority to prescribe specific water quality standards, as is set out in motion No. (14), surely it is not only in order but it is called for that in the interpretation section there be a subclause or a subparagraph telling us what water quality standards are.
As I said, I think a case could be made for motions No. 1 and No. 3, and I think my friends to the right can make a case for motions No. 4 and No. 5 which will have my support. I do feel, however, that motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) is procedurally in order, and I press it not just on the ground that some of us think the bill should be so enlarged, but on the ground that the bill is one that in its basic concept is supposed to deal with the quality of water and that, therefore, the bill is incomplete unless there are in the interpretation section words or sentences that define water quality standards.
I hope therefore that the tentative statement you have made about motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is only tentative and subject to your reconsideration. You did say that you questioned motion No. 16, but there is time to deal with that later. I doubt that we will finish this bill this afternoon, so perhaps we can leave the argument on motion No. 16 until later. I also agree with your suggestion that motion No. 25 should stand rather than with the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) that it should be questioned. Perhaps that is the wrong word. I do not mind anything being questioned so long as the answer to the question is the right one. But I do plead for another look at motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and I urge as strongly as I can that motion No. 2 be allowed.
When I sit down, perhaps Your Honour might tell us whether you are reaching a final decision on these motions or whether you want some of them to stand while the House goes on to deal with those about which you

DEBATES	May 20, 1970
have no question. As I said, we think your grouping of the motions and your plan for voting is excellent. We are glad you have accepted about 19 out of 25. It is a pretty good batting average both for you and for us, but I do feel that some of the motions you have questioned, particularly motion No. 2, should not be ruled out of order but should be put to the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: am rising at the moment to clear up two or three points of confusion that have arisen. The first one is that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) raised a question concerning the use of the words "water quality", and I thought that that would be the matter to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would have directed his attention. But that is a matter that is before Your Honour at the moment.
The second point of confusion arises from the fact that the order of the motions on today's Order Paper is somewhat different from yesterday's and I have been using yesterday's Order Paper instead of today's. However, I assume that it is today's Order Paper that we are following, so I will have to have another look at one of my motions which I thought Your Honour was going to accept but which I believe is now in some doubt.
In any case, speaking first to the point raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, I think he raised a fundamental point which involves, a legal opinion that has been given, and which we have not seen yet, according to a reply given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to my question today. According to reports, the grounds on which the attorney general of Ontario believes Bill C-144 to be unconstitutional are that it invades provincial jurisdiction over water management and that, therefore, two or three aspects of the bill may be beyond the legislative jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. I believe that the use of the words "water quality" would at least move us one step farther towards defining more accurately what the Parliament of Canada is attempting to deal with rather than if we just left the words "water resources". Where we differ, and where the constitutional experts who were before the standing committee appear to differ, is how far the federal government should go into the field of water management which is normally under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore I believe that the point raised by my hon. friend has quite important reper-
May 20. 1970	COMMONS
cussions, particularly in view of the doubts that have been cast on the constitutionality of the whole bill because it invades the water management field.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The second matter I want to raise concerns the proposals made by Your Honour, and I think that in general the grouping appears to be one that would be quite satisfactory. It may be that we will not need a recorded vote on every amendment, but just speaking off the cuff at the moment I wish to say we might want to have a vote on each motion even if it were not a recorded vote.
I wish to speak particularly about motions Nos. 4 and 5 on the Order Paper. Your Honour has raised some question about Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and you also have some reservation with respect to No. 5, which stands in my name. If Your Honour would like to hear argument at this point I am prepared to go ahead.
The bill is to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada. My amendment proposes a new clause 3, paragraph (a) of which reads:
The management of the water resources of Canada Is hereby vested in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources;
I do not believe there could be any objection to this first part of the proposed new clause because that is what the bill is all about, and those are the words used in it. Proposed paragraph (b) merely extends this definition of the management of water resources a little further and seeks to do what the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has done, which is to point out particularly that:
-the management of the water resources of Canada is deemed to include the total jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada with relation to the control of environmental pollution in Canada, not only as to the waters themselves but as to the soil through which they are fed. and the air which transmits substances to them;
In other words, in (b) I am trying to define what this bill is all about, and what the government has said it is all about, that is the control of the quality of the waters. I am defining what such management would include.
Paragraph (c) goes along the same line. It is an attempt to define what is the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. This has never been done, and this is one of the reasons we are in a jam about the constitutionality of the bill. It is too broad, too vague, and nobody 22375-331
DEBATES	7131
Water Resources Programs knows what it means. In paragraph (c), I have merely tried to say that this is declared to be the constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada, and I have therein outlined what I believe to be that authority. I have excepted specifically the powers reserved to the provinces so that there would be no doubt about the areas in which we were trying to legislate and that we were not trying in any way to encroach upon provincial authority. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) not only do not go beyond the bill but they turn it into something meaningful, and they define what we are trying to do in the legislation.
Paragraph (d) is the effort I have made to co-ordinate the pollution control activities of the government of Canada. This session we have had various pieces of legislation dealing with pollution. We have had amendments to the Fisheries Act, the Northern Waters Pollution bill, the Northern Inland Waters bill, and various other bills. We have been told that there are going to be amendments to the Canada Shipping Act in connection with pollution from shipping on the east and west coasts. Through paragraph (d) I am merely trying to make the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) the co-ordinator of all activies of all departments with relation to the management of the water resources of Canada.
Here again, I do not feel it should be considered as going beyond the scope of the bill. I am saying that when other government departments are involved in pollution control this legislation does not apply, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the co-ordinating minister. I do not see how that could be considered as going beyond the intent of the bill. I do not feel that to this point we have gone in any way beyond the general intent of the legislation as set out in the recommendation except, as I say, with regard to the use of the words "water quality."
The part of the amendment that may have bothered Your Honour is that which proposes that the minister have the assistance of a national pollution abatement commission composed of five members who shall report to him, and also the provision that the Governor in Council may make recommendations concerning the duties of the commission. This is something that members of this party and my hon. friends to the left tried to achieve throughout the hearings of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. We tried to get some co-ordinating
May 20, 1970

Water Resources Programs authority established. I would also point out that motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), purports to define a federal pollution control board. The wording is a slightly different from my amendment, a national pollution abatement commission, but the intent is the same.
We have both made an effort to include this in the bill without the expenditure of money. Motion No. 1 merely defines a federal pollution control board, and does not require the establishment of the board. Therefore, adoption of the amendment does not require the expenditure of money. I went a little further than that in my amendment and proposed that the commission be set up, but there is no provision in my amendment for the expenditure of money by the commission. I have not proposed that salaries be paid, and if the amendment is accepted it is quite conceivable that the commission could be a voluntary agency.
Right now there are many people throughout Canada who are most interested in the environmental pollution of the country and who would be pleased to sit ex officio on the commission. I could pick five persons right now who would be happy to serve on the commission without remuneration. While inferentially there may be the possibility that the commission might spend money, nevertheless the amendment does not provide for that. For this reason, I submit that motion No. 5, about which Your Honour had some reservations, is not out of order.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), is along similar lines. Frankly, I think his motion might more readily be considered as being in order than mine. He is merely trying to co-ordinate the federal jurisdiction and define the responsibilities of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He merely says that the duties, powers and functions of the minister ought to extend to all matters not exclusively assigned to the legislatures of the provinces. His amendment goes on to state that in this legislation, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the minister responsible for matters pertaining to environmental pollution. Therefore on these two motions, as well as on No. 1, there can be no real objection to putting the question and taking a vote. We always hope that some members on the government side will relent 
and see the light. That did not happen too often in committee, although one or two amendments were accepted. Still, there is a proposal here. It is a major proposal but I submit it does not go beyond the scope of the bill. Neither does it require the expenditure of money. For these reasons, although these particular matters may be borderline cases, they ought to be put to the House so that the House may have the opportunity of expressing itself on the government's efforts to co-ordinate the control of pollution. This has not been done up to this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps that I ought to deal with these points seriatim. First, I think the point raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) was probably answered by the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who pointed out that the first preamble relates to water quantity and the second to water quality. In addition to his observations I would include a reference to section 2 (1) (1) which reads:
"water resource management" means the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, and includes, with respect thereto,... planning and the implementation of plans... and regulation of water quantity and quality.
The hon. member doubted whether there were words in the recommendation to cover the situation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, I think quite rightly, that conservation applies to the preservation of the quality of water.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The quality and quantity.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suggest that the word "utilization" also applies to the preservation of the quality of water. We have an example of utilization of a certain sort in the Ottawa River close by here. In this utilization, certain manufacturers are dumping waste into the river. Quite clearly, the question of quality is involved in regulating that type of utilization.
May I now deal with specific points raised by the Chair? May I make the point, which I believe to be the basis for Your Honour's observation, that motions 1 and 3 both involving the recommendation of the creation of a body which could involve public expenditure, would offend procedurally in the sense that the establishment of these bodies has not been preceded by the recommendation of the Governor General in Council. The hon.
May 20, 1970

member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) pointed out in connection with motion No. 5, which is in his name that that particular body would not necessarily involve expenditures. Perhaps I might take the liberty of reminding the Chair of past precedents which point out that if a body, created without specific reference to the expenditure of money, were created, which in effect was going to utilize certain resources for the purposes of carrying on its functions, then that indirectly provides a drain on the treasury and to that extent would have to be preceded by a recommendation of the Governor General in Council.
I make no contest with respect to the second motion.
May I now refer to the fourth and fifth motions. As I have already said in connection with the fifth motion, I take exception to it on grounds of the absence of a financial recommendation. I also take exception to it on the grounds that it goes beyond the scope of the bill, which relates to the water resources of Canada. Subparagraph (b) of the motion refers to "the control of environmental pollution," particularly with regard to air and soil, which I submit is a subject matter not covered by the bill as defined at the second reading stage which was with regard to water pollution only. That, therefore, is beyond the scope of the bill as originally approved in this House.
The same argument applies to the fourth motion. May I focus your attention particularly on the words, "pollution of any natural element," in the second last line of the motion. This, again, would indicate that the bill deals not only with the control of water resources in themselves, but with the matters involving control of pollution in natural elements, which include soil and air. As such, 1 submit that this is beyond the scope of the bill.
I entered another caveat with regard to motion No. 25. Having done so, I realized I had overlooked motion No. 6, to which, it seems to me, a similar caveat should apply. This bill deals with the management, utilization and conservation of water resources within Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And with quality, too.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is within the terms as used. The bill at no point deals with the question of the export or control of water across international boundaries. In other words, the export of water is not dealt
Water Resources Programs with anywhere in the bill, and I submit therefore that amendments which purport to deal with the export of water are also beyond the scope of the bill as presented. I am not saying that is not an important question, merely that that is a question which is not dealt with in this particular legislation. It is not within the scope of the bill as presented at second reading. Therefore, I argue that motions Nos. 6 and 25 are beyond the terms of the present bill and should not be accepted. I make no contest or observation with regard to motion No. 16.
These are the only comments that we, on this side of the House, would make with regard to the points of order raised. As to the general alignment suggested to the House by the Chair, we find that quite acceptable.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to speak to motion No. 2 and motion No. 5. I want to say a word about motion No. 5 and to raise a question with Your Honour regarding a motion that contains more than one subject matter, which the motion of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) does.
I do not think I need to dwell too long on Motion No. 2. My friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), dealt with that. As I understand from the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), he makes no contest with respect to motion No. 2. If I interpret correctly that cautious wording, I take it that the President of the Privy Council does not think that motion No. 2 is out of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps the
hon. member will recognize that it is not for me to tell the Chair so definitively what is in order. I do not contest the validity of the motion. That is all.


David Lewis: That is what I thought the minister said. We agree.
I wanted to draw Your Honour's attention very briefly to two other matters in addition to those which were brought to your attention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The first is that in addition to motion No. 14, which Your Honour found in order, you also found motion No. 7 in order, if my notes are correct. I point out to Your Honour that the first part of motion No. 7 provides that forthwith, upon the coming into force of this act, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, shall establish water quality standards for all classes of
7134	COMMONS
Water Resources Programs water in Canada. I merely urge on Your Honour something that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised. If a general provision requiring the establishment of water quality standards is not beyond the scope of the bill, then I respectfully suggest that a motion which sets out the criteria for the water quality standards in some detail cannot be outside the scope of the bill either. The only difference is that in one case the Governor in Council is given the authority to set such standards. In the case of 7 or 14, the Governor in Council shall from time to time set specific water quality standards. Motion No. 2 merely defines water quality standards. Presumably if the three motions to which I referred were all passed, 7, 14 and 2, then 2 would merely be a definition of the quality standards which 7 and 14 empower the Governor in Council to establish.
I therefore do not see how 7 and 14 can be in order and 2 be out of order.
[DOT] (3:50 p.ra.)
I wish to make a brief reference to motion No. 5. This matter has been of concern to me on several occasions at the report stage. I refer to the question whether it is possible for the Chair to sever part of a motion from the rest of the motion if that part is in fact severable. I think Your Honour is better acquainted with the law, the severability of a part of a statute and the severability of a section of the British North America Act. I do this from memory. With an act as a whole, when there are sections of it which are in order or within the jurisdiction of a given legislature, either the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature, the court can sever the unconstitutional part without declaring the entire statute to be ultra vires or beyond jurisdiction.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka contains in sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) material which, perhaps in error, I cannot see on what ground it could be said to be beyond the scope or in any other way out of order as far as the amendments to the bill before us are concerned. I can see the difficulties involved. I am sorry, I did not mean to say (d). I apologize. I meant sections
(a)	, (b) and (c). I cannot see why sections (a),
(b)	and (c) are outside the scope of the bill.
I can see the difficulties that Your Honour has with respect to the establishment of a body, even though no expenditures are mentioned in the proposal, which is bound to engage the treasury, as the President of the Privy Council indicated.

DEBATES	May 20, 1970
If Your Honour agrees that subclause (d) is in a separate category from (a), (b) and (c), 1 wonder whether there is anything in the rules, or a logical interpretation of the rules, to prevent Your Honour from saying that (a), (b) and (c) may be debated and disposed of by this House, but for reasons Your Honour may give that (d) cannot be debated. I have looked at the rules. This has occurred to me on previous occasions. I have tried to understand the logic of the situation. Personally I have difficulty in understanding why it is not possible for the Chair to rule as I have suggested.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka could just as easily have put down two separate motions. What could logically be done in that way could just as logically be done in the way I suggest to Your Honour. The hon. member could just as easily have had motion No. 5 dealing only with (a), (b) and (c). Because (d) is not really connected with the first part, he would have had a separate motion No. 6 dealing with that. Assuming Your Honour agrees with my suggestion that 5 is in order and 6 is not, Your Honour would have no difficulty in that case.
Possibly it would be useful in the future if Your Honour considered establishing the precedent that when we have a motion, the parts of which are disparate and are not related or connected with each other, that Your Honour could sever one part of the motion rather than declare the whole of it out of order in that kind of situation.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I rise to speak briefly on the amendments presently before the House. I listened with considerable interest to the remarks made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) with regard to these amendments and the special reference to motion No. 2 moved by the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). If I recall correctly, he said that as far as this motion is concerned, it represented no contest to the government side of the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I said I did not contest it on procedural grounds.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the President of the Privy Council. I would like to have him define his interpretation of the meaning of the word "waste" in this bill. The word appears on a number of pages. It is defined on page 3 in clause (k). The hon. member for Vancouver-
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
Kingsway also used the word in parts (ii) and (iii) of her motion which states:
(ii)	no waterway should be designated as having as its principal use the transportation of waste,
(iii)	no standard should permit waste to be discharged untreated into a waterway.
For those of us living on the east coast, the word "waste" has a definite connotation, a definite meaning. It applies to a substance used generally by engineers on large ships, fishing trawlers, draggers or by merchantmen. Waste is a substance which they use for wiping oil from the engine. When they require waste, they order it by stating that they require five boxes of waste. In return they receive five 10-pound boxes of material which has been washed, dry cleaned and put in cartons to be utilized as a specific substance.
I question the use of the word "waste" throughout this entire bill. It can be interpreted to apply only to waste rags thrown overboard into any water containing fish. I ask the President of the Privy Council for his interpretation of this word.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that the Chair will not allow the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to answer the hon. member's question. I remind the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) that we are now dealing strictly with a procedural point as to whether certain specific sections are acceptable from a procedural standpoint, as to whether or not they are in order.
I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this is the point to which we should address ourselves. I do not think the hon. member will help the situation by a debate on the definition of the word "waste". I do not think the point is all that material in so far as I can understand the situation. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member. I simply invite him to limit his remarks as much as possible to the strictly procedural aspect of the debate. Eventually, I hope I will be in a position to make a ruling which will be satisfactory to all hon. members.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank Your Honour for your comments. I do not wish to delay our proceedings unduly. However, I would like to point out that this question was raised in another place when discussion on amendments to the Fisheries Act was in progress. It was considered by the Minister of Fisheries
DEBATES	7135
Water Resources Programs as well as by other members of the committee, that the word "waste" in the act was unacceptable and unsatisfactory and it was replaced by the phrase "deleterious substance". I raise the point now because the word occurs in several of these amendments, and since it was found necessary to amend it in connection with a related act I submit it would not be consistent to allow it to remain in this bill, or at least, that I should bring the matter to Your Honour's attention.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I intend to be brief, Mr. Speaker; this is the first occasion on which I have taken part in a procedural discussion in two years. It seems that objection has been taken to one of the motions in my name, No. 4, and Your Honour appears inclined to rule it out of order. The President of the Privy Council read parts of it only and said it would make the minister responsible for dealing with soil and air pollution. I say this is so only to the extent that such pollution damages the water of Canada. We are, of course, studying a bill concerned with the pollution of water, and I maintain that anything which contributes to pollution of the environment generally might be considered as having the effect of polluting the waters. But this is only to the extent that pollution of the other elements affects the waters of Canada.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: 1
do not wish to prolong the debate, but I should like to support those hon. members who feel that some of these motions should be allowed. I should like to consider first of all the motion which deals with water quality standards. I would point out that standards can be set by regulation and that to do so would certainly not involve the expenditure of money. A number of regulations will in fact be made, not by this House but by the minister's department, once the bill has passed through Parliament. This alone indicates that a discussion of this important amendment should be allowed.
May I say a word or two about the other amendments which according to the leader of the House are out of order because they would involve the expenditure of money? The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has outlined the case in general terms; similar arguments were used in the committee. The clause concerned is an interpretive clause, and the setting up of a control board certainly does not involve expenditure of cash. Whether the government proceeds to establish
May 20, 1970

Water Resources Programs the council later is a matter entirely apart from anything which might be contained in the interpretive clause.
I should like to draw to the attention of the House a point we were discussing on March 12 when we were considering the setting up of a standards council. The argument which applied then would, I believe, apply now. As reported in Hansard at page 4714, the leader of the House summed up his argument then by saying: "The fundamental point in connection with the creation of the body is separate and independent of the appropriation of funds for it from time to time." I submit that the very same point arises here. The operation of the body once established is an entirely separate question.
A number of agencies are being set up under this legislation. It would be simple for the government to change these agencies around so as to meet the terms of the pollution control board as set out in one of the amendments. In any event, the points have been well covered by now and I am certain that hon. members are willing to give Your Honour an opportunity to take them into consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contributions to the procedural debate. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka; I have the impression that he had something of value to add to the argument.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps I should have waited to hear what Your Honour had to say, because there are certain motions which appear to be related in a manner different from that indicated in the first part of Your Honour's statement. I think that Nos. 6 and 25 are related.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member is anticipating the suggestion I propose to make to hon. members. I think the arguments put forward are very interesting and certainly worth every possible consideration. This is a most important bill. The amendments proposed are highly technical and the procedural arguments advanced in support of or against the proposed motions are worthy of careful consideration. What I suggest to hon. members is that for the time being the Chair be allowed to stand motions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 16. Exception has been taken in some measure, in any event, to Nos. 6 and 25. I would be disposed to give the benefit of the doubt to movers of those motions. There has to be some start to the consideration of these 
amendments and my suggestion to hon. members is that the debate begin with Nos. 6 and 25.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka suggested a few moments ago that there is a close relation between these two suggested amendments. I agree with him. My proposal to hon. members at this point is that we initiate the debate on these amendments by considering at the same time motions Nos. 6 and 25. These motions will be the occasion for one debate but could eventually be the subject of two different votes. I shall give serious consideration to the more general arguments put forward originally by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and to the submissions of other hon. members respecting motions Nos. 1 to 5 and 16. I shall try to reach a decision and give a ruling as quickly as possible with regard to these motions but we can initiate the debate on Nos. 6 and 25 if hon. members are in agreement with this suggestion.


Mr. Rose:: I would ask Your Honour whether in reaching a decision on motion No. 5. you will take into consideration the committee report of February 5, 1970-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that we are not going to start the argument again. The hon. member should understand that the Chair will consider all aspects. I will consider the precedents and the Standing Orders. I am not at all sure that I will consider the evidence that was given in committee. I suggest to the hon. member that that is not the responsibility of the Chair.
I have already spent quite a bit of time looking at all these motions. I will at this point study particularly the arguments which have been put forth by hon. members who have taken part in the debate. I respectfully suggest that for the moment we allow the matter to stand and give the House an opportunity to consider the following motion moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding thereto a new clause 5A to read as follows: "5A. No inland waterways shall be diverted for the purpose of exportation without the approval of parliament."
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
The House would also consider at the same time the motion moved by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken):
That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by inserting a new clause 37:
"Construction.
37. This act shall not be construed to authorize any treaty or convention with respect to exporting the water resources of Canada, and no treaty, convention or agreement with respect to such export shall be binding unless authorized by the parliament of Canada."
and by renumbering the subsequent clause accordingly.


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you will forgive my taking a moment. Your Honour said you would consider the discussion on Nos. 1 to 5 inclusive and on No. 16. I merely rise to remind Your Honour that we have made no representations today with regard to No. 16 on the assumption that it would come up another day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right. The understanding is that we will not dispose of the bill this afternoon and will eventually reach motion No. 16, at which time argument might be considered by the Chair.


Randolph Harding: That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by adding thereto a new clause 5A to read as follows:
"5A. No inland waterways shall be diverted for the purpose of exportation without the approval of parliament."
He said: In speaking to motion No. 6, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is designed to make certain there will be no export of Canadian water without the approval of Parliament. In moving this motion, I should like to point out that during the hearings in committee several groups raised this issue. They felt that since the Canada Water Act was supposed to deal with the control and development of all Canadian waters, it should certainly include some reference to water export.
The groups went further and felt that water export led to the continental concept of water development. I do not think there is 22375-34
DEBATES	7137
Water Resources Programs any doubt about that; I am quite certain that all hon. members of the House realize that the export of water is certainly very closely tied in with the continental energy plan about which we have heard so much.
When a similar amendment was put before the committee-it has now been changed very slightly- a number of the committee members felt the amendment offered at that time was not clear enough. As I recall it, the only objection to it by several committee members was that the way it was drafted at the time would prevent the carrying over the border of water in bottles.
Arguments of this nature are a clear indication that the members who advance them are interested in finding some minor flaws in order to turn down amendments. In committee, even a change of several words in a suggested amendment is usually accepted by the mover of the amendment if the amendment is going to be incorporated into the legislation. This is why we have put this amendment before the House of Commons. As I say, a similar amendment was moved in the committee, but the committee members, in their wisdom, felt there should not be this safeguard for our Canadian water in this particular statute.
May I point out that the Canadian people are becoming very apprehensive over our resource development. This development includes not only development of water resources but of all natural resources in Canada. However, we are here dealing with water.
The export of water is not merely the taking of a certain amount of the liquid over the 49th parallel. In many instances, such as in the case of the Columbia River, we have allowed flood waters, which normally belong to the country of origin, to be sold to the United States on a power basis. We trap the water in Canada. The water is then released from storage dams. This amounts to exporting water, because this surplus water could have been redirected into other rivers or to other provinces in Canada, and no one would have cause for complaint.
As I have said, under international law the normal flow of the river is all that the river is expected to carry; the flood waters belong to the country of origin. To return to the case of the Columbia river for a moment, there we find that although we receive a share of the power produced by this surplus water which goes through United States turbines, no indication of this is given in any of our statistics.
May 20, 1970

Water Resources Programs This is not classed as the export of power, though this power is being sold for a 30-year period. Nevertheless, it is, in effect, the exportation of Canadian energy, whether this shows up in any statistics or not.
I should just like to point out in passing that in cases such as this it seems very odd that no record is made of the amount of energy lost through this type of export. I suppose the reason is that they simply do not know how much energy is being produced by the surplus water that is being sold under the Columbia River treaty.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Coming a little closer to 1970, we find that a number of plans have been advanced by various organizations. Some of these have been advanced in this country, but most have originated in the United States. It has been suggested that Canada, with its apparent abundance of water, could well export some of this valuable resource to the south. People have become alarmed about this. We feel there should be some guarantee, especially in a bill such as this which, as I mentioned earlier, is supposed to manage the entire water resources of our nation. Someone said, "if you do not need it, sell it". This does not necessarily make good sense because Canadians to date have never had a proper survey made and therefore do not know how much water there is in Canada. Projections have never been made by any government concerning the requirements 40, 50, or 100 years from now of the people living in this country. So far as this resource is concerned, it would be foolhardy for any government to think in terms of export until comprehensive surveys have been made so that people know what the picture is.
Then, there is another aspect of water diversion and this is the reason I believe it is so important to have an amendment such as this. It is simple enough to divert a river. A river that is running into the Arctic may be diverted south. The course of rivers running into Hudson Bay can quite easily be changed through damming. The water can be brought down by a different route and can be utilized in many different ways. Through research- we are only now beginning to realize the amount of work which has been done worldwide by geologists-we know it is not as simple a proposition as merely saying we have a surplus amount of water here which we can redirect south of the border and for 
which we will receive so many hundreds of millions of dollars or whatever the cash agreement might be.
The ecologists are telling us now that we must be extremely careful about any type of diversion. Once a certain flow of water is prevented from going into either the Arctic Ocean, Hudson Bay or some other body of water surrounding our Canadian nation, for example, our whole ecology could be changed. We could change the ecology not only of the area through which the river initially ran but also the ecology of the ocean into which it ran. We are just beginning to get this information. I recently visited the Bedford Institute in Nova Scotia where ecological studies have been conducted. We heard the story of what has happened at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, not because of diversion but because of damaging. We learned of the changes that are taking place in respect of the fish runs and so on.
The situation is important enough in this day and age that we believe the people of Canada must have all the protection they can get. This is the reason we appeal to the government to accept this amendment, or one similar to it, so that there can be written into the Canada Water Act a guarantee to the people of Canada that before any diversion takes place the matter must come before this House of Commons. There, the searchlight of public opinion can be turned on it so that all the facts can be obtained for the Canadian public. This is all we ask. We ask that this protection be included in this legislation. We might be told this is covered by other acts of Parliament. But I want to stress that this is the act that is supposed to provide for the proper, logical and sensible development of all Canadian water resources. If that is so, the export of water must be covered in one of the clauses of this bill. I urge the members of this House to accept an amendment along these lines which would give the Canadian people and ourselves the extra protection they certainly require.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources be amended by inserting a new clause 37:
"Construction.
37. This act shall not be construed to authorize any treaty or convention with respect to exporting the water resources of Canada, and no treaty, con-
May 20, 1970

vention or agreement with respect to such export shall be binding unless authorized by the parliament of Canada."
and by renumbering the subsequent clause accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably a curiosity when at the report stage of this very important measure-probably one of the two or three most important measures we have to consider in this Parliament-I find that even though my proposed amendment is number 25 on the list I am speaking second. That is the way things go. The point my hon. friend has raised, which I shall raise and which will be raised when the House turns its attention to Motion No. 25, I think is one of the most important points we can make in this session of Parliament. May I say first of all that I believe at the report stage we are caught in a rather curiously anomalous position for parliamentarians. This situation did not exist before the new rules came into effect. Previously, we could try to make points without necessarily being bound by the exact wording of the amendments being suggested. But now, we not only have to make our points in substance, but have to make them in form.
When I say we have to make them in form, I mean that we have to make them in wording which fits into the general tenor of the bill and in a form which does not offend the general principles of parliamentary draftsmanship. I point this out because when my friend to my left presented his proposal originally, it seemed to me to be like a king Canute proposal; in other words, thou shalt not allow the water to advance. Instead of arguing that the inland waterways not be diverted for the purpose of export, I think he used the phrase "inland waters not be transported". Perhaps I am wrong, but knowing the water rolls ceaselessly onward, the words were such that one could not possibly accept the principle he was trying to put forward. Nonetheless, the basic substance of the amendment suggested by my friend is something which I think one can really accept. It is something I have tried to put into words for our consideration but in a different way. The point which I think is being established here is that Canada, which has one-quarter or one-fifth of the fresh water resources in the world, should not barter away that treasure for any minor consideration.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We know that because of the growth of our neighbours to the south they have a great 22375-34J
Water Resources Programs need for things that they cannot possibly produce or do not have. One of the crying needs of the United States is fresh, drinkable water, and it is to this obvious need that U.S. statesmen are giving their thoughts and their consideration. They are looking around for an alternative for their people. Where can they find it? Where is there a possible source to satisfy this need? The obvious answer is, Canada. Good, drinkable water is undoubtedly one of our greatest assets. It is something the United States does not have and something over which a bargain can be struck. I am sure that they are looking at us avidly, perhaps I should say thirstily, to find an answer to their problem.
I think this is a fact which should be put right on the table so that we know what we are up against, and so that they know that we know what we are up against. The motions to amend this bill are before the House. We want an assurance that when we are dealing with waters that flow from this country to another country, and which are part of our natural resources, they are being dealt with wisely and properly, that they are not being bartered or given away. We know they are part of the richness of this country and that without them the people on the other side are at a disadvantage.
The reason that my friend and I want our motions dealt with in the House is that we hope the united voice of Canada will say, "yes, we have an asset; we are a good neighbour but we do not barter away freely or cheaply what we have." We make our point and we make it as Canadians. In that spirit I hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will adopt one or the other proposal or both of them, and that we will assert our sovereignty over what is really becoming one of the rarer assets and one that is priceless in this world.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about the bill and the two amendments which, I think, should be made to it.
It is most important to ensure the conservation of waters, to keep them as clear as they are in some Canadian waterways. Sound conservation calls for the inclusion in the bill of a restrictive and mandatory provision regarding the diversion or export of waters.
May 20, 1970

Water Resources Programs
Without either of amendments Nos. 6 and 25 the bill will not achieve its purpose because the title reads in part as follows:
-development and utilization-
-of waterways, of course.
If we cannot include in the bill an amendment similar to those I referred to, in order to determine whether the provinces should be accountable to the federal government for the diversion or sale of our water resources, I think we are on the wrong track, because it is our duty to pass that bill with or without amendments-and I am referring to amendments Nos. 6 and 25-since we will be losing much of our efficiency as far as water control is concerned and we will deprive ourselves of a quite effective tool. Once such an important bill as Bill C-144 is passed, we should no longer be deprived of an extremely useful tool.


Mark Willson Rose: My
participation in this debate stems from real interest in this particular problem. A number of the points that I was about to make have been dealt with by previous speakers; nevertheless, I do believe they require some emphasis. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) in the House this afternoon, because the diversion of water is of particular interest to this member in view of a proposal for such in his riding. I can remember that about a year ago the Fisheries Committee, at the hon. member's suggestion, visited the community of Kamloops to hear briefs, principally on the proposal of a diversion of the Shuswap waters from the Fraser into the Columbia. This water was not considered for diversion necessarily for purposes of export, but may I remind hon. members-and I am sure some must know this-that the Okanagan watershed ultimately empties into the Columbia River system. Any water, therefore, that is diverted down through the Okanagan system would ultimately become U.S. water, since the Columbia River empties into the ocean on the border between Washington and Oregon. I believe the suggested diversion involved 90,000 acre feet per year. The reason for the suggestion was the limited flow in the various Okanagan lake chains which contributes to the pollution resulting from the increased use of agricultural fertilizers and a number of other reasons such as municipalities dumping sewage into the lakes. The tMr. Beaudoin.]
combination of these factors was threatening the magnificent and flourishing tourist industry.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo expressed great concern. I believe he had reason for it, because not only did this proposal involve the diversion of a particular amount of water from one watershed to another but it also threatened the salmon spawning capacity of the Adams River in that general area. The water considered for diversion was Fraser water flowing into the sea in Canadian territory. Naturally, as the member for Fraser Valley West, I have a particular interest in the maintenance and, in fact, improvement of the fisheries resources of that particular watershed. I know the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo would agree with me that before any plan of this far-reaching nature is allowed to proceed it should come before this House for thorough discussion and examination. In passing, I may say I believe there is a federal-provincial study being conducted into the Shuswap diversion at the moment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The amendment before us suggests that such a matter should come before the House. We are going to have more and more pressure upon us to export our water. As mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), there is a large thirsty nation to the south of us. Within 25 years, one generation, it is expected that the population of the United States will double from 200 million to 400 million people. Naturally, their demands for resources of all kinds, including water, at least will double as a consequence.
Because of urban proliferation and growth, particularly near the Great Lakes, we have found that an increased need has developed for water for both domestic and industrial use. We have discovered that water tables in areas of California and Florida are receding. The Canada Water bill proposes to deal with pollution in a major way. Population is an inter-related problem. One of the briefest and grimmest things we can say in summary is that if we do not do anything about pollution soon at least we will solve the population explosion problem.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and the government that they consider the expropriation amendment seriously because of its far-reaching implications, because of the need for the people of Canada to know when such a major
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
undertaking respecting a basic Canadian resource is contemplated, whether now or at any time in the future.
It is not just international diversion of water that can be hazardous to a country. Even internal water diversions can disturb the ecological balance of a whole region. New types of wildlife and of plant life tend to develop, and other types die because of the change in the ecological balance. We have been tinkering with these things for years but because our population has not been large we have, until now, been unable to see the real extent of the damage. As we continue to tinker the problems become larger and larger, and in many places they are reaching crisis proportions. For instance, I cite the cross Florida canal, and the substantial filling in of the bay at San Francisco as examples of ecological tinkering on a grand scale.
We must remember that the export of any kind of raw product, including water, leads to dependency. When another nation is depending upon a vital resource it is very difficult to turn off the tap once it has been turned on. Large cities, large populations and large industries become dependent on the resource. But, we must also remember that when we export our raw resources we are also exporting jobs, and Canada is already deficient in secondary industries. It seems to me that we should be encouraging industries to locate in Canada by using our resources here.
Another matter to consider is the storage of water within our own borders. Here, I speak in particular of the Skagit River valley. I am sure most hon. members are aware that this is a very important problem in British Columbia, and it has national interest as evidenced by a fine article in a recent issue of Canadian Magazine. It examined the whole matter of using areas within our borders to store water, and the plan was found wanting.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Orange) is well aware of this problem. I know he has been concerned about it. I know he is well aware that recreational resources close to large urban centres are becoming increasingly scare. I know he will make certain that any application from British Columbia to allow this kind of water storage, preparation for which will denude 6,000 acres of Canadian land, will not be automatically rubber-stamped by Ottawa. I certainly hope the matter will be resolved in the near future.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing sinister in members of the opposition propos-
DEBATES	7141
Water Resources Programs ing an amendment of this kind to regulate water exports. It seems to me good common sense that we protect ourselves in this way. I hope the government will accept it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, these two amendments move us to the fundamental question of our water resources. Time and again within the last few months we have had debates on the question of resource exchange between Canada and the United States, particularly on the question of how far Canada can go in entering into agreements for the export of our water resources. We have had debates on what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Green) meant when he spoke in Washington, and again when he spoke in Denver, Colorado. We have had statements from the government as to its intentions with regard to water resources and pollution, but unfortunately throughout all of this we have not been given a definite policy statement binding the government on these matters.
After the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources went to Washington a couple of months ago, he returned with the great idea that there should be an exchange of natural resources between Canada and the United States. This has been called a continental resource policy. The minister was understood by the general public to be saying that we should declare the resources of Canada and the United States to be one, and if one country had a surplus it should be made freely available to the other.
The question of the export of water touched a very tender nerve in Canadian hearts. Immediately, the public begain asking what the minister meant when he wanted to exchange energy resources. Did he intend to export water as part of this resources policy? Immediately the minister said, "Oh, no, not water," because he knew how very sensitive Canadians were on this question. "No," he said, "this resource exchange has nothing to do with water."
Then, he was asked what about oil and gas, had it anything to do with oil and gas? He said, "Well, not really. As far as gas is concerned we want to export as much as we can. We have gas available, and oil likewise. The market is there and we would like to export, but we do not want to get into a bind or a disagreement over oil and gas." Then, he was asked what about mineral resources and he replied, "Well, a great many of our mineral resources are presently going to the United
May 20, 1970

Water Resources Programs States in processed or partially processed form, and in some cases in raw form." In order to prevent Ontario resources being sent to other countries in the raw form for processing, the Ontario government has passed legislation requiring at least a primary treatment of these mineral resources. That is to be undertaken in Ontario, and will prevent our becoming merely hewers of wood and drawers of water. Canadians are beginning to resent such a role. That is the background of the motion before us.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In questions involving the exchange of resources, our people are beginning to wonder exactly what the minister intends to do with our water resources. What does the government intend to do? We have never heard the answer. The Canada Water bill provides for the setting up of water quality management agencies. It has been suggested in committee that one of those agencies could be along the borders of the Great Lakes, or could be given jurisdiction over boundary waters or interjurisdictional waters. If that were to happen it would be possible for one of these agencies set up in one of those water resource management areas to make an agreement under the Canada Water Act which would result in the export of our water. In other words, with the approval of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), we may find that under the Canada Water Act certain agencies in this country are exporting water without Parliament ever having had a chance to consider the matter.
We think the bill goes far enough in delegating authority to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in this particular field. He has authority to approve water quality management programs and therefore he can, on his own authority, recommend to the Governor in Council that any particular agency should have certain powers which could result in the export of water. Motion No. 25 seeks to amend the bill in such a way as to make the export of water under the authority of this act impossible unless Parliament is first given an opportunity to debate the matter.
Both amendments being debated go a little farther than this. They say that no treaty, convention, or agreement with respect to the export of water shall be binding unless authorized by the Parliament of Canada. Here, again, we are trying to make sure that

our resources will not be exported unless Parliament has first had an opportunity to debate that matter.
We have seen the different attitudes evinced by this minister, first when he went to Washington to talk to Mr. Hickel and second, when he made his speech last week at Denver, Colorado. To my mind, these two speeches, made within two months, indicate a complete reversal of policy. In the first speech the minister proposed a continental resource policy, and in the second he reversed himself to the point of saying to the Americans, "There will be no more resources for you unless we say so and unless we have a pretty definite idea of what you will pay for them."
Assuming the minister had the authority of the government to say what he did, and that is something we never questioned, it is clear that there has been a complete reversal of government policy within two months. All the opposition has been able to do has been to sit in Parliament and hear this policy explained. That is why we cannot allow the government to exercise a temporary policy which would permit the export of water for one week or one month. After the damage has been done, the government could easily reverse its policy and say, "No more." The damage could be done by one minister of one government. There might be a temporary policy, and a few months later a change of policy under which the export of resources would be cut off.
You cannot turn on and off the flow of water. Once the people across the border have begun relying on the supply of our water, have started building industries which rely on it and have begun using it for municipal purposes, for human consumption and so on, we cannot cut it off. Once the water has been exported, once it has been diverted, you cannot turn off the tap and make the people across the border go without water. That is impossible. That is why we feel that the matter of export of water should not just be a matter of government policy. It should be a matter that ought to be considered by Parliament in every case. These amendments will authorize the export of water only if the export is approved by Parliament; otherwise, no such agreement will be binding.
If the minister could set a policy which would be indicated through speeches or through the approving of plans, say, for water resources management areas involving boundary water areas, and if he would implement these policies simply by making a recommendation to the Governor in Council for approv-
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
al, then the people of Canada would have no protection so far as the export of their water resources is concerned. As I understand it, there have been no co-ordinated efforts by the government in dealing with the pollution of Canadian resources. To deal with this matter, the government has designated various ministers. It has designated the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for some purposes, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) for some matters that come under legislation for which he is responsible, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) to look after water resource matters in the territories. Frankly, I think there is a conflict between this act and the Northern Inland Waters Act, because both measures deal with the same waters. Therefore, depending on where the waters are located, you could have two ministers responsible for the same problem. A similar situation exists in connection with coastal waters and international waters coming under the International Joint Commission.
I am merely pointing this out to show that, at present, nobody in Canada knows exactly who is in charge of matters pertaining to water quality management and pollution control. The responsibility is left with this department and that department. At any rate, if these amendments were accepted, Parliament would have to say whether certain agreements relating to the export of resources would be approved. That is all I have to say on the subject.
I think it is clear that there are fundamental amendments. I hope hon. members on the government side will remember that before they vote against one or both of these amendments. I hope they will remember, if they do not support our amendments, that they will be taking out of the hands of Parliament the control over our water resources and placing that control in the hands of the ministry. However, if this amendment were accepted, we shall be assured that none of those accidents that take place time and again in government will again happen with respect to the export of our water resources. Under this amendment we are making sure that between one minister and another, one government and another or one government body and another, there will be no slipping through of some agreement that would have the effect of exporting water from Canada. This is not to say that under no circumstances, at no time, can an international agreement be made with respect to our water resources. The amend-
DEBATES	7143
Water Resources Programs ment merely provides that without the approval of Parliament and the opportunity of public debate, no accidental diversion or export of water will take place.
We can make this water act a useful tool. In addition to what little benefit it already is with regard to pollution control, it can be a useful tool for the protection of Canada's resources. I hope this proposal will be given serious consideration before we have to vote on it.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: In supporting this motion and motion No. 25, I wish to state that once more the government has shown reluctance to look very far ahead. I am not sure whether it is the fault of the Department of Justice and their inability to draft legislation which the Canadian people want or whether the civil servants are unable to interpret what hon. members on both sides of the House want. This bill is an indication that very little has been accomplished. We are again playing with words rather than doing something concrete.
An indication of how slight the change is that is contemplated by this legislation is the fact that the minister is not here, and the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is from the Northwest Territories which will the last place in which there will be a diversion of waters. It is a long way from the problem. Most members from British Columbia are aware of the fact that most Canadians want to use their major resources for the benefit of Canada. One major resource is water. The control of water should remain under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It can logically be argued that the federal government has control in this particular field, although this control is contained in a number of different acts. We should include a clause in the water act that will affect water in a very fundamental way. One of the purposes of this bill is to solve the problem of pollution.
I think it is safe to say that if we allow a diversion of water, we will eliminate almost entirely the problem of pollution. The waters of James Bay and Hudson Bay could be diverted through Lake Nipigon and the chain of rivers in that area. This is not a remote possibility. We, in Canada, do not know a damn thing about the resources we have in that area, but the Americans do. American army engineers surveyed the water potential in that area. For the last three or four years, includ-
May 20. 1970

Water Resources Programs ing this year, they hired Canadians to measure the water level, the snowfall and rainfall. These people were paid $3 a month to report to the American army engineers.
If the waters of the Great Lakes were diverted, it is possible that enough water from Lake Michigan could be diverted through the canal which connects Chicago with the Mississippi River basin to clean it up and again make that a fresh waterway. The amount of water the International Joint Commission allows into that canal does not permit the Americans to correct this pollution problem. The matter of ownership, and the responsibility of the federal government to maintain the water resources of Canada, are essential to the implementation of this bill, as is the interplay that will take place with the provinces.
For years a plausible and feasible scheme has been advanced in northern Ontario and northern Quebec to divert large quantities of water from the Arctic watershed to the Atlantic watershed. Those people in British Columbia who see huge mountains when they look out their windows may not realize how simple this is. The elevation of the land in northern Ontario when travelling west on highway No. 11 is 1,060 feet. In some areas, it is considerably below that level. Diverting water from the Arctic watershed to the Atlantic watershed involves a difference of only 400 feet.
The matter of water diversion in British Columbia is a possibility. If we were to agree to water diversion, the American government would immediately finance it and would probably pay a pretty penny on a short term basis for that resource. I am surprised at the government introducing this kind of legislation. Considerable legislation of this nature has been passed that only toys with the facts rather than facing up to them.
I agree with previous speakers that if this section of the bill is passed by Parliament it will go a long way to establish a total water resource control for many years. If not, successive governments will have to face the same problems as previous governments had to face. As one member pointed out, this resource belong to the provinces. The provinces can do whatever they wish with this resource.
I hope the government will consider these amendments, the over-all problems of this legislation and the desire for the legislation to produce certain results. I hope the govern-

ment will go much further than they have in this legislation so that in another year or two we will not have to amend it. This is true also of other fundamental changes that are being suggested. This bill is by no means complete. Unless a number of these amendments are accepted, this being one of the major amendments, this bill will only partially meet the needs of today. It will not meet the needs of the future to control all our water resources.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: I am dismayed, though not surprised, to note that on a day when this House is discussing a national resource question we should find a grand total of ten Liberal members present. This does not surprise me when I recall that the Liberal party has been in power during a period in which we have seen major control over our resources pass into foreign hands. The party which has governed this country for the larger part of this century will be seen as the major agent in what will be regarded by historians of the future as the great sell-out. To trust a Liberal cabinet with decision-making authority in connection with water resources, as this bill would do unless amended, would be analogous to leaving a sex fiend of some sort as a baby-sitter with an attractive 16-year-old girl.
As one who wishes to see brought about the civilized and full development of our country, the results of this bill concern me very much, and for this reason I am pleased to note that members of the Official Opposition support the amendments before the House. The Liberal party has vacillated according to the temr porary whims of some kind of nationalism in this country between jingoistic statements of the kind made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) the other day and the blatant continental policy of the late C. D. Howe. It is my distinct impression that all but a small minority of members opposite do respond in a very quick, unthinking, political way to serious political and historical questions and it would be a sad mistake for this House to decide that the future of our water resources should be left to the decision-making authority of the cabinet.
It has been noted by several speakers today that water resources are not like other resources; one has to consider the use to which they will be put. If we were to decide to divert a stream to the United States, the water would be used in the main for one of two purposes, either to provide a source of
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
hydro-electric energy or to provide water for irrigation. In neither case could we reasonably expect our American friends, who would become dependent on that water, to acquiesce in a change of policy if after a few years we were to decide it would be to our advantage to reverse the decision. In other words, to embark on a policy of exporting water is to make serious long-range commitments affecting not only our own citizens but those who would be purchasing the water. We would in a real sense be going back on a moral if not a legal commitment if, having made an agreement, we were to decide to abrogate or change it.
For this reason, members of this party believe that any such decision, if one is to be made in the future, must be brought before Parliament for thorough discussion. I, for one, have been most disappointed that no one so far in this debate has risen from the government benches to support this amendment. I hope we shall hear evidence of support from hon. members opposite as the debate proceeds. I cannot understand what sensible grounds for opposition there can be. We all know the history of this country. We all know that our economic future is in serious doubt if we fail to take proper action now to affect events in the next five or ten years. It, therefore, seems to me that all of us, irrespective of party, should be most concerned about any future decision to export our water. I fail to understand why the members of the government party cannot support such an amendment as this with a clear conscience.
What we need from the government is a carefully worked out and well researched policy concerning resource development. I hope that before next Christmas the government will come down with a solid resource policy. I am, of course, sceptical about the probability of any such policy being produced and I would question the desirability of this government's proposals on the subject in any case. However, as I say, I hope we shall one day get a national resource policy. In the meantime, I trust that those of us who are here dealing with what is ostensibly a minor amendment but with what is, in reality, a substantial question of public policy, will realize the implications and support the motion.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I can assure you I shall not be long, Mr. Speaker. The rulings this afternoon have interrupted the proceedings to some extent. Quite frankly, I was not prepared to speak on
DEBATES	7145
Water Resources Programs this particular amendment at the present time; I have been trying to go through the proceedings in committee to find out exactly what was said about this amendment or about the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Both amendments before the House are concerned with the same thing. If I recall what was said in committee, government members refused to accept an amendment put forward by a member of the New Democratic Party on the grounds that it was too simple, too blunt, too clear. This led my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants to draw up in his usual manner the more sophisticated amendment which is now motion No. 25. Basically, it means the same thing. It reads:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This Act shall not be construed to authorize any treaty or convention with respect to exporting the water resources of Canada, and no treaty, convention or agreement with respect to such export shall be binding unless authorized by the parliament of Canada.
In other words, the amendment simply states that we will not enter into an agreement to divert or export water without the approval of Parliament; that no minister shall be allowed to make any final arrangements in this matter without the approval of the Canadian people.
Like the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I find it very strange that no member on the government side wishes to participate in this debate. I also find it strange that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is not here this afternoon. There are two ministers in the House at the moment, but they are not concerned with the water act. This is the bill that the government introduced as the great legislation of this session, yet the minister himself is not here to say whether or not these amendments are acceptable. Neither was the minister in the committee to say whether the amendments moved were acceptable; and with all respect to the parliamentary secretary, I doubt very much whether he will take it upon himself to accept or reject any of these amendments.
Are the government members in favour or not in favour of the exportation of water? What is their stand on this question? We simply say that it may be true there are some instances where water should be exported. We really do not disagree about that. But we contend that this exportation should not be made without the approval of Parliament.
May 20. 1970

Water Resources Programs Even when we form the government in two years' time, the minister concerned will not be able to export water unless the Parliament of Canada so approves.
I do recall during the second meeting we had in committee that the minister was present. This was a session attended by the departmental officials, including Dr. Tinney, and I should just like to quote what was said at that time about the diversion or exportation of water. The hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) said:
-a lot is going on in an unofficial capacity, and nothing will be done until a comprehensive study of our own needs has been undertaken.
The hon. member was referring to the fact that there have been unofficial reports or discussions about the exportation of water. The witness, Dr. Tinney, replied, as reported at page 2:26 of the proceedings:
We must first make a comprehensive study of Canadian needs. This is what the Canada Water Act is all about and, if and when the consideration of export comes up, it has to be based on that kind of analysis. There is no consideration of export. There has been no consideration of export by the federal government. We are studying no plan whatsoever for the export of water to the United States.
This is a departmental official speaking, and he is saying that this is what the Canada Water Act is all about. If the Canada Water Act is about a comprehensive water management policy, pollution, and so on, then it deals with exportation. We say quite clearly that no water should be exported without the approval of Parliament. The matter is quite simple, and I hope at least one member on the government side will tell the House how he feels about this particular amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support both motion No. 6 and No. 25. I believe that in controlling about one quarter of all the fresh water in the world, Canada is in a unique position. It may not strike many members as being a unique position, but in view of the fact that in some countries of the world it is difficult to get a glass of fresh pure water, where bath privileges are limited to the very occasional one and water cannot be used in sanitary toilets, I suggest the matter deserves deep consideration.
Water resources belong to the provinces; there is no question about that. I am wondering why we are engaging in all this talk in view of the fact that yesterday Premier John Robarts stated that Ontario was not looking for a legal or constitutional battle over the

proposed Canada Water Act, even though the province's legal experts had found it unconstitutional in every major aspect. During the 14 years I have been in the House we would have done better, as I have said before, not to put even 25 per cent of the legislation we have passed on the books, because most of it has had so many flaws and caused so many problems that we have had to amend it.
Premier Robarts was being interviewed following Attorney General Arthur Wishart's tabling in the legislature of his department's opinion of the federal legislation when he made the comment to which I have just referred. I note that he was asked by the Ontario Liberal leader in the house, Robert Nixon, to table the departmental report. So as I say, I do not know whether we are just talking here for fun or not.
Be that as it may, I wanted to add a few words to what the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has said about water that is transported through various channels. He referred to the Columbia River and to the Coulee dam. His remarks were interesting because they indicate the ramifications of water resource development.
In the first place, the dam was built as a war measure to provide electrical power. Secondly, when the dam was built it was used to create an artificial lake in the bed of the old glacial Columbia River. Today, the lakp stretches some eight or 10 miles in length and some three miles in width and forms a huge basin where boats are sailed and people go to spend summer holidays.
Over and above that, a third use made of the lake is for irrigation. The land below it was almost desert, having practically no rainfall. As a result of the artificial lake, an irrigation system has been established that has brought hundreds of thousands of acres of land into agricultural use. This land is part of the fine fruit land now in the United States which raises particularly the harder fruit, such as apples.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) very wisely pointed out that the United States has spent considerable time and money in conducting a survey of resources in the north, the water supply potential, and so on. I would be the last to suggest that we should deprive the United States people of water to drink. However, I would also say, whether or not we have water for sale we should be very interested in what is going on.
I do not know of anyone who has made such a survey to determine whether or not we
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
have surplus water. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is reported to have said that if you have something that you do not intend to use and do not need, you might as well sell it and receive some money in return. This may be true, but if so I would ask where are the facts and figures to support this contention? Do the United States authorities have the facts? They are the only people who have conducted a survey, apart from Mr. Kierans who conducted a survey in respect of the diversion of the waters draining into Hudson's Bay. I do not know what became of that survey. These are the things the parliament of Canada should know before it passes a bill which might contain a loophole allowing water to be exported. I am sure this would not be done unknowingly by any Canadian minister, but it is a possibility. We would not want to see water sneaked across the boundary to supply the towns and villages which might grow up in the area.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I might point out that once one starts to supply water to any given area, whether for drinking purposes, for industry or for the establishment of summer resorts, one is expected to continue to do this and if forced to do so on moral grounds. I think this is an important matter. It is completely for the birds for one to say that we should try it for ten or twenty years, and then cut off the supply if we are short of water. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) put this matter very judiciously before the House. I believe the members of the government would be making a very serious error if they did not give due consideration to the management of the water, the pollution of water and the quality of water. Surely, there is a difference. As I pointed out in respect of the Columbia river, the water was utilized for three purposes. It was utilized not only for drinking purposes but first of all for power, then to create an artiticial lake and finally to irrigate thousands of acres of land in order to bring them into production. This was of terrific economic value to that area.
I believe this is one amendment Parliament should consider very seriously. I appeal to the government to consider just what this means. We are very fortunate that the difference between management of water and water quality has been raised. In respect of management, we know that under the provincial water resources legislation the province of
DEBATES	7147
Water Resources Programs Ontario today is building dams in order to create artificial lakes. In the area around the Kawartha Lakes, dams are being built to create artificial lakes. We must consider what basic changes are to be made. This will not only involve water management but also quality management because a lot of areas which previously had been used for lumbering and agricultural operations are now being turned into summer resort areas. So, let me say, we owe the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants a deep debt of gratitude for having placed fairly before us the point that there is a difference between the management and quality of water.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why an hon. member could oppose either of both amendments now under study, one of which reads as follows:
This Act shall not be construed to authorize any treaty or convention with respect to exporting the water resources of Canada, and no treaty, convention or agreement with respect to such export shall be binding unless authorized by the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned by previous speakers, this means that should a government be requested or decide to divert some waterways for the purpose of exporting water abroad-that is, as far as we are concerned, to the United States-only the Canadian Parliament could authorize such a measure.
At this point I would like to engage in a digression. The Canadian Parliament must have the necessary sovereignty to authorize such diverting of waters to the United States and it must be kept in mind that the provinces also have claims on the waters within their territory.
I cannot help but think of a bill brought in a few years ago and which was mentioned in this house this afternoon by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), namely the one providing for the diverting of the Harricanaw River waters into the Great Lakes and, thus, into the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that these waters that run through the province of Quebec almost from end to end, flow into James Bay near the Ontario border. In view of the fact that this diverting of waters concerns two provinces, they should be consulted before action is taken.
I suggest therefore-and the bill says so anyway-that the provinces should be consulted before any such diversions are made.
May 20, 1970

Water Resources Programs
I believe that the two motions now under study are designed to provide for the works required in order to meet the future needs of our neighbours to the south and of Canada itself.
We know that the United States and Canada, like any other country in the world, are having a population explosion, and we can already foresee the needs for drinkable and soft water in Canada in the future. The Americans might also need to import such water and this could perhaps be used to pay back some of our debts to their country or could be exchanged for other products. I think we should support both amendments so that they might be enshrined in the act, thus avoiding any confusion.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to what hon. members on the other side of the House have said regarding the two motions which are before us, namely, Nos. 6 and 25. I believe it was the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who said that he hoped the government would give serious consideration to the kind of proposal he was advancing in his amendment. I can assure the hon. member that the government has given serious consideration to this. We have asked ourselves whether or not we are dealing with a bill "to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources" as stated in the preamble.
I believe that the principle of the export of water is not within the scope of the Canada Water Act which, in my view and in the view of the government, is intended to cope with the problems of water management within Canada and to establish agencies in co-operation and conjunction with the provinces to make the best use of our water resources and to meet the needs of the people.
I think also that we might look back at what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) said. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was incorrect when he indicated that the minister has reversed his stand with regard to Canadian waters. As long as a year and a half ago, the minister suggested that so far as Canadian waters are concerned at this

time, and until we know far more about them than we do, they are not negotiable in terms of any discussions with any country regarding energy. He has reiterated this on a number of occasions.
I think it might be useful to examine what this government is doing or is attempting to do with respect to the water resources of this country. In 1966, the water section of the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was transferred to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. That department was given the responsibility, among other things, of making an inventory of Canada's water resources to obtain complete knowledge of our needs and requirements now and in the future. The water survey team of Canada has expanded its staff over the last five years. We have seen the establishment of regional and district offices in the prairies, in northern Canada and in Ontario for the purpose of completing the inventory of Canada's water resources. At present we do not know what our water resources are. We are attempting to collate as much information on the subject as quickly as possible. Our officials in the department tell us that it will take a number of years before we are in a position to have a complete inventory, and I suggest that until we have that we will not be in a position to make any firm decisions with regard to the use of our water, either so far as diversion is concerned or with regard to export.
The amendments which are proposed fail to take into account emergencies which occur from time to time such as when flood waters are released into other countries. At that time their co-operation is necessary in order to alleviate the flood condition. They also fail to take into account our boundary waters. I believe someone referred to King Canute. How can we decide which of our boundary waters are exportable and which are not for export? I believe that this amendment does not answer this question.
It has also been suggested that possibly this bill is not constitutional, and some references were made to a document which was tabled in the Ontario legislature yesterday in response to a request of the Liberal leader, Robert Nixon. I think it would be useful to quote parts of this document to clarify points which were not made clear when the document was discussed earlier. It reads as follows:
The document questions the existence of any exclusive federal jurisdiction over waters within provincial boundaries.
May 20, 1970	COMMONS
I think that members who were on the committee recognized and understood the definition of those waters which are strictly within provincial boundaries. We have indicated that unless it is in the national interest, the federal government is not in a position to take any direct action.
The second part of the document which I would like to quote reads as follows:
It terms the bill's provision making pollution a criminal offence "an invasion of the provincial legislative authority in the guise of criminal law."
These are matters which I believe are subject to discussion with the Department of Justice and are within the terms of the Canada Water Act. The provinces have legitimately raised this particular point. They have expressed their concern and have asked for discussions in these areas. However, I must say that the Premier of Ontario indicated that the problem of controlling and managing our waters is urgent. He said also that he will not abandon the fight against pollution, nor will he abandon the constitutional rights of the province.
I have suggested that the two amendments before us are beyond the scope of the bill as it has been drafted and are not in accordance with the principles which stand behind it. I think that regardless of the concern that members of the House have expressed with regard to the use of our waters at present and in the future, it is not within the purview of this bill or in accordance with the concept behind it, for the government to accept these amendments.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? Would he not agree that amendment No. 25 is merely a restriction upon the application of the bill and is not an essentially new law? Would the government not be prepared, at the very least, to accept the first two lines of that amendment which does not enlarge the bill but merely states that the act shall not be construed to authorize any treaty or convention with respect to exporting the water resources of Canada? Surely, this does not extend the purpose of the bill in any way.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I listened to the earlier explanation of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I am afraid that in spite of his attempt to put it in as simple language as possible so that we might understand, I did not understand the relationship between water quality and what he was attempting to achieve in this amendment. I
DEBATES	7149
Water Resources Programs am referring to what he said on a point of order. May I say, in reply to the hon. member's question that I cannot help wondering what would be achieved if we left the first two lines, other than to improve the drafting, that is if we left the following words:
This Act shall not be construed to authorize any treaty or convention with respect to exporting the water resources of Canada.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am not too sure what this would mean in terms of law.


Randolph Harding: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? Does he mean that in the preamble the words "research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources" does not affect export?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the hon. member should have read the balance of the preamble. I know he has read it, and the balance of the preamble covers the point I was trying to make.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be the desire of the House to group the various amendments so that we could have one vote to cover a series of amendments, or a series of votes at one time, as is provided for in the rules?


Robert Jardine McCleave: If I may speak on that, Mr. Speaker, since I am the member directly affected I would say no. I hope my emphatic "no" would bring Your Honour to rule on that point. I have supported the amendment of my hon. friend who led off in the debate this afternoon, but I think there are some differences between my amendment and his. I hope Your Honour would recognize those differences. I also hope I would have the chance to speak to my own amendment, not to cover the points I made previously but with regard to the points in my amendment. If Your Honour's inclination is that way, I will not press the point further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that the procedure at this point would be as follows: I will put the motion in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), and if there is a division or a recorded division required on that it will be deferred. I will then put the motion in the
Water Resources Programs name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and if a recorded division is required on that it will also be deferred. In other words, if a recorded division is required on both there is provision for that, but both recorded divisions will be deferred at this point.
The question is on Motion No. (6) (Mr. Harding). All those in favour of the Motion will please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 25 (Mr. McCleave). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order? Am I debarred from speaking on my own motion because of the grouping together of the two? Is this the understanding of the Chair because, if it is, I would really like to make a point of order about it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Certainly, the understanding of the Chair was, and I can only assume it was the understanding of the House also, that for the purposes of debate both motions were put. In fact, both motions were put. Therefore, the debate we have just had was a debate on both motions. Now, the questions are being put separately for the purposes of recorded divisions if they are required. My interpretation of the situation is that we have concluded the debate on these two motions. That is certainly my understanding.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Then, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do have to accept your ruling in that regard and I am not going to challenge it, but this is not the understanding with which I entered into the debate. I thought the rather special points and slightly different points I had in my motion, as compared with what was proposed by the hon. member who led off on the previous motion, would be significant enough that I would be entitled to deal with them particularly at the time that my own motion was called.

May 20, 1970
I realize that a good number of people have thought differently including, I think, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I do not pursue it now, Mr. Speaker, except to say that perhaps I find myself the unique prisoner of a special situation that should be more carefully considered when such groupings come up again. In other words, I yield to the will of yourself and of the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would not pursue the matter except that before you put the question the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants rose to ask if he would have the opportunity to speak to his own motion, and apparently receiving that assurance he resumed his seat again. I think there has been something of a misunderstanding. I think that if he does want to speak on this motion, he should be permitted to do so now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there has been a misunderstanding I am sorry. There was certainly no misunderstanding in my mind regarding the way we were proceeding. However, there is an option available to the House at this point. If the House would like to allow the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants to speak by unanimous consent on this particular motion, there is certainly nothing to preclude that. At least in my own mind, I was fairly clear on what we were doing, and I was fairly sure it was also clear to hon. members that the debate was concurrent on both motions but that the questions would be put separately. Does the House want me to put the motion, or to allow the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants to speak? I am not trying to be arbitrary; I am trying to be as accommodating as possible.


Yves Forest: May I make the suggestion that we do not see the clock and permit the hon. member to make his remarks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members of the House for granting me permission. I hope the misunderstanding to which I was subject would-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I see the hon. member for Richmond rising. Is it on a question of order?

May 20, 1970

[Translation\


Mr, Beaudoin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take the liberty to interpret the situation in which we are in now. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) has called it six o'clock. I take it that does not prevent the hon. member for
Water Resources Programs Halifax-East Hants being the lead-off speaker next time around, after which I will put the question on his motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 21, 1970