1971-02-03

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of all members of the House. I refer to the conflicting and misleading statements which have been made by various members of the cabinet with respect to the memorandum issued by the Public Service Commission concerning the hiring of Francophones. I contend that these misleading statements constitute a contempt of Parliament. If Your Honour agrees that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I would ask leave to introduce a motion for the consideration of the House.
On January 26 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) tabled the memorandum issued by the Public Service Commission. At page 2752 of Hansard for January 26 the minister described that memorandum in the following terms:
This is in the nature of what I may describe generally as a feasibility study.
I will not take the time of the House to quote the many instances in which the minister and the then Acting Prime Minister said this was not a program but a feasibility study. The fact is that a reading of the memorandum gives an entirely different view of the matter. The opening paragraph of the memorandum reads as follows:
This letter is further to a recent, brief telephone survey of departmental requirements for post-secondary graduates if special funds were made available for 1971. The basis of the survey was a request as to how many additional Francophone graduates you could gainfully employ should the salary costs be covered from funds outside your budgeted programs.
The second paragraph goes on to state:
We are now in a position to clarify some of the aspects of the program. The following factors (although not in order of priority) will be considered.
Then follow 11 factors. The closing two paragraphs state:
In order to avoid any misunderstanding and help speed up the implementation of the program, it is proposed to hold a preliminary meeting on Tuesday, January 12, 1971, at 2:30 p.m. in Place de Ville, Tower "A", 14th floor, room 1430.
It is hoped you will be able to attend and if possible give some thinking as to the practical application of this program, as it applies to your department, before the meeting.
At the foot it says:
N.B.: This information is confidential and no official announcement will be made.
I contend in the first place that this is a program which was under consideration. The minister denied any knowledge of the memorandum. I accept his word that he had not seen it. But it was a program which was under consideration by the various departments.
The second point I want to draw to the attention of the House is that we received misleading and evasive replies as to who was responsible for authorizing the study of this program and who had indicated that $2 million would be available for its implementation. As reported on page 2752 of Hansard for January 26, the President of the Treasury Board said:
I might say that this memorandum outlining a procedure for increasing the proportion of Francophones in the Public Service is not an approved program. It will not be a program approved by the government until it has been submitted to the Treasury Board.
Yet the Treasury Board, as members of the cabinet, had already played a part in authorizing a sum of money for this program.
As reported on page 2753 of Hansard for January 26, I directed the following question to the President of the Treasury Board:
May I ask whether the Public Service Commission or whoever was responsible for formulating this memorandum had authority to say that $2 million would be made available for the purposes stated in the memorandum without the President of the Treasury Board having given his prior consent?
That was a straight question. All the minister had to say was that the government had authorized the expenditure of $2 million and that a program was being prepared. But the minister's reply was:
As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, this memorandum is couched, at least in the opening phrases, in the conditional tense, as it should be. Perhaps there is a greater element of certainty in subsequent paragraphs which I do not think is warranted inasmuch as there is no approved program.
As reported on page 2754 of Hansard for January 26, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond asked the President of the Treasury Board to tell the House who, outside the Treasury Board, had the authority to authorize the $2 million. The Minister's reply was as follows:
It is only the Parliament of Canada that can authorize the $2 million.
The fact is, of course, that yesterday the Prime Minister told us that cabinet had already authorized the expenditure of $2 million.
As reported on the same page of Hansard, the President of the Treasury Board said:
There is no program and there will not be a program until such time as formal approval has been given to a proposal. This is a step in the gestation of a proposal, and until it becomes approved it is not a program.

February 3, 1971
Recruitment of Francophones
I should like to draw attention to one other quotation, Mr. Speaker. It is the question which I directed to the Acting Prime Minister on January 28, as reported at page 2843 of Hansard.
Does the Public Service Commission have the authority to commit the government to an additional $2 million annually over and above the regular appropriations, and does it have the authority to set aside the merit system on its own initiative?
The reply of the Acting Prime Minister is clear. He said:
As I said in the House the other day, there has been no money appropriated by Parliament yet for the next year, and before any money would be expended for this purpose not only would the Treasury Board have to approve it, not only would the government have to approve it, but Parliament would have to approve it. No money has been appropriated for this purpose yet.
The government may take refuge in the statement that money had not yet been appropriated, hut the fact is that the expenditure of the money had been authorized. I also refer to the press release that the President of the Treasury Board issued on January 25:
Treasury Board President, Honourable C. M. Drury, stated today that recent press stories purporting to reveal a secret government fund of $2 million for special hiring of Francophones for the Public Service have been seriously misleading.
Then the last paragraph reads:
So far as the $2 million is concerned this has not been allocated to any specific program.
Then I ask the House to look at the statements which were made yesterday, February 2. As reported at page 2982 of Hansard I asked the Prime Minister:
[DOT]-I want to ask the Prime Minister if he knows who did authorize the issuance of this memorandum and, if he did not, would he undertake to find out?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, the memorandum was issued pursuant to a decision of cabinet last November.
So it is perfectly clear that the statements made by various ministers disclaiming any knowledge of a proposed plan were just not in accordance with the facts, that last November the proposal had been agreed upon and the Public Service Commission was acting under instructions from the cabinet to prepare such a plan.
As reported at page 2983 of yesterday's Hansard, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, last November the cabinet authorized the expenditure of an additional $2 million if a feasible plan could be found.
I submit that for an entire week we sought to ascertain from the government who had authorized the plan which was under formulation and we were given evasive and misleading answers. We endeavoured to find out who had indicated to the Public Service Commission that $2 million would be available this year and in subsequent years for the implementation of a program which would be prepared and finally approved, and again we were given misleading and evasive answers. The fact is, of course, that the cabinet had already authorized the preparation

of such a plan and had also authorized the expenditure of this amount of money when the plan was completed.
I want to make it perfectly clear the question of the hiring of Francophones is not at issue at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hogarth:: Don't look now but your bigotry is showing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the
government is desirous of hiring 1,250 students it has a perfect right to delineate what percentage of them shall be French-speaking, and it can say so in the specifications calling for applications. What I am objecting to is that the government has not come clean, that the government has attempted to deceive the House, that it has withheld information from the House. If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie question of privilege, I propose, if Your Honour agrees, to move the following motion:
That the conflicting statements made to the House of Commons by several cabinet ministers concerning the memorandum on special recruitment of Francophones in the Public Service, tabled in the House of Commons on January 26, 1971, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the President of the Privy Council, perhaps I might suggest that there should be no debate at this stage. However, in view of the practice we have developed I think it is in order for the minister or ministers whose conduct has been impugned to indicate for the guidance of the Chair and for the information of the House their interpretation of the situation. To this extent the Chair will hear from the President of the Privy Council and make a ruling immediately thereafter on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has sought to have a ruling of the Chair made that his motion raises a prima facie case of privilege.
It is clear, and it has been so established, that the function of the Chair at this point is to determine whether the allegations by the hon. member constitute a prima facie case of privilege. If that were determined by Your Honour, it would then be up to the House to decide whether in fact such privilege existed.
The hon. member has based his question of privilege on what he terms are misleading and evasive replies made by ministers of the government. He has also based his question of privilege on the suggestion that contradictory statements have been made by ministers of the government. I suggest that never in the history of this House has a question of privilege been found to be valid on the basis of conflicting statements made by ministers or any other members. I do not admit for a moment that such conflicting statements have been made, but, indeed, if they were made they do not constitute a question of
February 3, 1971_____________________COMMONS DEBATES	3023
privilege in any sense at all. A dispute over facts does not raise a question of privilege; it is a question of debate.
If the leader of the New Democratic Party is asserting that ministers have made conflicting statements or have made evasive replies, this is a dispute over what has happened and he can engage the ministers in debate on an appropriate occasion.
The hon. member went further and said that these ministers had attempted to deceive the House in this case. The hon. member knows as well as I that if he is making the clear statement that ministers of this government have deliberately deceived the House he has one course of action to follow. It is not uncertain as to what he ought to do. If he believes that ministers have deliberately deceived the House-that is, of course, a question of privilege, but he has not said that yet-then he has raised a question of privilege and he ought to follow the time-honoured practice of the House. That practice was decided most recently in 1959 when His Honour, Mr. Speaker Michener, made a ruling that still stands as the ruling affecting privilege in the House, and which was subsequently confirmed by the membership of the House in the vote on that occasion.
It was a very important debate, Mr. Speaker. On that occasion the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the former Minister of Justice, the Hon. Davie Fulton and others who are in opposition at this time expressed themselves as to what the correct procedure is if a question of privilege is raised affecting the conduct of any member of the House of Commons.
Presumably the leader of the New Democratic Party is asserting to the House that ministers have deliberately misled the House. He is asking for an examination of their conduct by a committee of the House. On that occasion Mr. Fulton, speaking in the debate, made this comment:
In every case, therefore, where a member has really felt that the conduct of any other member of the House of Commons should be examined-
This is what is implied in this motion.
-that member has followed the correct and honourable course of making specific charges so the member concerned will know what it is he has to meet.
In the same debate the right hon. member for Prince Albert insisted upon the necessity of making specific charges. He quoted a statement that had been made by Mr. Mackenzie King when early in the 1940's a member of the House of Commons had made a comment to the effect that the government had produced three new millionaires since the declaration of war. On that occasion Mr. Mackenzie King said:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be obliged either to withdraw the statement completely or else to convert it into a specific charge to be investigated in the usual manner, and the consequences of the investigation also to be followed up in the usual manner.
I could, of course, refer to the judgment of Mr. Speaker Michener. We know that when the conduct of a member on either side of the House is impugned-and Your
Recruitment of Francophones Honour has suggested that this was the effect of the comments made by the leader of the NDP-it has to be impugned in the form of a specific charge formulated in a specific motion. Then the House will naturally respond to that charge by ordering an inquiry, and the charge is validated or invalidated. If it is invalidated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister and perhaps allow him to conclude his statement in a moment, but it does appear to me that at this point we are embarking on a wrong course. My interpretation of the practice we have followed over the years is that the Chair has allowed a member whose conduct may have been impugned in a statement accompanying a question of privilege to indicate what in his view the facts are and perhaps to rectify the situation as it exists in his own mind. It has not been the practice to debate the procedural point at all.
I am not in disagreement basically with any of the procedural points made by the President of the Privy Council. Indeed, I suspect all hon. members would be in agreement with what he has said. But I suspect at the same time that if he, on behalf of the government, is allowed to argue the matter procedurally, there is no reason why another 15 members of the House should not be allowed to debate the same matter procedurally.
This is why for some time now I have thought that, in order to keep some control over these questions of privilege, the debate should be limited purely to the statement made by the member who raises a matter by way of question of privilege and a statement by the member who is involved personally in the question raised by way of privilege. This is why I suggested initially that an opportunity should be given to a minister who felt that he has an explanation to give when he thinks such explanation is necessary. I am not suggesting that it was. I am just saying to the minister that we might get ourselves into difficulty, and become involved in a lengthy debate on questions of privilege if, every time a question of privilege were raised, the President of the Privy Council or someone on behalf of the government felt constrained to put forward a procedural argument on the question of privilege and whether there was a prima facie question of privilege. I suggest that it is for the Chair to determine that point. The matter is an important one, but perhaps the minister might like to take my suggestions into consideration and bring his statement to a close.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I take the position that at this point what is being determined is whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. My argument is, of course, that what is alleged in the statement is a matter of debate, not a question of privilege. If there is a dispute over facts, that dispute can be treated in normal debate. But I think Your Honour will agree that if it is alleged, either implied or inferentially stated, that ministers have deliberately misled the House it is incumbent upon any hon. member to clear that up, and if he wants

February 3, 1971
Recruitment of Francophones
to assert that ministers have deliberately misled the House he ought to make his charge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Stanfield:: I hesitate to interrupt the President of the Privy Council but it seems to me, Sir, that he is paying absolutely no attention to your directive.
Som hon. Members: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my hope that the President of the Privy Council will take into account the suggestion I made to him. He will bring difficulties on his own side of the House if he pursues the course of action he is embarked upon at the present time.


An hon. Member:: He is abusing the rules.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I intended to do was really to agree with your formulation of the situation but at the same time-and I do not make any apologies to the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the House- because of the gravity of the situation to outline not what the course I am following will lead me to but what the course which the hon. member is following will lead him to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the President of the Privy Council for his forbearance and again I suggest, with all due respect, that perhaps the practice we have been following has worked rather well. I think hon. members have appeared to want to co-operate with the Chair in following this practice. It seems so much better to consider questions of privilege, to hear the question stated as briefly and lucidly as possible by the hon. member who raises it and not to embark on a procedural argument. I think the practice has functioned rather well until now, and I hope the Chair will continue to have the co-operation of hon. members in following that practice which, I think for the benefit of the House in general, we should follow.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given the notice required by section 2 of Standing Order 17 in the following terms:
At two o'clock today I wish to raise a question of privilege arising out of conflicting statements of cabinet ministers which I consider a contempt of Parliament.
Should Your Honour decide that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to submit a motion for the consideration of the House.
In a preliminary way, I should mention that since then I have given the matter the most serious thought and consideration. I have looked at precedents and citations and applied my mind as diligently and objectively as possible to the important matter raised by the hon. member. I have also listened with interest to the arguments submitted by the President of the Privy Council and, as I said a moment ago, I do not disagree with any
of the points which he made from a procedural standpoint. I believe he stated correctly what the position is from a procedural point of view of procedure.
I should like to ask in a hypothetical way whether an assertion to the effect that certain proceedings are in contempt of parliament is inherently a matter of privilege as understood by our practice. I have some serious doubts about it. What the hon. member suggests in the notice he has given to the Chair is that being in contempt of parliament constitutes a question of privilege. If all hon. members will look at the definition of privilege which has been cited from time to time in the House and which is reported in May's 17th edition at page 42, they will find that this definition indicates that so-called contempt of parliament does not by itself constitute a question of privilege. It might be an element, of course, it might be part of the general picture, but by itself to say that there has been contempt of parliament and therefore there is a question of privilege is, I suggest to the hon. member, not the complete picture, and that when there is nothing more it does not constitute a question of privilege.
It seems to the Chair that the matter raised by the hon. member may be classified or categorized in one of three ways. First, an hon. member may allege wilful misconduct or wilful intention to mislead the House. As has been pointed out correctly by the President of the Privy Council, there is here a long-established rule which would apply, a rule to which the Chair has alluded from time to time. May I refer hon. members to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, which again the President of the Privy Council quoted. It is reported at page 584 of our Journals for Friday, June 19, 1959:
In my view, simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
I fully recognize that the words uttered by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, as well as the words contained in his notice to the Chair, do not by themselves imply a charge of personal impropriety on the part of the minister. If they did, the hon. member knows as well as I do that by virtue of the long-established practice he would have to make a specific charge in the House and the matter would then be referred almost automatically to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
On the other hand, if the hon. member wishes to press a grievance or to censure a minister or a group of ministers, or the government in general, our practice provides specific procedures to effect such a result. In particular, the hon. member could move a substantive motion, after notice, in the ordinary way. I recognize that this may not be a very helpful suggestion, but it is one of the practices or procedures provided by our Standing Orders. In addition, I suggest that our supply procedures are designed at least in part to achieve such an object.
The third point is that the hon. member's notice is based on the suggestion that conflicting statements have been made by cabinet ministers. In his statement to the House a moment ago the hon. member was suggesting

February 3, 1971

that ministers have made misleading declarations in the course of replying to questions in the House. The Chair has frequently referred to citation 113 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which in part states:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
On one hand the hon. member contends that there is a conflict in the statements made by one minister and another minister and perhaps statements made by other ministers and an answer given to the House yesterday by the Prime Minister. On the other hand, the President of the Treasury Board argued yesterday that there is no such conflict. Surely this is a matter of debate.
Hon. members may remember that a similar question was raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on February 26, 1970, as reported at page 4109 of Hansard for that day. The hon. member suggested to the House that there was a conflict between statements on water resources made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The hon. member argued that these allegedly contradictory statements constituted a contempt of parliament and suggested that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. After considering all the precedents and our practice, a ruling was made by the Chair concluding that the matter did not constitute a question of privilege.
Again, in this instance, after having considered the precedents and our Standing Orders, I must conclude that there is not a prima facie case of privilege, the only matter which is before the Chair at present, and therefore the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands cannot be put to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table copies in the two official languages of a report by the Prices and Incomes Commission on newspapers.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-221, to amend the Railway Act (reduction in passenger service).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
Proposed Legislation


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at present a railway can reduce its passenger service over any particular line without making application first to the Canadian Transport Commission. Such application is necessary only when a railway wishes to terminate completely such passenger service. This bill would amend the Railway Act and require an application to the Canadian Transport Commission when a railway wishes to reduce its service. The railway would have to follow the same procedure as when it wishes to terminate a service. This bill is prompted by the action of the CNR in discontinuing service in Northern Ontario and between Montreal and Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the bill be read the second time now?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather that there is not unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Regretfully, the question cannot be put at this time.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In this day and age, which member uses roller skates to go between Ottawa and Montreal?


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Finance.



SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-222, respecting supersonic aircraft.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, this bill goes beyond present Department of Transport regulations which forbid commercial aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds over Canada. This bill would ban supersonic commercial aircraft, operating at any speed, the purpose being to reduce the threat of air pollution, to reduce the danger of ground damage caused by sonic booms, to avoid increased air fares, and, hopefully, to avert the possibility of the Canadian airline industry bankrupting itself on

February 3, 1971
Questions
behalf of the technical community's insane passion for speed and gadgetry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous agreement for the second reading today. The bill is to be read the second time at the next sitting of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. McCleave: 1.	other than salaried-employees, how many people does the Canadian Radio-Television Commission have in its employ in the category of consultant or special adviser or who are in any way paid other than by salary?
2.	What is the name and what are the specific duties of each?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State of Canada):: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. Ten (10).
2.	Name and Duties: Regine Bergeron: To assist in the work of the Research Branch and in the design of a reporting system for the Chairman's office. M. J. Bissett: To provide consulting support to the Planning and Development Branch for studies on extension of service in terms of engineering requirements. Seymour Epstein: To assist the Commission in the development and organization of the Planning and Development Branch. Patrick Gossage: To assist in the work of the Research Branch, in the analysis of a monitoring system and in research projects. John Grierson: To assist in the work of Research Branch in areas of political science in regard to broadcasting, programme policy and the role of electronic communications in Canada. Ralph Hart: To assist in the work of the Planning and Development Branch in studies on extension of service in terms of marketing impact and requirements. Stanley Jetchick: To assist in the work of the Research Branch, in system analysis studies related to the development of the broadcasting system. R. A. Reinhart: To assist in the work of the Planning and Development Branch on extension of service projects in terms of technical facility requirements. Fernand Rivard: To prepare a study on the creative utilization of new technology in broadcasting. Ralph Draper: To provide consulting services to the Research Branch in areas of financial and economic analysis as it relates to the future development of the Canadian broadcasting system.


CRTC RESEARCH REPORTS
Mr. Aiken: 1.	How many research reports have been produced in the Research and Planning Branch of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission since its formation?
2.	What were the subjects of the reports and who were the authors?
3.	What was the cost of research, writing and production of each report?


Gérard Pelletier: I am inform by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: Since its formation by the Broadcasting Act of 1968 the Commission has not undertaken any theoretical research for publication. Its efforts have been limited to setting up an effective organization, including a research branch, and to dealing with the most urgent problems of licensing and with general broadcasting policies and regulations. A director of research has been appointed by the Public Service Commission on October 1, 1970. Staff members in research during the last few years have been called upon to advise the Commission on applications and on general policy matters such as: program development, cable television, ownership, satellites, extension of service.


DEBT OWED TO CANADA BY INDIA
Mr. Fortin: How much does India owe Canada and what are the repayment
terms?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The answer, in so far as CIDA is concerned, is: $207,951,000 comprised of 15 development loans. Fourteen loans amounting to $205,750,000 have a maturity of 50 years, a grace period of ten years, and an interest rate of 0 per cent. The remaining loan in the amount of $2,201,000 has a maturity of 50 years, a grace period of ten years and a commitment and service charge of J of 1 per cent.


CIDA-SALARY OF PRESIDENT AND COST OF PROGRAM
Mr. Tetraull: 1.	What is the annual salary of the President of the Canadian International Development Agency?
2.	What was the total cost of the CIDA program for the fiscal year 1968-69?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External
Affairs): The answer is: 1. Salary range is $35,000 to $39,000.
2. The total cost of the CIDA program for the fiscal year 1968-69, as appropriated by Parliament, was $248,503,000, comprised of (a) $4,105,600 for administration costs, (b) $138,397,400 for Grant Aid, and (c) $106,000,000 for Development Loans.

February 3, 1971


EMPLOYMENT OF MARTIN JAMES LONEY
Mr. Diefenbaker: Has Mr. Martin James Loney been employed in the Department of Manpower and Immigration during the year 1970 and, if so, in what capacity and during what periods?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes. Mr. Martin James Loney was employed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, as a student research assistant, during the period April 27 to August 28, 1970.


CBC-PLANS TO REMOVE HEADQUARTERS TO MONTREAL
Mr. Nowlan: Does CBC have any immediate or long-term plans to move its headquarters to Montreal as recommended in the 1965 Fowler Committee Report on Broadcasting?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: No. Section 43(1) of the Broadcasting Act states that the head office of the Corporation shall be at the City of Ottawa or at such other place in Canada as the Governor in Council may prescribe.


CBC-DISBURSEMENTS AND ADVERTISING REVENUES
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	In each of the past five years, what were the total payments made by CBC for artist and talent fees for (a) English language (i) television (ii) radio (b) French language (i) television (ii) radio?
2.	What were the net advertising revenues of CBC in each of the past five financial years for (a) French language (i) radio (ii) television (b) English language (i) radio (ii) television?
3.	What was the percentage share of the English and French television advertising markets held by CBC in each of the past five years?
4.	What was the percentage share of the English and French radio advertising markets held by CBC in each of the past five years?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Summary of Artist and Talent Fees Paid
in $000's	English	FrenchYear	Radio	TV	Radio	TV1965-66	3,974	5,731	1,854	4,2711966-67	4,714	6,960	2,133	5,3091967-68	4,817	6,993	2,264	5,1211968-69	5,003	7,168	2,314	5,0181969-70	5,345	7,388	2,427	5,298
Questions
2. Summary of Net Advertising Revenue in $000's
English	French
Year	Radio	TV	Radio	TV1965-66	1,106	16,930	873	5,9791966-67	1,036	18,554	798	5,3241967-68	1,038	21,456	729	5,2701968-69	1,088	21,827	613	5,9181969-70	1,193	26,703	677	7,352
3 and 4. CBC Percentage Share of Total Advertising Markets
Radio	Television
1965	2.9%	25.1%1966	2.3	23.91967	2.0	23.91968	1.8	23.91969	1.7	26.6(Information to enable a calculation language is not available).	of market share by


STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What aspects of the intensive study in the field of educational broadcasting, reported in the last Annual Report of the Department of the Secretary of State, were examined?
2.	What other departments were involved in these studies?
3.	How many departmental reports were prepared as a consequence of these studies?
4.	Were outside consultants used?
5.	How many of the above departmental reports, including those which may have been produced by outside consultants, in whole or in part have been made public?
6.	How many of the above departmental reports, including those which may have been produced by outside consultants, in whole or in part, have not been made public?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. On
October 24, 1968, the Secretary of State announced the formation of a task force on educational broadcasting to advise the government on problems falling within the federal jurisdiction such as ascertaining provincial government requirements and priorities for the provision of transmission facilities; conducting research and planning (both technical and financial) necessary to ensure the most rational development of these facilities in relation to the country's broadcasting and other communications systems in the light of the rapid pace of technological development; and to examine related legislation.
2.	In addition to the Secretary of State, the Post Office Department (later Department of Communications), Department of Justice, Privy Council Office and Canadian Radio-Television Commission. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation gave technical advice on request.
3.	None, but studies by the task force were used by the Department to pursue the subjects reported upon by

February 3, 1971
Questions
it for consultation with provincial educational authorities and to advise the federal government.
4.	Yes.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.


CRTC-GRANTING OF BROADCASTING LICENCES TO UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Has CRTC granted a broadcasting licence to any group or association of university students in Canada?
2.	Is there a government policy that radio broadcasting licences not be granted to university student groups or associations in Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. No.
2. No. The Commission hopes to issue at an early date guidelines for applications which may permit various formulas for student involvement in various kinds of broadcasting undertakings.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR STUDIES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO INDIAN PEOPLE IN CANADA
Mr. Nowlan: In each of the past five years (a) what consideration has been given to studies of relevance or significance to Indian people in Canada (b) how many studies of relevance or significance to Indian people in Canada have been assisted financially (c) how many Canadian Indians have applied for Canada Council grants (d) how many Canadian Indians have received Canada Council grants (e) how many Canadian Indians have applied for Canada Council grants for research of relevance or significance to Indian people in Canada (f) how many Canadian Indians have received Canada Council grants of relevance or significance for Indian people in Canada?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of The Privy Council):: (a) and (b) The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advises that it would involve an inordinate cost and time to provide the information requested. To provide the information required, the Canada Council would have to review at least 10,000 individual files of doctoral and of research grants applications and awards for the past five years as the present information retrieval system was designed to collate information by discipline rather than by topic of research. The Council is developing its information retrieval capabilities to include collation by research topic in the future.
(c), (d), (e), and (f) The Canada Council advises that the information is not available because applicants are not required to show their racial origin.


CBC PERSONNEL 1969-70
Mr. Mather: 1.	In the years 1969 and 1970, what was the number of CBC administration employees including clerical staff?
2.	In the same years, what was the number of CBC production employees?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Number of CBC Employees as
of December 31:	1969	1970Administrative and clerical	4140	4040Production	4941	4846


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	With respect to the numbers of young Canadians seeking employment, what proportion of those receiving training under the Department of Manpower and Immigration are under 30?
2.	How many have (a) applied for training (b) been rejected?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Information for the 1968-69 and 1969-70 fiscal years is as follows: 1968-69, 62.6 per cent; 1969-70, 58.8 per cent. Information subsequent to the 1969-70 fiscal year is not yet available.
2. No record is maintained of adults who inform manpower counsellors that they wish to undertake training but for whom training cannot be authorized.


PUBLIC SERVICE-INCREASE IN SALARY SCALES 1969 AND 1970
Mr. Robinson: What was the percentage increase in salaries given to federal civil servants generally for each of the years 1969 and 1970?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The average percentage increase in salary scales for Public Service Employees for whom the Treasury Board is the employer during the year 1969 was 6.8 and 1970 was 5.7.


MANITOBA-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR FLOOD DAMAGE
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	For the year 1970, did the Province of Manitoba apply to the federal government for flood damage assistance and, if so, what assistance did the Province receive?
2.	Has final payment for the year 1970 been made to the Province of Manitoba?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. Yes. The federal government agreed to assist the Province of Manitoba according to a formula which provides that the federal government will share those eligible costs arising

February 3, 1971

out of the floods that are above $1 per capita in the province, on the following basis:
Provincial Expenditures
Eligible for Sharing	Federal Share
per capita
First $1 Next $2 Next $2 Remainder
50 per cent 75 per cent 90 per cent
2. No claim has been received; therefore no payment has been made.
* *
*



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): I.	Were tenders called for the production of the CF-5 tactical fiighter bomber and, if so, on what date?
2 How many tenders were received, from whom and at what price-either on a per unit or total cost basis?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted and on what date?
4.	How many aircraft were called for by the contract and what was the breakdown of quantity as to model or versions?
5.	What was the tendering price for each model?
6.	(a) What variations in any specifications were made calling for price changes (b) for how much (c) for what reason were the modifications made?
7.	(a) Did the contractor apply for the extras (b) who agreed to these extras (c) on what date?
8.	When was the first aircraft delivered under the contract in question and what was the scheduled delivery by number and model?
9.	How many aircraft have been delivered under the contract by model, and what has been the disposition of any such aircraft?
10.	How many aircraft of each model remain to be delivered and how will these be used?
II.	During the course of the contract, did the Department of Supply and Services or the Department of National Defence or any other agency of the government maintain an internal audit as to the cost at the place of manufacturing and, if so (a) what reports were made (b) on what dates (c) were there indicated any additions to cost?
12.	(a) Of the amount of $71 million apearing on page 15.12 of Public Accounts 1969, Volume II, under the heading Aircraft and Engines, what amount was earmarked for the CF-5 contract, to how many aircraft did it apply and for what amount (b) what was the name of the payee (c) if the said amount has no reference to the CF-5 aircraft, what does this item of $71 million represent, both as to the kind of aircraft, the number, and other pertinent detail?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What was the number of film bookings made by the National Film Board for distribution in each of the past twenty years (a) by the Canadian Broadcasting Company (b) by other Canadian Television networks (c) in commercial movie theatres?
2.	What was the average number of hours a week of National Film Board presentations shown by Canadian Television net-
Motions for Papers
works in each of the past twenty years (a) for French language films (b) for English language films (c) other than English or French language films?
Return tabled.


CMHC LOANS
Mr. Sulaiycky: 1.	By type, how many CMHC loans were made and what was the total value of loans of each type made during each of the past five years in the Alberta communities of (a) Edmonton (b) Calgary (c) Red Deer (d) Lethbridge (e) Banff (f) Jasper (g) Blairmore (h) Coleman (i) Black Diamond (j) Turner Valley (k) Hinton (1) Edson (m) Drayton Valley (n) Vegreville (o) Vermilion (p) Fort McMurray (q) Grande Prairie (r) Peace River (s) Rocky Mountain House?
2.	In Alberta, what portion of funds has been disbursed in each of the past five years for housing in communities of (a) more than 5,000 inhabitants (b) less than 5,000 inhabitants?
Return tabled.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a serious question of privilege which involves starred question No. 710, placed on the order paper by me on January 15 following a rather resolute or positive response by the Minister of Public Works with regard to some questions about the provision of winter unemployment for Canadians. Since the minister seemed to be so definite at that time, I ventured to ask a rather specific question. I see no reason why that question could not have been answered within at most ten days.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put question No. 415, which is a simple request for information, on the order paper on November 12. I seriously think that it could have been answered before now.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, those numbers have been noted. I have noted the comments of hon. members opposite. In the last few days I have asked all ministers holding questions for periods longer than ten days to two weeks to review them. We are looking at each one individually in the hope that all of them can be answered very soon.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 1, 150 and 164 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure to the House to adopt these motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 3, 1971
Motions for Papers



MEDICAL, SERVICES FOR INDIANS, NEW BRUNSWICK

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy ol all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, department or branch thereof and the Government of the Province of New Brunswick relating to medical services for Indian people in the said Province since July 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 150-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all resolutions in the possession of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development passed by the St. Regis Indian Band or the St. Regis Indian Band Council relating to the annexation by the City of Cornwall, the Province of Ontario or any group established under the aegis of the Province of Ontario, of Cornwall Island or any part of the St. Regis Indian Reserve.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 164-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on the investigation by Mr. R. King undertaken for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, regarding the blow-out and fire of the Panarctic King Christian D-18 exploratory well.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 85, 134, 147 and 153.



STUDY ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ARTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on the federal government and the arts undertaken in the fiscal year 1966-67 for the Secretary of State as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.
Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the present motion is the same as Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 213 of the previous session. As was pointed out then, the study in question was a confidential one addressed to the Secretary of State. I would therefore invite the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: The confidentiality is not mutual, Mr. Speaker. I call for a vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



FREEZE ON URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS ASSISTED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 134-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and provincial and municipal governments regarding the federal government's decision to put an immediate freeze on all urban renewal projects in Canada assisted by the federal government.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing that there was no freeze on urban renewal projects already approved and under way as of August 14, 1969, the date of the public statement on urban renewal issued by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. There was no intention on the part of the government to withdraw its assistance, nor was there a freeze on the processing of all applications for new urban renewal projects. Since, in fact, there has not been a freeze on urban renewal projects already under way, or on projects for which applications for federal aid had been received to the beginning of 1969, I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



APPLICATION OF BILINGUALISM IN PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 147-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between Mr. John Carson, Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the Hon. John Turner, Minister of Justice, regarding bilingualism in the Public Service and its application under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act.
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence reflects on the personal competence or character of individuals. Some of the papers are private and confidential. It is not the practice of the House to have such correspondence produced. It is respectfully requested that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, the answer of the Minister of Justice sounds good, but it is an important question. Since the minister wrote to the chairman of the Public Service Commission I think we should have the correspondence.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



SALE OF RYERSON PRESS LTD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 153-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., betwen the Government of Can-
February 3, 1971
[Stage Direction]
ada and the United Church of Canada and other individuals and organizations relating to the question of the sale of Ryerson Press Ltd.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable in so far as the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and National Defence are concerned. However, for the Prime Minister's office to comply, a considerable number of man-hours would have to be assigned to extract this correspondence from the files. Since these man-hours are not presently available, extra staff would have to be employed on a casual basis in order to complete this job. I have been assured that approximately 165,000 pieces of correspondence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in doubt whether the hon. member can make an argument as to why the documents cannot be produced. Perhaps the hon. member might briefly indicate whether it is proposed to table the documents or under what conditions or with what reservations the parliamentary secretary would want to proceed.


James Alexander Jerome: I was about to say that accurate statistics on the numbers of such correspondence are maintained, and such information could be provided in response to a question on the order paper. The motion is therefore acceptable, Mr. Speaker, except in so far as correspondence from the Prime Minister's office is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the parliamentary secretary is prepared to table this correspondence or these documents subject to certain reservations which are not entirely clear. I wonder whether the hon. member for Hillsborough would like to ponder the situation and perhaps allow the matter to stand.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I will send for the text, Mr. Speaker. Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand. Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I have had a motion on the order paper since November 25, 1970, No. 58:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interim report in March, 1968, by Dr. A. Vennema, Director of Canadian Medical Aid in Vietnam in 1967-68 and for copies of any subsequent correspondence between him and the Department of External Affairs.
I wish to inquire as to when I can expect the production of these papers.


James Alexander Jerome: With the frequency with which the hon. member has been appearing at five o'clock on Thursdays with Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, it is hard to believe that some remain unanswered. I will certainly look into the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the importance of the economy moving forward as vigorously as possible and of removing uncertainties as rapidly as possible, will the minister indicate when he proposes to introduce his so-called tax reform legislation? May it be expected within a month or will it more likely be several months before it is introduced?


Edgar John Benson: If my hon. friend would spend more time in the House, he would know that I answered this question two weeks ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like an answer to my question as of today as the minister changes his mind so frequently.


Edgar John Benson: The answer today is the same as the answer I gave when the hon. member was not in the House. I expect to introduce legislation for tax reform some time toward the end of April.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the concern and uncertainty and the length of time between now and the introduction of the legislation, will the minister reduce the uncertainty and concern by indicating in a statement in general terms at a very early date the extent to which he is prepared to accept the recommendations of the parliamentary committee with regard to tax reform?


Edgar John Benson: This is very difficult to do, Mr. Speaker. If I were to indicate in the House what we intend to do with regard to tax reform, on which my hon. friend campaigned for us to withdraw it, I would also have to indicate the details. Several of the provinces have asked me to meet with them before the legislation is drafted. We tried to arrange a meeting this month but this has been impossible. I hope to meet them when a date can be arranged. I do not think it would be possible to indicate a general outline of tax reform without indicating specifics.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I express the hope that the attitude of the government toward the taxpayer was not accurately reflected in the remarks made by the Prime Minister to the Lapalme workers yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE BUDGET


David Orlikow: In view of the economic situation and the large-scale unemployment,

February 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
will the minister indicate whether he intends to bring forward a regular budget in the next four to six weeks?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think we should get rid of the present budget first-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: -by the opposition allowing us to proceed with the business of the House-the government organization bill and the two remaining days of the budget debate and the legislation involved before we have another budget.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding rumours coming from various parts of the world about an invasion of Laos by South Vietnamese troops backed by the American air force. Has the minister received any information from the Canadian members of the International Control Commission, the government of the United States or any other source which he can give to the House on whether such an invasion is actually in progress at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The blackout of news apparently applies to me as it does to everyone else.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the
minister been in touch with the Canadian representatives of the International Control Commission? If not, will he endeavour to get in touch with them in order that we may obtain some information regarding this rumoured invasion of Laos?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, regularly in touch with the members of the International Control Commission. They do not know anything either about the invasion that is being talked about in the newspapers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the serious consequences that such an invasion could have on worsening the already disastrous situation in southeast Asia, is the minister making representations on behalf of Canada to the government of the United States in the hope that any military activity now going on in southeast Asia will not be accelerated and escalated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult it is to get information about apprehended invasions.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiff (Oxford):: Has the minister been able to obtain any information in this regard from our men in Peking, from Peking's representative here or directly from the Viet Cong?


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. According to last night's news reports, he is supposed to have had a conversation with the former employees of G. Lapalme Inc. who have been parading in front of the Parliament buildings. Is it true that he invited them to a special banquet where a choice menu will be served?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the intention of the government to proceed this year with the development of a second national park in Prince Edward Island and, if it is, what area of the province has been chosen as the site of this park?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have no
immediate plan for developing a second national park in Prince Edward Island, but discussions are still going on in this regard with the premier of that province.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question should have been directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but since he is not here today, even though his name is on the roster, perhaps I might direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the apparent build-up of pressure on welfare offices in Canada and the reaction of the disadvantaged, particularly as expressed in Hamilton, is the government giving immediate consideration to providing emergency funds to municipalities and provinces to enable them to relieve the pressure on welfare funds caused by unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that this question was asked yesterday. I may be wrong and, if I am, the minister concerned might wish to reply. But the hon. member will perhaps agree with me that the question was asked in just about the same terms yesterday.


Jack Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question is more urgent today, and it will become even more urgent tomorrow and every day.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
February 3, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: That is just the point. If that argument were accepted, we would find the same 15 questions asked every day and I wonder whether that would be a proper practice. Perhaps the hon. member would wait a couple of days before he asks the question again.


UNEMPLOYMENT-DELAY IN PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS IN HAMILTON
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Is the
minister aware that the problem with regard to welfare in Hamilton has been accelerated because workers who are entitled to unemployment insurance have been unable to take advantage of the fund and have been directed to the welfare office. As I understand it, payments covering some eight to 12 weeks have been held back as a result of delay in dealing with cheques. Would the minister look into this situation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I will try to ascertain immediately the reason for the delay and report back to the hon. gentleman as soon as possible.


Jack Marshall: While I am waiting for a couple of days for my answer, would the Prime Minister ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to announce the plans of the government to cope with the need of the disadvantaged of Canada for immediate relief while continuing discussions are held with the provinces in the course of the next several months?


ASSISTANCE TO UNEMPLOYED IN LIGHT OF SMASHING OF KINGSTON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE WINDOW BY BULLET
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: I should direct this question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, but I will direct it to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that last evening a bullet smashed a plate glass window at the Kingston unemployment insurance office, an incident apparently precipitated by an irate insurance claimant, may I ask whether the situation is being investigated and whether the government, and especially the Prime Minister are now willing to offer some measure of possible encouragement to the unemployed in order to alleviate their chronic frustration and anxiety?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The only thing I can report with accuracy is that the window is being replaced.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: I want to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the present attitude of the Minister of Labour, and in view of the serious disquiet and disunity being hastened and heightened in this country as a result of this attitude-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Howard Lundrigan: -would the Prime Minister be willing to suggest a modified diet to help all Canadians, especially the bona fide-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSALS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Will he be making any announcement in the House regarding the implementation, in part or in whole, of the proposals regarding grain income, or does he intend to make such announcement in Saskatoon or Regina in a week's time?


Otto Emil Lang: I would expect that any announcement of that nature about the finalization of programs would be made after our discussions with producers and provincial governments have been completed, and that it would likely be made in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the minister assure us that any such announcement about the implementation of proposals or legislation for their implementation will be made in this House before it is made anywhere else?


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to look at the exact text of the hon. member's question before I give either an affirmative or a negative reply.


AGRICULTURE
John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the continuing and real threat to the existence of small and medium-sized farm units, is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to tell the House whether his study to encourage the adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size has taken into consideration the importance of the preservation of the family farm?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question which is very general in nature. The hon. member might consider that he has made a representation to the minister. Perhaps the question should be viewed from that standpoint. I would not think the minister should be allowed to reply.




Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question.
Has he or a representative of his department already taken the necessary steps in order to find suitable accommodations for the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa so that the Chinese Communists will not have to keep on pressing as they are now prepared to settle here?

February 3, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY


PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT-PERSONS INCARCERATED AND REFUSED BAIL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, about ten days ago I asked the Minister of Justice whether he would report to the House as to the number of people still incarcerated under the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, no bail having been granted, in view of his recommendation for new bail legislation?


John Napier Turner: The question asked by the hon. member was not quite that; he asked me whether anyone was still incarcerated who had not been charged with any particular offence either under the Criminal Code or under the special legislation. I have the answer to that question. There is no person presently detained who was arrested either under the regulations made pursuant to the War Measures Act or the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act who has not been charged under the regulations or under the Criminal Code. In some instances individuals have been charged under both the Criminal Code and the regulations or under the temporary measures act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: To clear up a misunderstanding which seems to be spreading across the nation, can the minister tell us how many people have actually been charged under the public order law. I am not talking about the Criminal Code and criminal conspiracy or other crimes. How many people have actually been charged under the public order law, and how many have been refused bail to date and are still incarcerated?
I might say that the Quebec Minister of Justice has stated that any recommendation by the ombudsman of Quebec to the effect that there may have been personal loss suffered in individual cases, including loss of employment, will be seriously considered by him if such complaint is referred to him by the ombudsman.
*
* *


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I wish to direct to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
Since the Liberal party Convention to be held next weekend intends to submit amendments to Criminal Code provisions relating to contempt of court, has the minister consulted with his fellow members of the cabinet as to their opinions on this question?


John Napier Turner: The Criminal Code is being continuously revised by officers of the Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL SECURITY
John Napier Turner: I cannot break down the figures as between those charged under the Criminal Code and those charged under the War Measures Act.
As of this morning the total number arrested was 497. Those charged number 62; those still detained number 32; 465 have been released and two have been convicted. In other words, 435 were released without being charged and 28 are appearing later on charges.


JOBS LOST BY PEOPLE DETAINED AND RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: On a
couple of occasions some months ago I asked the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General how many people had lost their jobs as a result of being apprehended and released, despite the fact that in the great majority of cases no charges were laid. This is important information I should like to have.


John Napier Turner: We do not
have any definite information. I should like to suggest to the hon. member, who is aware of earlier questions which were put to the Solicitor General, some just recently, that it might well not be in the interest of those who may have lost their employment to identify them in particular terms. I am sure he would not want to do that.


RETURN OF FINGERPRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PERSONS RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In light of the fact that 435 people were detained for a period of time and then released, and that photographs and fingerprints were taken and other records made, can the minister inform the House whether or not these records have been retained or disposed of since these 435 people have not been charged?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since fingerprints can only be taken of accused persons who have been properly charged, in the case of those persons who were not charged I wrote to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police advising them to return all fingerprints of those arrested but not charged. I am informed by the police that that has been done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the minister's answer, but in the breakdown he gave a few moments ago did he indicate how many of those charged have been granted bail? If he has that information, would he give it to the House?


John Napier Turner: Sixty-two less 32, which makes the answer 30.

February 3, 1971




Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Ukrainian population of Canada is still celebrating the 53rd anniversary of the proclamation of independence of the Ukrainian national republic, and in view of the fact that many Ukrainians were illegally sentenced to concentration camps in Soviet Russia for exposing terror, racism, intellectual and cultural persecution and injustice against Ukrainians and other minorities in the U.S.S.R., would the Prime Minister inquire when he meets with Kosygin, Brezhnev and Podgomy about the release of Valentyn Moroz and Sviatoslav Karavanskyi who have been sentenced for acts of conscience which are described and guaranteed by the United Nations declarations as basic human rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would give me the names in writing I will consider making representations.


FORWARD BARLEY SALES-USE OF FUTURES MARKET
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the Canadian Wheat Board making forward barley sales commitments for the crop year 1971-72 and, if so, is the Board using the futures market for this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the board is indeed making some forward sales, but I do not think it would be in order for me to comment further on their technique or style of selling.
* # *


THE BUDGET
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Government House Leader. In view of the expressed desire of the Minister of Finance to get rid of the last budget, which in the main includes a continuation of the 3 per cent surtax, will the Government House Leader now be asking unanimous consent to remove the budget from the order paper and thus get rid of it in that way?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether a supplementary should be allowed. The hon. member for Win-
Inquiries of the Ministry
nipeg North Centre might have a different question to ask.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is not prepared to meet the request of the Minister of Finance to get rid of the budget, when will he bring it forward for further debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other items that I should like to get rid of before the budget if I could set priorities, but I will give the House an opportunity to spend two days on the budget later this month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since we have not much more than ten minutes left, I wonder whether I could suggest to hon. members that we try to limit supplementaries.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it arises from the recent announcement of the government of Quebec that it is involved with the government of France in that country's telecommunications satellite project Memini. Can the hon. gentleman advise the House whether the Canadian government has been officially informed of the matter, and is it involved in discussions on this international project?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that I did answer this question quite recently. If not, I will undertake to get an answer for my hon. friend, but I think I answered an identical question two or three weeks ago.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether, following his reported meeting with an executive of the Home Oil company today, he has anything further to report beyond what he said yesterday?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further to report. Discussions are continuing. We will continue to make every effort to assure the continuation of the Home Oil company as a Canadian company. There is nothing specific to report except that we have had further meetings and those meetings are continuing.

February 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the government directed its attention in any particular way to the control of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and the extent to which this company might be affected?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is, to the best of my knowledge, something like 90 per cent or more Canadian owned, and from what I have seen to date I do not think that these purported transactions would affect the continuation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines as a Canadian owned and Canadian controlled company.
# * *


POST OFFICE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office. In view of the fact that the United States has increased its rate for first class mail to eight cents, is it the intention of the Canada Post Office to increase its first class mail rate?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, it may not be because the United States is increasing its rate, but right now we are studying this question.




Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he inform the House what the policy of Canada is with regard to the recognition of the new government of Uganda?


Mitchell William Sharp: Like most other countries of the world, Mr. Speaker, we are still watching events closely. We have not yet decided what action we shall take.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since this seems to be the day when we are trying to get rid of things, can the minister give the House some indication when he will put forward some proposals in respect of the Indian Act, so we may be able to get rid of something that commits many Canadians to be wards of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago I suggested that the Indian Act be amended. However, hon. members know that the Indians are not ready to cross that bridge and that we will be unable to legislate in this field until we obtain the consent of the majority of Indians.
* # *


FINANCE
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister asserted that the capital works funds offered to municipalities in the last budget may not be used for soil erosion and pollution control projects at the Toronto lakeshore? I ask this question in view of a letter written to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not ask a question in those terms. He cannot ask whether the minister has made a statement. However, I am sure hon. members will agree that the question is important and if we can assume that it has been asked correctly the minister might like to reply.


Edgar John Benson: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


POLLUTION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Could he advise us whether the inquiry on the source of mercury pollution in James Bay is finished? Has he received information in this respect and will the report be made public?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: We are looking into this matter and will report shortly.


INCREASE IN NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES-ADDITIONAL PIPELINES TO EASTERN CANADIAN MARKET
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he is aware of recent reports from
February 3, 1971

Alberta that natural gas supplies are increasing constantly, and if he is prepared at this point to convene a conference or meeting with the natural gas producers of western Canada to discuss the feasibility of constructing additional pipelines for the distribution of natural gas to the eastern Canadian market?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have seen some of the recent reports as to the new finds. I believe they are of limited amounts. Under our system, if these new finds justify the construction of new lines the private entrepreneurs would make application to the National Energy Board, and the feasibility of the construction of such lines would be considered by that board which would make recommendations to the cabinet.


BANKRUPTCY
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the dismal fact that the year 1970 saw over 2,200 businesses fail in this country, representing liabilities totalling $265 million, can he advise whether he has any plans for measures to forestall a further decline in Canadian business operations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question which is very general in its terms. He is inviting the minister to give information which should be given by way of a general statement rather than at this time.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the 841 bankruptcies in the metro Toronto area in 1970 and the closing of countless more small businesses, as well as unusual high unemployment across the country, will he not only get rid of the present budget but will he bring down an early emergency budget designed to relieve the general malaise in the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POLLUTION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, at this moment of transition I am not sure whether I should address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Since it concerns pollution perhaps I should address it to both.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the minister been informed of the report of the Ontario Water Resources Commission that tons of polluting wastes are being poured into the Trent River, and hence into Lake Ontario, by Domtar Pulp and Paper and the Bata Shoe Company, and will he consult with the Ontario authorities to put an end to this pollution of our navigable waters?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer to both of these questions is yes, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is important enough to be directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
A few days ago the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion issued a release to the effect that a subsidy of $22,265, had been granted to the Conseil de developpement social du Nord-Ouest quebecois. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could obtain information concerning this subsidy to a half dozen socialists of Rouyn-Noranda who are financing a group known as "le block" and seek to upset and destroy everything in Canada instead of constructing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Could the right hon. Prime Minister have an inquiry made on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take note of the question of the member and take up the matter with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he say whether the government plans to establish two new national parks in Ontario this year, one in the Packeshaw River area and one in the Georgian Bay area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I propose to allow the minister to reply to the question because he was allowed to reply to a similar question asked about another part of the country. I have cautioned hon. members before that

February 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
perhaps this kind of question should normally be placed on the order paper. In any event, the question has been asked and the minister should be allowed to reply.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question because I seldom have the opportunity to answer questions from government members.
We should be very happy to develop a few national parks in Ontario because there is a need for them. However, in order to do so, we must obtain the co-operation of the Ontario government which, to my mind, is a little slow in coming.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reply, will he assure the House that the government will take its responsibility to the people of Ontario seriously and go ahead with the establishment of parks with or without the co-operation of the provincial government?


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburlon):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is reviewing the parks in Ontario will he consider the Trent Canal area as a national park?


INVITATION TO SEND DELEGATES TO COUNCIL OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he now answer to the question I put to him on Monday about the Youth Conference? Could he also tell us whether the government will contribute to this conference the way it did to the Conference on Poverty in Toronto the other day?


Gérard Pelletier: Upon inquiry, Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member asked me this question for the first time, we did not receive any invitation from the organization he named and this would have been the normal way to know of its existence. We have received no invitation.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When will the land use regulations for the Northwest Territories be tabled in the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we shall be able to
table these regulations once we have had consultations with the representatives of both governments elected during the fall, and I hope that the meetings with the members of the Council of the Northwest Territories will take place in the next few weeks.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Labour make clear to the House just what kind of economic controls he is recommending to the government, as there seem to be differing stories?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, this is a general question and I doubt whether the minister should be allowed to make a statement of a very general nature. Perhaps the hon. member would like to rephrase the question in order to obtain the information in another way.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: There have been differing stories, Mr. Speaker, and I think the minister should be given the opportunity to clear up the situation.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the very courteous hon. gentleman for giving me an opportunity to correct an implication he unintentionally left the other day during the question period. He suggested then that I had recommended wage and price controls. What I did say, as reported in Hansard is that I recommended selective controls.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. In view of the appeal to the government by the general council of the United Church of Canada for the removal from the Criminal Code of all sections pertaining to abortion, will the minister say whether we can expect such legislation during this session?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have noted the reports of the resolution of the United Church of Canada. This will provide an additional subject for debate when the House devotes some time to that subject later this session.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister inform the House when we can expect that special one-day debate as promised in the throne speech?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to consult with the House Leader in that regard.

February 3, 1971



POSSIBLE STOPPAGE OF OFFSHORE SUPPLY-CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR EASTERN CANADA

['Agreed.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources. Will he indicate whether the government has any contingency plans for supplying oil to eastern Canada in view of a possible stoppage of supplies from the Middle East and Venezuela?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has had the situation under very close surveillance since the commencement of the negotiations between the OPEC producer countries and the oil companies, and I am satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to assure the maximum emergency supply by reason of full use of storage and pipeline facilities in the event of a shortage.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 2, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose last evening Clause 3 of the bill was under consideration. Shall Clause 3 carry?
On Clause 3-Department established.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, Part I of Bill C-207 deals with the establishment of a Department of the Environment, and during second reading we had some very interesting debate on this matter. I, myself, made some suggestions to the government but I am quite sure they have received little attention from the minister. Nevertheless, I hope that if I reiterate some points, consideration will be given to them by hon. members and by the departments concerned.
I think that the name "department of the environment" is a misnomer. Everybody would like to see a department of the environment set up. I do not want to be misunderstood on that score, but it seems to me that such a department should be able to deal with all environmental problems all across our nation, and that the environmental aspects of work being done by other departments should come under its scrutiny and control. Unless we
Government Organization Act, 1970 get that type of control in one department, which will co-ordinate our attack on pollution problems, we will not get the job done that should be done.
During the debate on second reading I said that a department of the environment should not be responsible for any specific resource. Once you have a resource department established, its work is primarily directed toward the economic development of that particular resource. If resource development and environmental problems are mixed too closely, there will be major conflict between those in the department who are anxious to see the exploitation of a resource and those who insist that its development be strictly controlled in the interests of the environment.
A real department of the environment should be able to set national standards and co-ordinate enforcement activities. For that reason, I think the government has made a blunder with respect to its proposals in this part of the bill. I repeat that I am not objecting to the establishment of a department of the environment. We should have such a department but it should supervise all the activities of government connected with environmental matters, including fisheries and forestry, water resources and our Arctic areas. To exclude supervision over our Arctic areas from the responsibilities of this department does not make sense.
Only recently we passed an Arctic pollution bill, but responsibility for it is not being transferred to the proposed new department. Our northern territories comprise over 40 per cent of our land mass, but control in this area will still rest with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A better name for the new department proposed in this bill would be the department of renewable resources. While I am critical of the fact that we are not moving far enough, I must say that in this legislation we have moved further toward pollution control than we have in any other legislation on our statute books.
Canada has an opportunity to take a worldwide lead in dealing with environmental problems. Again, I repeat that we will never adequately solve our pollution problems, or those of the world, until we realize there are three main things linked closely together and which cannot be separated. We may make some progress in some fields, but we will never do a thorough job of pollution control unless we look into these three aspects and their relation to environmental pollution.
One deals with population planning. I am thinking not only in terms of Canada but of the world. We can cut the worldwide pollution rate in half, and yet if the population doubles, there will be as much pollution as there is today, and possibly more. We have to tie our plans to the plans of the United Nations and of other international agencies.
Then, we come to resources. Again, exploitation of resources is linked extremely closely with pollution problems. In the future, I foresee a department of environment coping with this type of resource development and the allocation of our raw materials. One matter which

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 should be considered by the department of environment is the recycling of materials which we have been using and which we currently have in this nation today. This is where the source of our pollution problems. We are one of the most wasteful nations on the face of this earth. Other nations, such as the nation to the south of us and other industrial nations, face a similar problem.
We dig out minerals in one section of the country, and after they have been through one cycle of use we discard them. Very little effort has been put into recycling. Until we get down to this type of planning and research, we will just be batting our heads against a stone wall so far as adequate pollution control methods are concerned. This is why I stress the absolute need for a department that can overlook the departments concerned and work out a sensible type of approach toward pollution problems.
I will make several suggestions to the government and to the minister. I think that the department of environment should take the responsibility for coordinating and enforcing all current environmental legislation. The way this new department is set up it would not do this. There is nothing in the legislation which provides for the new department enforcing control legislation which we already have on the statute books today. This is why we are in trouble, and why we have stressed this apsect on numerous occasions. It does not make sense to pass laws if they will not be enforced. We have numerous examples of this all over the country.
We would not have a pollution problem in Canada today if we had enforced the regulations which we currently have on the statute books. This lack of enforcement has resulted in the mess we have in the Great Lakes and in the pollution of our navigable rivers. The objective of a department of environment should be to make certain that these regulations are co-ordinated, and that the departments concerned are forced to make sure that companies, individuals, municipalities and others live up to the legislation which is already on our statute books. We have not done this job.
The second point is that any department of environment should be given the task of scrutinizing all activities in the country for their potential environmental impact. I will give you an example. We should have the power we need for this scrutiny under the Navigable Waters Protection Act if, for example, British Columbia decides to build a hydro plant on a river. However, B.C. hydro today is not responsible to any department of government. It does not have to produce a plan to the federal government to show that the building of that hydro plant is a sensible thing.
We should make certain that someone oversees projects of this nature. Some department should be able to say that this project is either beneficial and economic or it is not. It does not make sense to build a dam, thereby flooding hundreds of thousands of acres and doing immense damage to the ecology, without some kind of scrutiny. There is nothing in the statutes today that can stop this type of project from being built with the resultant damage to ecology.


Mr. Perraull:: Hear, hear.


Randolph Harding: This is why we are asking for amendments to the bill and for a department which is strong enough to oversee activities of this nature. I will suggest to you that public bodies all over the country, as well as individual citizens, are interested in this type of approach being taken toward such projects. I have just referred to hydro plants. Other types of development could be considered, such as the building of a pipeline down the Mackenzie valley or the drilling for oil up in the north. There must be someone to ensure that our regulations and our basic approach are sound, so that we can leave Canada to future generations in better shape then we found it. But I am afraid that is not going to be so.
There is a third point. I think the department of environment should establish positive reclamation programs for those parts of the country which have already suffered damage. Again, this is an overriding consideration in spite of the narrowness of the bill before us. It does not matter in what part of Canada such damage occurs or in what fields, if damage is being done this department should be able to set up some kind of positive reclamation program and take it to the governments concerned. I am referring to the federal and provincial governments. They should say that this is the type of program needed to reclaim some body of water, some piece of land or some section of air that has been fouled to the point where it is dangerous to the health of Canadians. This bill does not give these powers. Certainly, it is a step forward, but it does not give us the overriding power which we need.
The fourth point I mentioned earlier was that the department should have the power to develop a population policy for this country and to relate it to the resource activities about which I have just spoken.
There are one or two other suggestions which I made the other day which I would like to repeat. I am quite convinced that the government will not set up the type of department which I have outlined. If they will not do that, I suggest the least they can do is to set up an environmental council of Canada similar to the Economic Council of Canada. The environmental council of Canada could be a Crown corporation, but it should be a body that has the power to do a great deal of research. It could act as an adviser to government departments. If there is anything that is desperately needed in Canada, it is a council of this type. It could even work with the over-all department of environment which I suggested should be set up. This is the type of independent body that we need. It should be divorced from the government and should be capable of being extremely critical of government policy, government programs and government direction. I will urge the new minister of the department, once he is appointed, that it be one of the first and main objectives of his department, to get this council rolling. Do not let us wait for six months or six years before setting up this council. We need the advice which such a council can give us.

February 3, 1971


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him that his time has expired. Shall clause 3 carry?


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few comments about the appointment of the minister of the environment consequent on passage of this bill. I will deal with the Problem of pollution. A minister responsible for environmental matters is needed; the task is large. Pollution is one of the major factors in the lives of the people of this country today. Pollution could actually destroy this country. It is probably as lethal as any war or as any intercontinental missile could be. It affects the water, the land, the air; it can involve noise and waste and it is something that parliament has to consider from all angles. In the first instance, pollution is a disease of society and of science. Scientists learned how to control and prevent epidemics, thereby enabling more people to live longer and reproduce. We see the pollution of war, war which has been made possible through the advances of medical science. If science had not advanced, modem war would be impossible. If science had not been able to conquer and then prevent epidemics involving certain diseases, we should not be here arguing about the matter of pollution germ warfare would have looked after that.
The increase in population brought urbanization. As science made further inroads on disease more people were enable to live longer and reproduce. Consequently, the population of the world has grown and will double in the next 30 years. More people have become urbanized. More people moved to the cities and created the problem of pollution. Under sanitary procedures of other days, people poured raw sewage into the rivers and lakes. The rivers and lakes were able to absorb small quantities of raw sewage. But, as city populations grew, the volume of sewage dumped into rivers and lakes also grew. The rivers and lakes could not cope with those large quantities and became more and more contaminated. Today some cities of Canada, particularly on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as those situated on large rivers flowing into the ocean pour raw sewage into the ocean. Cities along the Great Lakes have sewage treatment facilities that are unable to meet the demands made on them so there are overflows of raw sewage. Also, sewage going to the lakes, rivers and streams is finally being deposited in the ocean.
As we know, the people and animals on the earth would be unable to breathe and, hence, unable to live if they could not obtain oxygen. An hon. member said the other day that 70 per cent of our oxygen comes from the ocean. It is produced in the ocean by micro-organisms. The ocean is becoming polluted, and we are discovering that is having an effect on fish such as, for example, swordfish. We were informed in the House that swordfish contain levels of mercury dangerous to human beings eating the fish. Other fish, also, are contaminated with quantities of mercury and are unfit for human consumption. In many cases, these mercury levels may be bringing about mutations and other undetermined problems. We also know that pollution is destroying those organisms
Government Organization Act, 1970
which enable fish to transform the food they feed on into protein. I refer to protein dialysis by plankton. We can see that there is a vicious circle here.
In Canada we have tried to control pollution by introducing legislation such as the Canada Water Act. We have set up authorities under this Act such as the authority in the Northwest Territories which the hon. member who just spoke mentioned, as well as other authorities on the coast under the department of fisheries. Although the Canada Water Act does contain some good provisions, its effectiveness depends largely on cooperation and co-ordination with the provinces. The new minister of the environment must be able to get along with the provinces. There must be communication both ways. The government must be far seeing, and make sure that the old gag we have seen pulled over and over again is not pulled in this area. No one must say, "We will do our share if the other fellow does his share." To be effective, the authority in this matter must be vested in Parliament. I am not saying that provincial rights should be eroded; they should not be. Nevertheless, there must be an indication that we are to move more quickly than in the past and with a better chance of success in this area.
As well as considering the matter of water pollution, we ought to consider the problem of industrial pollution. We have seen factories pouring refuse into our rivers and lakes and polluting them. For instance, the pulp and paper industry and other industries are pouring chemicals and waste products into our lakes and rivers. I sometimes wonder how many industries will be closed down as a result of proceedings taken against them to enforce the law against pollution. What provision is being made to help industries that are financially unable to handle this situation?
In other words, I am asking myself this question, Mr. Chairman, and I think most people here are also asking themselves this question: is it better to ask an industry to move to one of the regional areas and support it with subsidies, even though there is a risk that the industry will not be successful, or is it more businesslike and to the point to keep that industry where it is and assist it to clean up its pollution problem? I do not think this government has grasped that point at all. I think it has run wild all over the land, and particularly in the east. I think its regional incentive program has become an equalization payment program. I think the minister of the new department should consider those points carefully. We are told that there are between 600,000 and 800,000 unemployed; no one knows the exact figures. Could it be that as many as 900,000 are unemployed? The unemployed need our help. They want to work. Extreme caution must be used, and perhaps special treatment given in some cases, to help industry clean up its sewage problem.
We must also consider the people who are paying the 3 per cent surtax which was continued this year. The money these people are paying in taxes is paid out under these incentive programs. I think the provincial and federal governments ought to consider carefully what should be done about an industry that may be polluting.

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
It may cost little to clean up that pollution. Nevertheless, because of taxation and as a result of sticking to certain guidelines, the profits of such industries may have been so low that they do not have the necessary money with which to clean up the problem. I do not think it is good sense to close an industry merely because it is polluting, thereby causing hundreds of people to become unemployed. There is far too much of this. It does not add up to good common sense to spend ten times the amount of money we would spend on pollution control to establish a new industry in a regional area.
When dealing with the problem of pollution, we must also consider air pollution. Year after year Members of Parliament have seen the air over this city become polluted. Pulp mills and industry across the river in the neighbouring province have been polluting the air. Year after year people have been upset by the fumes they have been breathing, yet Parliament has not done anything about this. I wonder what the new minister of the environment proposes to do about air pollution since air knows no boundaries. This jurisdictional problem relates to the provinces, but also to the United States.
What is going to be done about the problem of air pollution caused by motor vehicles in our large cities? In the United States, as well as in large cities such as Toronto, over 50 per cent of air pollution is due to this cause. This occurs mostly in the rush hours. Pollution forms an umbrella over a city and descends during a rainfall. In addition, pollution causes disease, certain morbidity and a certain amount of sickness. Some authorities have stated that 25 per cent of illness may, partially or wholly, be caused by pollution.
On occasions hundreds of people have lost their lives because of air pollution. Almost 5,000 people in the city of London died in one period of fog. The smog and chemicals irritated the bronchial tubes to the point where these people actually died. These things must be carefully considered, because they are part and parcel of the whole problem. The larger our population becomes, the more pollution we will have. Will the minister of the environment deal with the problems of population control, urbanization, how many people shall live in cities and how many shall live in rural areas? I wonder what the thought of the minister will be on that subject. Something must be done about those problems. It is people who pollute.
I will not deal with all the problems that beset us. I think it proper that we have a minister of the environment. I see the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in the chamber. I do not want him to get a swelled head because that would be bad. However, his work has been very good; his answers honest and carefully thought out. We must have this type of minister if we are going to do more than just a bit of fancy dressing.
I now want to deal with the question of how this new department will control the problem of pollution. How many committees will be established to deal with the provinces? Population, air and water are interprovincial

and intercountry matters. These problems have not been dealt with as yet. There will be problems with respect to people. Perhaps it will be necessary to relocate them. How will the population of the large cities be controlled? Recently, a bill dealing with abortions was passed by this House. There now seem to be some unsatisfactory aspects of the bill. I am in favour of creating a department of the environment. I believe it is necessary. One cannot be against motherhood or anything that proposes to clean the air, water, and soil.
I now wish to deal with the matter of pollution of Parliament. Included in this bill are matters which will pollute Parliament. I will now dwell on the pollution of Parliament. Departmental ministers are a necessity. We cannot say anything about them in so far as pollution is concerned. The ministers without portfolio are allowed to be foot loose. How many will be appointed? This may be a source of pollution. I have already dealt with the problems of population. I now wish to deal with the proposed increase of ministers without portfolio and ministers of state. The five additional ministers of state will have designated purposes. However, what will the ministers of state without designated purposes do? Are they going to pollute the place with Bureaucracy? Are they going to help the departmental ministers? We would like to have these answers.


Russell Clayton Honey: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I wish to point out that we are dealing with clause 3. Hon. members should stay as closely as possible to the clause under discussion.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am dealing with clause 3, Mr. Chairman. I am still dealing with pollution. I have raised the matter of pollution of Parliament. People pollute and noise pollutes. I am going to stick to that, Mr. Chairman. It can be included under environmental studies.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) established regional desks. They help to cause pollution. They may even pollute the government with wrong opinions, I do not know. My information is that the Prime Minister's office costs the Canadian taxpayers $500,000. This figure may now be increased to $600,000 or more. It cost less than one quarter of that amount ten years ago.
I do not say that the civil service superannuation at 50 pollutes because that may even be stretching my ideas a little. However, I would like to know what this proposal is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer. I note that Your Honour is looking at me quizzically. I asked what was going to be done about cleaning up pollution in industry. I am now asking the same question with regard to this aspect. What is the cost of establishing a new minister of state? There is the cost of office space, new furniture and telephones.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would $100,000 cover this cost?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I would direct his attention, and the atten-
February 3, 1971

tion of all hon. members, to the terms of Standing Order 55(2). Perhaps I should read it:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I would ask the hon. member to bring himself back to clause three of the bill which deals with the establishment of a department of environment and the designation of a minister of environment.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, how can we discuss the relevance of setting up a department, as this bill seeks to do, if we cannot relate it to the other parts of the bill? The government has brought in an omnibus bill which should have been ruled out of order-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member was listening to the hon. member for Simcoe North. He was really, in my opinion, speaking on other parts of the bill which relate to the establishment of ministers of state and departments of state. Those clauses will be before the committee for discussion in due course.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Perhaps there is a fine dividing line to be drawn, but I do not think there should be any trouble about making the connection between this clause and the pollution of parliament; the item applies very clearly and honestly, it seems to me. However, I do not intend to hold up the House. I shall content myself by expressing regret, once again, at the creation of a bureaucracy within the government itself which could provide practically everyone on the government benches with a subsidy sometime within the life of this Parliament. I have some good friends on the other side. I hope they are all friends of mine, as I am of theirs. But I say this: when you can offer bribes and incentives, as is the case here, we are entering a very dangerous phase in parliament. I wonder about the fellow who has to pay the 3 per cent surtax? How does he feel about those new expenditures?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, clause 3 of Bill C-27 states as follows, and I quote:
There shall be a Department of the Government of Canada called the Department of the Environment-
That covers some ground!
-over which the Minister of the Environment appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada shall preside.
Subclause (2) states:
The Minister of the Environment holds office during pleasure and has the management and direction of the Department of the Environment.
That is clear enough. It is an invitation for us to discuss all related matters. A Minister of the Environment is a minister of the environment. I have been rather surprised to see a bill introduced to establish a Department of the Environment.
Government Organization Act, 1970
At a time when all ministers are complaining about a lack of funds to administer their department, the government introduces a bill to set up a new department, that of the Environment. The environment of other ministers, or what? This new department will obviously call for new expenditures! This is a repeat performance of what has been going on for two and a half years with the setting up of commissions and boards: an inquiry board here, a commission there, a commission report, the setting up of a new commission to inquire into the report of the previous commission. We are going from one commission to the other without really knowing where we are heading.
We have established a royal commission on bilingualism at a cost of approximately $15 million to the taxpayer so that we could learn that english is spoken in western Canada and French in the province of Quebec. We did not learn anything else from that commission.
And the Department of the Environment involves new expenditures.
While existing problems go begging for a solution, the government appoints new ministers and new parliamentary secretaries, thereby increasing administrative expenses in the hope of some final solution to Canada's economic problems.
We want to create jobs. However, the more we dwell on the subject, the more the number of unemployed people in Canada increase! And a further increase of their number is forecast within a couple of months, although some slowdown is foreseen thereafter. Meanwhile, the government introduces bills establishing departments.
I earnestly believe that we need no Department of the Environment at the present time, but a national credit office to provide the ministers now in office with the money they require adequately to run their departments.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. At the beginning of his remarks the hon. member read the clause which is under debate. I think his comments were relevant for a short time but I doubt that they are now. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member, and all other hon. members who intend to speak on clause three, if they would, in the course of the particular proceedings upon which we are now engaged in Committee of the Whole, observe the Standing Order and keep their remarks relevant to the subject under discussion.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Clause 3 of the bill deals with the creation of a Department of the Environment; I would like to know whether under our Standing Orders anything prevents me from moving that clause 3 be replaced by another one, dealing with the creation of a department of national credit, so as to reach a convenient solution. As a matter of fact, clause 3 states, and I quote:
(1) There shall be a department of the Government of Canada called the Department of the Environment-
3044

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
I suggest that the word "Environment" be replaced by "National Credit" in an effort to help out the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and all the other ministers, who are always strapped for funds.
Mr. Chairman, I am certainly going to be told to propose an amendment to clause 3, and I would be tempted to do so. 1 would probably have more to say, but under the circumstances, I suggest that the bill does not solve the problem of the organization of the government. The establishment of a Department of the Environment is useless. This is not what Canada needs; the country needs something which will not contribute further to increase taxes for the people, without involving any benefits.
I said a while ago that all kinds of commissions and departments have been established. If we do not have enough, we will establish some more with the consequential bureaucracy. As usual, that will create jobs. There is no mistake about it, it will be possible to appoint bureaucrats.
In my opinion, the establishment of a new department will not serve the best interests of the Canadian population. I challenge the government to prove to me that the establishment of a Department of the Environment will solve the problems which confront us at the present time.
I have plenty of comments to make on that bill as a whole and I will wait until third reading to say exactly what I think and at the same time offer the solutions which we advocate to replace poultices on wooden legs which are being proposed in Bill C-207, and more particularly in clause 3, which provides for the establishment of a new Department of the Environment. At the present time, we already have too many departments.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants on a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My point of order is this. This bill was put on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister and, in its initial stages, has been dealt with by the President of the Treasury Board. I am wondering which of the two ministers now in the House is responsible for carriage of the bill through this particular part of the debate. I think hon. members should know this so they know with whom they can engage in debate.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am following this bill as Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister of Fisheries who I understand is responsible for the bill. If I am satisfied with his answer it might save the committee a speech. If the minister has answered this question previously, I am not aware of it.
What is the rationale behind the fact that the Arctic waters pollution legislation, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the shipping act amendments and the National

Parks Act do not come within the purview of the new minister of the environment?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer this question, the new department of the environment cannot possibly cover all aspects of the environment. The environment is a very wide subject. The department's main role will be one of co-ordination. There are a number of other departments which in their own way must have an impact on the environment-for example, the Department of Transport in the area of shipping. The Canada Shipping Act deals with a very effective federal power; and the amendments currently being introduced to the Canada Shipping Act, for example, deal very effectively with one aspect of pollution, namely spills from vessels on the high seas, in Canadian territorial waters and fishing zones or indeed in navigable fresh waters in Canada. So, the Department of Transport is clearly involved in the part of the bill dealing with pollution.
Then, there is the Arctic seas pollution bill and the northern inland waters bill. In many ways the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is like a provincial government. It has the equivalent of provincial powers in the north. It must exert powers in respect of rivers, streams and the islands of the north. Legislation pertaining directly to the north is generally administered by that department, as is similar legislation administered by the provinces-that is, the properly instituted provinces of Canada.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Chairman, may I briefly say that I accept the explanation of the minister with regard to the Arctic waters bill. The explanation sounds quite reasonable and, after thinking about it, I understand the rationale quite well. I am less sure about the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, though. The minister did not mention the National Parks Act, either. Could he explain why the National Parks Act will not be administered by this new department of the environment?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, there is obviously a close relationship between the environment and parks. The administration of parks, however has been closely linked to other elements of administration in the department of northern affairs. The wildlife service, which is being transferred, will continue to act in a support role to the parks branch. The environment department will on occasion be working very closely with northern affairs, which is concerned with parks and the establishment of new parks, indeed the protection of existing park areas. So, one must assume that there will be a measure of co-operation between departments, together with interchange of information and consistent policy.


Russell Clayton Honey: Has the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley completed his remarks?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: For the moment, Mr. Chairman.


Russell Clayton Honey: I just wanted to be sure of that.


Donald MacInnis: plicated that it is hard to know where to start. I know everyone in the country as well as in the House, agrees that a start must be made on a plan to protect our environment; that regardless of how we feel about this bill-and there is plenty of criticism in our minds on many aspects of the bill-we should be very glad that at least a beginning is being made to protect the environment through the measures proposed in the bill.
Since there is so much to be done in the way of protecting the quality of water, air, soil and all the other factors involved, it must be very bewildering for the minister to know just where to begin. Not a day passes that there is not some fresh story about pollution on a large scale. In one paper this morning there was a story concerning a large corporation, Domtar, and the pollution it is causing in the Perth region. Stories appear about other corporations almost daily.
I think most of us are glad to see the present minister is minister-in-waiting of this new department because most of us feel he is very much in earnest and will, to the best of his ability, make a start on tackling this tremendous job, even though there are undoubtedly aspects of the protection of the environment that are not dealt with in this bill. As a result, we may find that other arrangements will have to be made.
The job that confronts us all across Canada is a tremendous one, as we discovered during our study of the Canada Water Act. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious. In the minister's province and mine there is much to be done. For example, starting from the eastern portion of the province, we have the strip mining in British Columbia near the Alberta border which has made the landscape into a moonscape-sterile and terribly ugly. Then, we have the mining and logging problems in the provincial parks. Measures must be taken to protect the forests. In British Columbia, for every seven acres cut only about one acre is reforested, and we know it takes about 75 years to regrow marketable timber on the mountainsides. Then, the Utah Mining Company dumps tailings into the tidewater on the far side of Vancouver Island. And so, on I could go.
I know that the minister will agree that it is not a complete answer to say that provincial jurisdiction is involved here, although we know that that is the case. I really do not believe anyone who thinks about it would feel that we can allow the constitution in its present form to stand in the way of getting at this problem. I think the amendment of the constitution, in its totality, may remain a conversation piece for many years. I remember well the Rowell-Sirois commission back in the 1930's when the amendment of the constitution was considered of tremendous urgency. We are still working on it and it may be a long time before we have a completely new and rational constitution.
I have felt it to be true of other departments of government, and doubly true of the new department of environment, that the minister will have to initiate the
Government Organization Act, 1970 over-all planning in these matters and then go to the provincial governments with propositions that can be discussed and amended, but which will result in action.
He knows very well that in our province, which he and I probably know better than any other province, the people are very anxious to see action in this regard. He also knows that in the province of British Columbia the people are very anxious to be allowed to help. This was very true all across Canada when the matter involved was the cutting down or the removal of phosphates in detergents. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should be the first one to be thankful that there was such a flood of letters and protests from ordinary people across this country, because it made his job not only easier but perhaps possible within the time he had to accomplish it. The present minister who will handle problems in respect of environment would do well to realize this fact. If ever there was a sector or a field in which the public can help, it is this area of protection of our environment.
Even if we do get things set up, all the policing that can be done through government sources will not be enough. If the minister can arrange things to avail himself of the voluntary policing of the thousands of consumers across this country he will find his job much easier. And that policing will be provided free of charge. People are so concerned about saving our environment that they are willing to report infringements. They are anxious to bring as much pressure to bear as possible^
Ways and means will have to be found within the existing constitutional machinery to provide authority in respect of saving the environment even where there is divided jurisdiction, as is the case in respect of mining, forestry and other aspects of resource conservation. The hon. member for Kootenay West has at least twice made the point that the laws on the statute books are no better than the enforcement of such laws. In years past we have not been sufficiently vigilant and have not realized what is happening to our ecology.
We have now reached the point where we must find new and effective machinery. Instead of waiting until he has a completely new plan in respect of fish, wildlife and other things, the minister should build up the confidence of the public by proceeding on a pilot project. In this way he could win a victory for our environment. In this way he could gain the confidence of the public to a greater extent than through any amount of regulation, talk or negotiation in respect of the larger issues. He could obtain the support to do what he must do.
In British Columbia there is such a pilot project. I have reference to the saving of the Skagit Valley. This morning I was very pleased to find that the Toronto Globe and Mail recognized, in a fair sized editorial article, the value of saving the Skagit Valley in British Columbia. This is the first time I have seen anything of this kind on this scale outside British Columbia.
This editorial recognizes the fact that a valley such as the Skagit River Valley is a great asset, not only to British Columbia but to the whole of Canada. It recognizes that the salavation of this area should be eonsid-
23786-51i

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 ered not merely on the basis of its value to British Columbia, but on the basis of its value to Canada. The editorial suggests:
This is too important a decision to be left to the local authorities ot Victoria and Seattle. The Skagit Valley is an important wilderness and recreational area, but it is more important as a test ot Canada's willingness to defend all such areas from the unjustified encroachment of indutsry.
Ottawa should say no, and make Mr. Bennett return his $35,000.
Let me say that the last sentence is perhaps unnecessary. Premier Bennett has already indicated that if Ottawa can find a way out of this present impasse he will not stand in the way. It is for this and other reasons I feel this would be an ideal project for the minister to try out his new powers. I am sure the minister will not find any objection from the province of British Columbia. I am sure Mr. Bennett would be very glad to be helped out of this difficulty in which he now finds himself. The public is very much aroused about this situation.
This whole matter goes back a long way, in fact further than I want to take it at this time. Back in 1942 the city of Seattle, with the consent of the International Joint Commission, was allowed to flood part of the Skagit Valley behind a dam built within the United States. The city needed more power to support war industries. It also received under this agreement, with the consent of the International Joint Commission, the authority to raise this dam 125 feet higher when necessary, providing the consent of the government of British Columbia was forthcoming.
In 1967 Premier Bennett gave the city of Seattle a 99 year lease for $35,000 a year permitting the flooding of about ten acres of the Skagit River Valley. This is one of the most choice recreation sites anywhere near Vancouver and, indeed, is one of two remaining river valleys suitable for recreational purposes in British Columbia. On the basis of a 99 year lease at $35,000 per year, this works out to about $5.50 per acre.
When Premier Bennett leased this area to the city of Seattle he gave the city something else. He gave a three-year timber cutting permit in order that the Skagit River Valley could be prepared for flooding, a permit now withdrawn under public pressure.
Under the guidance of organizations such as SPEC, which is the equivalent of Pollution Probe in Ontario, the people of Vancouver have realized what is happening. They are beginning to realize that fish spawning grounds there are being destroyed. There will be ten miles of floodded area, but there will be a great deal of spawning area destroyed. They are beginning to realize that mead-owlands on which between 400 and 500 deer are feeding will be destroyed. They realize that a number of species of wildlife will be destroyed because of the flooding of this area. They also realize the tremendous loss of a recreational area within 125 miles of Vancouver which will result fromthis flooding. The people are beginning to fight to save the Skagit River Valley, but they need the help of the minister.


Raymond J. Perrault: He is working on it.


Donald MacInnis: I know he is working on it, but I point out that there is a deadline involved. Time may run out. I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stipulated that one cannot raise a dam more than one-tenth of a foot on an international waterway without Ottawa's consent. I hope he has done that because it would be a roadblock to this project.
Further, the Federal Government has asked Seattle City Light to apply for a licence under the International River Improvements Act, but Seattle says it is going to stand by the 1942 International Joint Commission consent. Seattle has, therefore, gone ahead and asked the United States Federal Power Commission for permission to proceed with the dam. That is the position at which we are now. I hope the minister, cloaked in his new powers, will begin operations by going down there and arguing that this river valley should be saved for the people of British Columbia and of Canada. When I was recently in British Columbia, I heard that one of the most powerful conservation groups trying to save this valley is on the other side of the border. The Sierra Club on the other side of the border is just as concerned as we are, and probably more so, because they have seen so much destruction of recreation areas in the United States.
Whether we like it or not there is a great deal of traffic passing back and forth between our two countries, and recreation areas extend across our borders. I hope very much-


Mr. Deachman:: May I ask the hon. lady a question? While she is giving a plug to the Sierra Club would she also give a plug for David Brousson, the Liberal member for North Vancouver-Capilano in the B.C. legislature, who has done more to save the Skagit Valley than anybody else?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, I certainly will put in a plug for David Brousson, and David Anderson, and Ron Harding and Mark Rose, because to me this is not a partisan issue. Some of us may become very partisan on issues where there are sharp differences of opinion, but there is no difference of opinion on this issue. I know everybody is anxious to save the Skagit River Valley. All I am urging is that the minister use his new powers without delay.
According to this Toronto editorial, the Federal Government is inclined to be timed about approaching the U.S. authorities because it is afraid they may say that if Canada does not allow the Skagit River Valley to be flooded then they will not help to clean up the Great Lakes. That is a wrong and unrealistic attitude. The U.S. authorities, and more particularly the American people, are becoming well aware of what would happen if pollution of the Great Lakes is allowed to continue. They know it will be a tremendously expensive matter to clean up the Great Lakes. Perhaps that would be the initial

February 3, 1971

reaction of the U.S. authorities, but it would be foolish, and I do not think they are quite that foolish. They have as big a stake as we have, if not bigger, in the Great Lakes.
I am well aware of the minister's attitude. We all appreciate what he has said. When he was out in Vancouver last October he referred to the flooding of the Skagit Valley, and said his attitude was that it must be stopped. I say that his attitude must be re-enforced with whatever weight the Canadian government can apply, and not only the weight of the Canadian government but of all of us in opposition as well as the weight of the provincial government, even though it will not admit that it would be willing to give it. I know that the provincial government is in a bind because the people of British Columbia are terribly concerned that these acres have been alienated for a song. The Premier of British Columbia is aware of that fact.
I would remind the minister to some remarks he made last October with respect to water resources. He outlined the rules as follows:
Don't export water to the United States because it wil never be possible to cut off the flow.
Don't direct whole rivers from one river basin to another.
Don't regulate water flows in such a way as to jeopardize other resources in the area.
This fourth rule has particular relevance here.
Don't sacrifice trees, fish, landiife and other living things for the production of power or protection of real estate unless absolutely necessary.
I do not think the minister believes it is absolutely necessary to sacrifice the Skagit River Valley. Armed with these new powers, I believe he now has the courage to go in and save the Skagit Valley. If he does so, he will have the confidence of the people of British Columbia when he goes on to battle for the other things that must be battled for in that province. He will have the power of the people with him if he opposes the standpat attitude of the provincial government. He will be able to go on to stop a lot of the other depredation of our parks and natural wildlife areas, depredation caused by mines and other private interests. This is the plea that I make to him.
I could talk about many other aspects of environmental control, but I end by saying that the people of British Columbia, and by extension people all across Canada because we have not got a fence running along the Rocky Mountains, would be everlasting grateful to the minister if he could save the Skagit River Valley for Canada.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, I spoke on a second reading of this bill and then mainly on that part of it which concerns environmental problems. This is the part we are discussing today, and the reason for my participation is that I feel that when we passed the Water Act of 1970, which repealed an earlier statute, it was not a good move. I refer to the repeal of the Water Conservation Assistance Act of 1951.
I do not know how many of the provinces took advantage of that act, but I do know that the province of
Government Organization Act, 1970
Ontario did. I again cite the water authorities and the commissions that were built up on the Saugeen, the Maitland, the Don, the Humber, the Thames and the Grand. These river authorities did a tremendous job. They were assisted with their capital projects by the provisions of that act under a formula whereby the federal government paid 37J per cent, the provincial government paid 37J per cent, and the municipalities involved paid 25 per cent of the cost. These authorities did a tremendous job in building up parks and recreational areas, and I think they deserve a great deal of encouragement.
But when the Water Conservation Assistance Act was repealed, the Water Act was brought in which contained a provision to the effect that the federal government would agree to some kind of water management assistance program. However, there was no stipulation as to how much assistance would be given. Many of these authorities and commissions have worked very hard in their areas to try to improve the recreational facilities related to water. It is true the water conservation bill might have been introduced in the first place to look after flood control. Possibly that was its initial impetus because it protected some of the towns and rivers downstream that had been in trouble as a result of spring floods. But now, we find that during the summer period when the flow in the rivers drops, there is not enough water moving down those rivers and creeks to carry away the effluent from many of the sewage disposal plants or lagoons that have been set up in the towns and villages.
Many of these authorities have plans to build more dams to increase the flow of these rivers, but because the provincial government have to pay 75 per cent of the cost and the municipalities pay the 25 per cent many of these projects are being withheld. I had a private conversation with the minister the other day in connection with this matter. He said that perhaps the government might start a program of water management in these particular areas. This is all right, but the original planning must be done by the local authorities. If they do not have some idea from whence the assistance will come, whether it be from the federal or provincial governments, the projects may have to be withheld because the municipalities cannot undertake to cover the whole cost. The province is involved but sometimes it does not feel it wants to be responsible for a big share of the cost. So, I would like to urge the minister, when he considers water conservation, to suggest some formula whereby the cost of these projects might be shared equally by the provincial and federal governments, 37J per cent each, and 25 per cent by the municipalities.
I sincerely hope he will suggest such a formula for the new water management programs, because I think it. would be of tremendous assistance to these water authorities and commissions which have worked so hard to set up good programs and areas for recreation and camping. They should be encouraged in the conservation programs, and any federal assistance that can be given

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 will be appreciated, I am sure. When the minister is answering, perhaps he could give us some idea of just how much assistance the federal government could give under the new plan for water management now that the old conservation programs no longer exist. It would be of tremendous assistance to a great many people, not only in areas in southwestern Ontario but also in other provinces, who would be happy to set up a type of program similar to this one which has been so successful.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Chairman, is rising to take part in this discussion, particularly in relation to clause 3 which has to do with measures proposed to establish the new department, I would like to say that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who comes from the same polluted province as I do, will be the new minister of environment in this country, as I understand it.
There are many forms of pollution and environmental impairment, as we all know, but at this time I want to devote the main part of what little I have to say to one aspect of pollution which is rather ignored or down played. I refer to sound pollution. I hope to bring attention to these particular aspects of environmental impairment which exist, particularly in British Columbia. At present we have a threat to our environment in B.C. by air and sea which is posed in the now approved underground nuclear test by the United States in the Aleutian Islands. It has been approved to the extent that money has actually been allocated for this explosion. We all recall what happened a year or two ago in a much smaller test. We can well understand that the public of B.C. will be much exercised at what is now threatened, because a new test in that area will be much larger than the one we have had and survived. It is not impossible that we will experience a tidal wave as a result of this intended blast in the Aleutians. It is taking place in an earthquake prone zone, as we know, and a few years ago when there was an earthquake, B.C. communities such as Port Alberni experienced very high waves and damage as a result.
I want to urge the minister to do whatever he can to get this government to ask the United States to delay or cancel this test until such time as negotiations going on between the United States and the Soviet Union hopefully reach a level of sanity which will end in an agreement to abandon this type of underground nuclear testing. That is one point in connection with the environmental problem facing British Columbians.
Second, I want to urge the minister to do whatever he can to get this government to avert the planned shipment, by U.S. private interests, down the B.C. coast of great quantities of oil from Alaska. These oil shipments are to be carried in tankers which are a threat, as we all know, through spillage of oil to some of the most beautiful areas in coastal Canada. I raised this matter the other day during the question period, and the minister told me that this was a matter which concerned the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Again, I take this opportunity to urge him to do what he can to get the Secretary of State for External Affairs to step up activities to avert this very threatening pollution problem.
Third, I want to allude briefly to a problem which affects a number of British Columbians. We have about two million people in B.C. over half of whom within a very few miles on half of one per cent of the land area. A good many of them live in and around my constituency. These people are faced with another threat of pollution in the form of coal cars, trains carrying coal coming up from the United States through the White Rock Crescent Beach and Ocean Park shipment points. These are among the best recreational and residential waterfront areas. I urge the minister, when established in his new post, to take whatever measures he can think of to alleviate the situation.
Having said that, I would like to speak now about a form of pollution about which I am particularly concerned. I have placed on the order paper a bill on the subject of noise or sound pollution. Before I do that, however, I wish the minister every good fortune in whatever endeavours he undertakes in his capacity as minister of environment. I know he means well in every case where he shows his intention, and he will certainly have the support not only of his party but of the people of British Columbia.
The fourth form of pollution beyond that of air, land and sea, is noise or sound pollution. In my view, this type of pollution should be under study by a standing committee of the House which concerns itself with all matters of pollution. The time is overdue when sound pollution should be recognized as a health danger to individuals and communities. In urging that this form of pollution be recognized as part of the environmental problem with which this legislation sets out to deal, I want to quote very briefly from a few articles which have been published on the subject. I will quote now from a report in the Ottawa Citizen of a Boston meeting which reads in part as follows:
Slowly, in a sneaky sort of way, noise is ruining the health of hundreds of thousands of North Americans and bringing death years closer for thousands.
That's the message which has been preached over and over again in the first few days of a session on noise pollution at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science here
There's not much in the frightening medical evidence that is brand new, but it's the first time that it has ever been put together like this, in a discussion drawing scientists from Canada, Australia, Germany, Argentina and the U.S.S.R....
-noise isn't good for .. . just about every bodily function you can name and that doesn't count hearing because the scientists aren't even talking about that problem since it has been well publicized.
Noise isn't good for you,. .. because it causes the small blood human body shows little inclination to adapt to repeated noises like the sound of horns blowing outside the window at night.
Noise isn't good for you, . . .because it causes the small blood vessels in the body to contract and then expand involuntarily. This contraction happens even to people who are deaf and eventually the weakening of elasticity in the blood vessels because of it leads to circulatory problems and could be a contributing factor in strokes and heart attacks.
The article goes on to list the reports of other scientists concerning the seriousness of noise pollution.

February 3, 1971

May I quote from another editorial in the Globe and Mail. It reads
A two day symposium on noise pollution conducted by the American Medical Association ... estimated that environmental din is doubling in intensity every decade. Even bigger jumps are in prospect with the mounting volume of air traffic-expected to triple by 1975-and the advent of supersonic transport planes with their sonicboom capacity to shatter eardrums as well as window panes.
But planes are only a fraction of the cacophony. Heavy traffic clocks in at around 80 decibels or just about the tolerable level. A motorcycle can shoot that up to 110 decibels, a siren to 125 decibels (one doctor complained recently that ambulance sirens were killing more patients than they were saving) ...
There is a great deal of literature on this subject, which I hope the new minister of the environment will read. I hope, as a result, that the government will act.
Last March I was glad to receive assurances from three ministries that action to deal with the matter of sound pollution is to be taken. The Minister of Labour replied to a letter I had sent him and said that regulations pertaining to noise control and hearing conservation in industries subject to federal jurisdiction and in the Public Service of Canada are being developed pursuant to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Another reply from the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that the department intends to increase its activities in these areas. Finally, I received a letter from the President of the Treasury Board. It said that sound and man's sensitivity to it are being studied under ten general headings.
I received these assurances last March, almost one year ago. I hope that such action as was indicated in those replies has been taken by the departments concerned. In any event I intend to keep on making representations, either at the committee level or at any other level, for the minister to include sound pollution in the protection of the environment.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the minister? Are other departments of government to be concerned with enforcing pollution control regulations? I am referring to departments such as the Department of Transport, which may be concerned about supersonic jets and the like. Also, will certain people serving with present departments be transferred to the new department which is to be set up, the department of the environment?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is yes. I mentioned that there were a number of other departments which are vitally concerned about the environment, departments such as the Department of National Health and Welfare. Clean air is essential to health and the Department of National Health and Welfare will continue to be concerned about the quality of the air around us. The environmental health unit of the Department of National Health and Welfare has been transferred already and will be part of the new department of the environment. Nevertheless, remaining within the department of health will be others who are concerned about the health of human beings in industry, the health of people as distinct from the general well-being of the environment. The new department of the environment
Government Organization Act, 1970 will therefore be working closely with the Department of National Health and Welfare. The people who have been transferred from the occupational health unit to the department of the environment will, themselves, be working closely with the medical people of the department.
I might mention other departments. Clearly, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned about fuels and the quality of fuels. Clearly, the sulphur content of a fuel has a great deal to do with the quality of the effluent being discharged. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be concerned about such things as industries that use sulphur bearing coal and will be vitally interested, far into the future, in that aspect of the pollution problem. Clearly, the people in the department of the environment will be working closely with the people in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Reference has been made to transportation, and to aircraft. Aeronautics as well as shipping will be a matter for the Parliament of Canada. The Department of Transport focusses particularly on this kind of transportation. It can regulate the devices used by aircraft, the design of ships, and so on. Personnel in the Department of Transport will be working closely with the meteorological service, which is being transferred to the new department of the environment. The meteorological service looks at the weather side of things; weather forecasting is essential to transportation. So, there must be co-operation, again, between the "met" service, the new department of the environment and the Department of Transport. Among those three departments, transport, energy, mines and resources and national health and welfare, there will be close liaison in future with the department of the environment.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question to illustrate my point? Suppose an aircraft is flying over Canada and, before landing, dumps some fuel into one of our lakes thereby polluting that lake, as has happened in many cases. Whose responsibility will this be? I should like to know whether, in the department of the environment, a board will be set up which will co-ordinate the responsibilities of that department with those of other departments and exercise some supervision with regard to laws affecting other departments as well as the department of the environment. At the same time, I am thinking of what is happening in the United States. That country has not decided as yet whether to go ahead with the SST. There is a fear that the aircraft will contribute to atmospheric pollution. Will there be someone in the department of the environment whose responsibility it will be to co-ordinate in this area? I am also thinking of the millions of dollars being spent on anti-pollution devices for automobiles on highways. The Canadian Transport Commission does not seem to mind doing away with other forms of transportation that are less polluting than automobiles. I wonder whether there is to be a co-ordinating body, with special powers to work with the Canadian Transport Commission, which would take all these matters under consideration.

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, again, the answer in a general way must be yes. The department of the environment will have that co-ordinating function. Several of the problems which the hon. member has mentioned relate to the air. We have already, under the meteorological service, air monitoring. We are soon to have a new clean air bill. I hope it will be passed during the present session. We are to obtain additional powers to expand our monitoring network across the country through which the air will be monitored. Under the bill, we shall set up national air quality objectives and standards, and we shall be in a position of knowing what the quality of our air is.
When it comes to a particular problem, such as detecting fuel that has been dumped by an aircraft in difficulties, and so on, we hope that the department of the environment people will detect this. Nevertheless, the Department of Transport, which has the direct authority over aircraft and the manner in which they are operated, will be involved. It will have to determine how widespread those practices are. This involves co-operation and close co-ordination between the departments.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the clause carry?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I wish to mention another point. I do not think we want to be put in a position where various departments of government will set their own standards of pollution control. The minister has suggested that since the matter of dumping of fuel will come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, there will be national standards. Will a committee of the various departments of government responsible for pollution control be established under the supervision of the minister which will cover the entire field of pollution control? I gather from the minister's remarks that there will still be the same lack of co-operation between various departments as far as pollution standards are concerned.
Canadians are interested in a department of the environment. If we are really concerned about environmental pollution control, there must be cooperation and liaison. Will the minister state whether a committee will be established comprising members of all government departments responsible for pollution so that there can be national standards? Various water resource commissions throughout Canada realize there must be national standards. Without them, they realize they cannot continue for many more years. There must be national standards, supervised by the department of the environment, that have teeth in order to deal with the areas causing pollution. Will the minister elaborate on whether a committee comprising members of every department in this area will be established.


John (Jack) Davis: I think it goes without saying that there will probably be several committees. We now have a committee of the cabinet. There will be a committee of resource ministers who have federal and provincial responsibilities in this area. There will also be interdepartmental committees which will probably be at the deputy

minister level. These interdepartmental committees will deal with specific aspects of pollution, such as the motor vehicle. The department of the environment must act as a coordinator with the Department of Transport which administers the Motor Safety Act. It must also be involved with the Department of National Health and Welfare and with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce because we are concerned about imported vehicles as well as those manufactured in Canada. The several departments which are concerned must be represented.
We will have a number of committees because there are several levels of government, a number of federal government departments and different kinds of pollution problems. The Council of Resource Ministers, which is already in existence, will assist in our liaison with provincial ministers. We already have a cabinet committee which deals with this subject.


William Marvin Howe: Will the minister answer the question I asked him? Is the government considering any financial assistance or any formula which would assist the projects to which I referred? So that people will have some idea when formulating plans, will the minister state how much assistance might be forthcoming from the federal government to assist water management commissions in carrying out these projects?


John (Jack) Davis: I cannot answer the hon. member's question in precise numbers. He referred to the fact that an earlier piece of legislation was repealed when the Canada Water Act was introduced. Under the former legislation, the federal government, provincial governments and local municipalities or authorities carried out certain river development projects, usually on a modest scale. They varied in size from province to province. Under the original act, the federal government paid 37.5 per cent, the provincial government 37.5 per cent and the local body 25 per cent.
The Canada Water Act which superseded the previous legislation is much more comprehensive. It envisages many kinds of river development such as whole river basins or single tributaries. It covers any conceivable water development in which there is a need for several levels of government, including the federal government, to participate. The basic philosophy is that each level of government should make a contribution which reflects its constitutional responsibilities. If there is a major concern with navigation on a river or stream, there is a federal involvement. If there is a hydro requirement or capability there is probably just a provincial involvement. If fisheries are involved, particularly on the ocean coasts, there is a federal fisheries involvement. If there is a flood control aspect, more than likely there is a provincial involvement. If a development is entirely for hydro, it would be 100 per cent provincial. If a project involves hydro, navigation, flood control and fisheries, the contribution will vary depending on the benefits.
If the benefits of a project are mostly in the federal area, it will probably be largely financed as a federally supported development. If the benefits are largely provincial or local, the financing will fall that way. The expect-
February 3, 1971

ed benefits will be the determining factor of shares of cost rather than the precise formula laid down in the earlier legislation. Because there is not a precise formula, I do not want the hon. member to think that there is not a way of getting around this problem. The approach is more general, flexible and realistic because it will reflect the benefits to the federal, provincial or local area.


William Marvin Howe: In other words, the federal government will give assistance in most of these programs as long as there is some federal interest involved.


John (Jack) Davis: The federal government must be concerned if there are navigational, fisheries or even flood control aspects. If it is a very small development within a province, the answer may be no. If the federal government is strapped for funds, the answer may be no. There must be a joint study to see where the benefits fall within the federal, provincial and local responsibilities. The costs will be apportioned in that fashion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The minister seems to be in a very obliging mood this afternoon. I never fault the minister in that regard. I wish to direct two questions to him. Last night I raised the matter of the swordfishery. These fishermen seemed to have been forced out of employment because of the high mercury content in swordfish. I do not have any quarrel with the retraining and unemployment insurance programs for fishermen. However, this seems to go a little further. These fishermen have large capital obligations. They have been forced out of their normal employment by reasons outside their control.
My question last night, which perhaps the President of the Treasury Board did not pass along, was not only whether the government was considering that particular matter, but whether the government had given any consideration to the plight of innocent people who are suddenly deprived of their livelihood because somebody has offended against anti-pollution laws.
The second question arises out of the wording of some of these clauses in which ministers are given the right to enter into agreements or to co-operate with provincial governments or agencies. I am sorry I used the word "agreements" because that is precisely the word I did not mean to use. The phrase is "to co-operate" rather than "to enter into agreements". Perhaps the minister could deal with that point, too.


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member raises two questions. The first has to do with the compensation or interim income which should be paid to fishermen who, through no fault of their own, suddenly find their livelihood terminated. The other relates to the nature of our formal relationships with the provinces.
To answer the first question. As the hon. member knows, there have been a number of unfortunate experiences involving fishermen in various parts of Canada during the last 18 months-phosphorous first, and subsequently mercury. In all cases we have endeavoured to
Government Organization Act, 1970 maintain the incomes of fishermen during the period in which they were being retrained for another occupation or during the time that another element of the fishery was being opened up to them, or until the fishery was restored.
In the case of swordfish, there may be a protracted period during which fishermen concerned are unable to to practice this long distance fishery. We are looking into a number of alternatives such as using the same vessels and the same crews to take groundfish with the aid of trawling and seining methods which have recently been developed. Meanwhile, the practice has been to make funds available to these people to assist them during the period when otherwise they would have no income from their normal form of employment. We would like to have, indeed, we must have, for the longer term, a program of what I might loosely term catch insurance. We must have something which would not only look after closures of this kind, closures of a particular fishery for months, or, maybe, years but also cases of unpredictable decline in income. We are examining a longer term program but meanwhile we are dealing with cases on a hand to mouth basis, as they arise, as expeditously as possible.
1 turn, now, to the question the hon. member asked about the use of the word "agreements" instead of the word "co-operation".


Robert Jardine McCleave: No. The other way around.


John (Jack) Davis: The use of the word "co-operation" rather than "agreements". When we come to clause 6, we shall focus on this point and by then I hope to have an adequate answer. As it is, I hope we shall reach agreements with the provinces and I hope we shall also cooperate with them on questions of this kind.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is fair enough. Perhaps it is a legal point and the minister can deal with it tomorrow. With reference to the answer he gave to my first question, is any continuing study being made to find out whether the standards imposed as to mercury content are justifiable? I am not asking that anybody should pollute their own souls by setting standards which are not right, but I understand that the mercury problem as far as swordfish are concerned has been with us for a long time. Is it that standards are, maybe, being set too high? I want this answer for general information; I simply do not know.


John (Jack) Davis: This is a very difficult question. I do not want to appear in anything I say to be questioning the present standard, because we are not considering an immediate change in the standard of one half part per million of mercury in fish. At the same time, the instruments which are being used to detect these very small amounts are still very new-the equipment has only been available for some 18 months-so we are learning a great deal about a condition which in some measure has always existed in nature. Though we do know there have sometimes been very much higher concentrations of mercury in fish caught near certain industries which use
3052

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 mercury, we find mercury in very small amounts everywhere and it may well be that certain species of fish, especially the more carnivorous fish at the top end of the food chain, have always been high in mercury content compared with others. How high is dangerous to health is something which health officials in this administration, in the United States and elsewhere are very concerned about. I am sure that as they develop more knowledge on this subject they will be reassessing their views. I hear some of them say they might be lowering the standard. I would hope that they might be able to raise it.
I might perhaps refer to the standard Sweden has set. Sweden has set a standard of .2 parts per million ranging to one part per million and if any fish product is sold below .2 parts-remember, our standard is .5-they do not mark it. But anything between .2 and one part they mark it "only to be eaten once a week". I do not think we want to mark "only to be eaten once a week" on fish sold for consumption in Canada or for export. We have set our own standard. The United States has adopted it. It is now a North American standard of .5 parts. It can be argued that double this figure is reasonable, but Sweden has not taken this view. A conference is to be held in Ottawa in February to which experts are coming from all parts of the world. We are focussing on this problem and hopefully we shall be able to provide more information which will help us to set standards which are realistic in the light of that new information. However, as I say, I do not want to infer that we wish to change our standard of .5 parts per million.


Mr. MacLean:: One brief question. I am not expecting a reply, now. Perhaps the minister could reply when we get to an appropriate clause, which would be clause 4 or 5.
It seems to me that in addition to the regular treaties which were formerly administered by the department of fisheries, and which will be administered by the new department, for example, the Migratory Birds Act, the whole concept of pollution control will involve international consideration in many areas. The pollution of swordfish by mercury is a case in point. I should like to hear some explanation of the role the department will play in these areas which are not specifically covered by legislation at the present time.
Will the new department be in direct contact with other govenments or will it act only in the role of adviser to the Department of External Affairs? What will be the division of responsibility and how is it anticipated the administration will be carried on? I have in mind effective pollution controls of an international type, as well as controlling pollution that kills birds or migratory fish that may become polluted in some other country's waters or on the high seas.


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member was minister of fisheries for a number of years, and he knows there are direct contacts between a particular ministry in Canada and a ministry of another country. In the first instance, what usually happens is that these contacts are established
through the Department of External Affairs and the foreign office of the other country. Once the contacts are made and the ministers and officials begin to talk more specifically about, for example, fish, external affairs officials and the foreign office people in that country may remain as observers or, perhaps, leave the room. So there are many opportunities for discussion in depth, the reaching of understandings on matters of that kind, and so on. These are matters limited to the department, however, and fisheries is an example.
I am sure this will happen in the case of pollution. Other countries are setting up departments of the environment, departments of pollution control, and so on. I am convinced that we will be able to develop standards that are not simply national in Canada but some of which are international, even global in scope. We have a Canadian as chairman of the United Nations agency dealing with the environment, Mr. Maurice Strong. We are going to have a conference in 1972 with other nations regarding the application of standards on a global basis pertaining, for example, to mercury pollution. I am sure there will be many meetings between officials of the environment department in Canada and their opposite numbers in other countries at such conferences, as well as bilaterally in direct negotiation with, say, the United States and countries overseas.
I think that through the Canada Water Act, a new clean air act, and so on, we will be able to set up study groups and task forces that will develop standards. I am thinking now of standards that we are developing in Canada for the pulp and paper industry with regard to the discharge of its effluent into water. A number of other countries are watching what we are doing. We have 170 mills and need to do something quickly about this problem. Our standards may well become the standards of the United States and of the Scandinavian countries of simply because we are focusing on this matter as our specialty or priority item. I am sure there will be a good deal of coming and going between departmental officials and technically qualified people competent in this area internationally as well as in Canada.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions to put to the minister who will be in charge of this new department. The first has to do with national standards. I understand the minister is very interested in national standards, as I think are most hon. members. Will the minister definitely set up national standards under this new department? I am thinking in terms of pulp mills and so on. Has the minister run into any difficulty to date in dealing with provinces that might wish to have lower or different standards?


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hon. member for Etobicoke on a point of order.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member opposite is referring to standards. May I draw your attention to clause 6 of the bill, which would seem to me to be the appropriate clause to discuss this particular subject and to put such questions.

February 3, 1971


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman-
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Richard): Order, please. On the point of order, I think the hon. member will realize that the Chair has been very lenient so far. A great deal of latitude has been given on this clause to the discussion of matters that really belong within clause 6. Perhaps if the bill had been properly drawn, clauses 4 and 5 would have been subclauses of clause 3. Since this Chairman, at least, has taken this into account in his intelligent attitude toward the drafting of bills, and since other Chairmen who preceded me have allowed such discussion, I feel that now is not the time to limit the debate.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can assure the Chair that any question I ask under this clause will not be repeated later on. My question to the minister was this. Is the minister going to have authority to set national standards? This is a very general question but an important one. How will these fit in with the enforcement of the Canada Water Act, where you have to deal with ten provinces on an individual basis? How can the minister arrive at an agreement on national standards with each of the ten provinces when under the Canada Water Act water quality management areas have to be negotiated with provinces that have differing standards? I should like the minister to clear up this point. I assure him that we will do everything we can to tighten up the bill, and we are all behind him if he is able to formulate national standards. We need and should have these national standards.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, my answer would be this: We can have national standards, we must have national standards and we will have national standards. The hon. member asks how. We can develop national standards-I am talking more in legal or constitutional terms here- for industries under federal jurisdiction, and some of these are very large. Any industry that has an impact upon our fisheries in so far as its water effluent is concerned can be required to meet the standards under the federal Fisheries Act, because these standards are national in scope and in impact.
There are other industries that come totally within provincial jurisdiction. In many water situations, to regulate properly a body of water you must regulate not just provincial development of water but federal development as well, and in such a case a joint body may be appropriate. If so, we could proceed, for example, under the Canada Water Act or under a similar provision for federal-provincial co-operation under the terms of a clean air act.
In all these instances we would insist that the national standard that we had developed would be the standard to be employed in the joint development in that particular area, so that through federal and provincial agreement it would be possible to bring about the enforcement of national standards. You do not do this through direct federal legislation without reference to the province concerned. In that case you would have to have an agreement with the province relative to the particular industry in that province.
Government Organization Act, 1970
There is a third way to bring about national standards, and this is what we are really doing at the moment with the pulp and paper industry. We are working closely with the provinces and the pulp and paper industry, along with experts from several other countries, in the development of standards that we believe the provincial pollution control boards will adopt as well as our own authorities. Through thorough discussion and sweet reason we believe we will arrive at standards which will in fact be national standards that are applied by the provinces because they believe in them, not because there is federal jurisdiction in every instance within the provinces. So through co-operation and certainly careful discussions we can set standards. The hon. member asks if there are difficulties. The biggest single difficulty is that relating to older plants. We can readily develop standards that apply to new plants by requiring that new plants henceforth must be designed to produce effluent of a quality stipulated in the regulations.
Those regulations and standards have to be the objectives toward which the old plants must progressively be upgraded. The unkown element in this is, how long will it take for the old plants to come up to that standard? In an industry that is totally within a province and totally within provincial jurisdiction, the matter must be left primarily with the province to negotiate with the firm in order to bring this about. There is just no way in which the federal law can reach directly into that situation or do anything about it.
Admittedly, if there is a fisheries aspect or a navigable waters aspect or a flood control aspect and so on, Ottawa can get into it. I am referring to situations where there are no federal aspects, legislation or federal laws that apply. These are the difficult areas.


Randolph Harding: February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 water resources was that if a pulp mill were built in northern Canada or some area where there was not a large population, it was not necessary to have such high standards. It was felt that if there were enough water flow to carry the effluent away, why should these mills be forced to put in this modern, technological equipment.
We should not fall into this trap. It should not matter where these industries establish, they should have to meet the standards. Whether a pulp mill exists in Newfoundland or the province of British Columbia, it should have to meet the same requirements. The regulations should not allow these companies to move from one province to another or from one area to another in order to avoid the capital expenditure of $1 million or $2 million in respect of modern pollution machinery.
It is for this reason I am apprehensive about the way we are doing this. We do not have this overriding authority, and I realize the constitutional difficulties. We are not getting a national standard as a result of this bill. I know the minister is very anxious to obtain this and will do everything he can to bring it about.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not want the impression left that I can see loopholes as far as the federal government is concerned. There will be no pollution havens as far as our standards will apply. These standards will apply wherever the Canada Water Act is enforced because that Act will not be enforced without federal participation. Any standard which is developed in an area under the Canada Water Act is a standard which is referred back to the minister of environment. If it does not conform with our national standards it will be out. The standard can be higher but it certainly cannot be lower than the standards we set for that industry. Wherever we invest federal money, wherever we have federal power and wherever we have agreement with a province for joint management agencies, the federal standards will obtain. In this regard, we will have national standards.
However, we do have two levels of government in this country and sometimes there may be little pockets where there is no federal jurisdiction or avenue for federal participation. It is conceivable there would be different standards under those circumstances, although I do not expect to see much of that. There will be none of it in so far as my department is concerned. We will have national standards and we will try to keep them everywhere through participation if we do not have direct power.


Randolph Harding: I have another question to clear up this point. Would the minister indicate whether he feels the water quality management areas would be an aspect to which federal jurisdiction will apply?


John (Jack) Davis: Let me answer that question very simply, Mr. Chairman. The water quality management areas are areas which come under the Canada Water Act, where there is some federal input or federal participation. Where federal authority is involved, we can influence the standards and this is where the standards will be national. Wherever the federal government is in the act it will influence national standards, do not worry about that. The Canada Water Act is a vehicle by which the federal government can influence local situations. It is not the reverse of that situation. This is not a device for permitting pollution havens.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the minister refer to those areas under federal jurisdiction. I should like to ask him about the situation at the Moose Jaw armed forces base in my area. I take no exception to the base being there. These people are good citizens. A great deal has been spent on the existing sewage disposal plant at this base, but there is still some discharge of effluent into the Moose Jaw River. This is a river which has a very light flow at the best of times. The sewage is highly treated and it becomes damaging when it breaks down after entering the river. This same thing applies in respect of various areas in Canada where sewage disposal plants have been constructed through CMHC investment. These areas are under federal jurisdiction.
The minister suggested he would use all the persuasion he possibly could. Will there be national standards enforced in respect of the treatment of sewage and disposal by plants such as the one I referred to at the Moose Jaw armed forces base? This is a situation which could be rectified by diverting the sewage into the city system. How is the minister going to bring about national standards when he does not have control of that particular aspect of national defence operations?


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member is really saying to the federal government, put your own house in order first. Clearly there is an area where there must be national enforcement even though we have not had standards in the past. We must develop standards where we do not have them, and we must enforce those standards. We must first enforce them through our own departments and crown agencies. I hope this situation will be tidied up quickly.


John Leroy Skoberg: Are we going to be able to put some money where our mouth is in order to put our house in order, or will this be a lot of window dressing? Will money be put into the budgets of the various departments in order to bring about real, meaningful pollution control measures?


John (Jack) Davis: We are now drawing up the lists of federal establishments which, in one degree or another, offend the standards that we are developing. We will present these lits to the relevant departments. If they cannot find the funds within their present budgets, we will have to take this up as a special matter with cabinet, and have it dealt with as a matter of priority to get additional funds.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the m nister s.ate unequivocally that we are go ng to have national standards all across Canada. But what about an international standard? What is the situation in

February 3, 1971

this regard? I am thinking particularly of the area where I live, surrounded by the Great Lakes.
If I may refer ahead to Clause 5 dealing with the enforcement of any rules or regulations made by the International Joint Commission, I would like the minister to reconcile that with the national standards to which he made reference. What good are all the national standards that this country can establish if we do not have a standard that applies to all the Great Lakes? How are we going to arrive at a situation where this mess is going to be cleaned up?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think we are faced with some of the same problems that we might be faced with if we had different standards from province to province. If we have different standards from nation to nation, we will have difficulties, particularly trans-border difficulties. However, with respect to pollutants that are moving around the earth and are universal in their effect, I think we will quickly see international agreements as to standards. There will be many standards that will be worldwide in their effect. There will be considerable pressures develop, especially from nations which are cleaning up, on nations which are not cleaning up as rapidly as they are doing.
I was recently at a conference in Washington. The concern expressed there was that the nations that were cleaning up rapidly might set up barriers of one kind or another against nations that were not cleaning up their industry. In other words-don't buy dirty products. Already, a tendency is developing for standards to be applied internationally, as well as inter-provincially, or nationally within Canada.
There is some value in being first. There is some value in cleaning up first. In British Columbia, where a lot of pulp mills are new, those on freshwater salmon rivers have been cleaning up. In fact they were forced to clean up, but the clean up technology had more or less to be developed from scratch. Engineering consultant services in this field came into being, and several of these firm are being retained by Sweden and Russia to show them how to clean up their industries. By being first we can get our toe in the door with new technology, which can provide new opportunities for trade as well.
But Finland does not want to clean up its pulp mills unless its competitors do the same. However, with Canada cleaning up its mills, and Sweden doing likewise Finland will be forced to take similar steps. There is a movement in this direction, and there is a great deal of public opinion behind it, not only in Canada but worldwide. So, I think we will see standards develop internationally as well as in Canada. There will be a tendency toward uniformity of standards and to the avoidance of pollution havens.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the minister take a minute or two to relate some of his remarks to the whole question of the discharge of effluent from mining operations? I noticed a press release issued by his department today. Unfortunately, I have not been able to do anything more than read the headline on it, and it had some reference to mining operations in New Brunswick.
Government Organization Act, 1970
I am sure the minister is quite aware of the fact that the discharge of mining tailings, particularly from the newer, large open pit type of mines, which are going to be mining low-grade ores in huge tonnages, is a matter of growing concern. He has talked a great deal about standards with regard to effluent from the pulp and paper industry, which certainly I would agree are necessary, but he has not given any indication of where we stand with respect to the development of standards governing mining effluent. How will the department of the environment tie into the activities and decisions of pollution control boards as, for example, the recent decision of the Pollution Control Board of British Columbia with respect to the proposed Utah Construction and Mining operation on northern Vancouver Island?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the mining industry is not as tidy in many ways as are some other industries. The kraft paper making process is a single process. When the answer is found to the cleaning up of its effluents it is an answer-and this includes standards-which can be applied across the country to all new kraft mills, and progressively to older ones as time and money opportunities present themselves to make the changes.
But mines not only produce a variety of different metals, they also produce them in a variety of different combinations and circumstances. As the hon. member knows, we have used the federal Fisheries Act not only to monitor but to suggest clean up processes, and to enforce cleaning up in a number of mining operations that are close to important fisheries. We will have to use a similar approach in respect of many other mining operations across the country. But there is no single set of regulations that will apply to all mines because the metals and the variety of circumstances differ from place to place.
In other words these are particular situations rather than a single industry to which a single cleaning up procedure would readily apply. We intend to tackle the job, but it is a bigger and much more complicated one than the pulp and paper industry.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Since the minister has referred to the Fisheries Act, can he say whether the sections of that act which require the advance submission of plans and proposals with regard to the processing of ore are in operation? In other words, is the situation now that any mining operation which involves fisheries waters has to get the approval of the minister of a company's proposal in advance before a new mine can go into operation. Where do we stand with regard to having existing operations submit plans of their operating procedures, so as to determine whether or not any modification of their tailings disposal programs are required?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, we are taking advantage of this new provision in the Fisheries Act. However, the onus is on the department, on its officials, to support the development in the first instance, to ask for information and plans, and so on, to vet them, and if they are found unsatisfactory then of course we can stop construction in the last analysis. If, however, we do not find circum-

February 3, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
stances where fish are likely to be killed in any numbers, then we stand back.
In effect, we provide any information that the provincial departments require. But if we do not have evidence of likely damage we do not intervene. We do not give a permit. If evidence of damage does come to our attention, later we will move in but we never give approval. We will watch with interest, and we are prepared to move in at any time.


Jean-Thomas Richard: It being six o'clock, shall I rise and report progress?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Before the House adjourns, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) if he would confirm that this bill will be the first order of business tomorrow.


John (Jack) Davis: Bill C-207 will be the first order of business tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
;


Thursday, February 4, 1971