1971-02-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) and with the agreement of the House, I should like to table, in the two official languages, copies of the agreement between the governments of Canada and the U.S.S.R. on co-operation in the industrial application of science and technology, the protocol of the first meeting of the Canadian-Soviet Mixed Commission, as well as the communique issued at the end of those talks.
Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of leading the Canadian delegation composed of civil servants and businessmen. The purpose of this visit was to sign the agreement referred to, and to hold the first meeting of the Canadian-Soviet Mixed Commission set up under the agreement.
We were greeted warmly, our discussions were constructive, and everything seems to indicate that they will lead to mutual benefits.
The agreement aims at encouraging co-operation between the two countries in the field of industrial science and technology. That co-operation could take the form of exchanges of information, and visits of businessmen and experts. It could also lead to licensing agreements in specific areas of technology.

It might lead to all kinds of "joint ventures". I suggest it will also lead to increases in two-way trade between the two countries.
Numerous meetings were held in Moscow between members of the Canadian delegation and their opposite numbers in various industrial and research sectors of the Soviet administration. These discussions identified a considerable range of subjects of mutual interest to the two countries. As a result, six working groups have been established in order to further identify prospects for mutually beneficial exchanges. The groups are as follows: architecture, construction and building materials; forest-based industry; non-ferrous metals industry; electric power industry; oil industry, and gas industry. Formation
of an additional group to consider airport design, facilities and servicing is under consideration.
Certain features which emerged from the discussion are worthy of special mention.
1.	Problems arising from severe climatic and permafrost conditions are of considerable interest to both countries and have been identified for study by the working groups in construction, electric power, the oil industry and the gas industry.
2.	The naming of the six working groups I have mentioned does not, of course, exhaust the area of possible co-operation in the industrial application of science and technology. In addition to working groups, other contacts will continue, and further working groups may be established by agreement.
I was impressed by the speed with which our Canadian businessmen and experts were able to get down to specifics with their Soviet counterparts.
The next session of the mixed commission will be held in Ottawa early in 1972.
While I was in Moscow I met separately with Mr. Patolichev, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade. We engaged in a useful review of trade developments and of prospects for the further expansion of trade. I was invited also to call on Mr. Polyansky, Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union. Our discussions covered the broad range of relationships between Canada and the Soviet Union. Mr. Polyansky particularly asked me to convey to the Governor General of Canada and to the Prime Minister the greetings of Mr. Podgorny, President of the Soviet Union, Premier Kosygin and First Secretary Brezhnev. He also asked me to tell the Canadian Prime Minister-and I do so now-how much the Soviet government is looking forward to welcoming him to the Soviet Union later this year.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I certainly appreciate the minister's courtesy in making a report to the House on his recent visit to Russia and on the series of meetings which were held during that visit. I think what was done will serve a very useful purpose.
The basic concept behind the whole mission is an arrangement whereby two states which have so much in common in terms of climatic condition and industrial development will be able to exchange ideas and information not only at the governmental level but at the industrial level. We note the minister's observation that the effectiveness of these meetings will be reviewed on an annual basis and that provision has been made for the setting up of further working committees if necessary. As

February 4, 1971
Trade Agreement with Russia
is so often the case, their success will depend to a great extent on the initiative shown by the Canadian business community and Canadian industry, encouraged, of course, by government action.
There is no doubt in our minds that the Russians will take full advantage of this agreement by sending over their experts and students to assimilate, as far as possible, any advantageous information which may have accrued from our development here in Canada. The onus is upon us to see that this interest is reciprocated and that we in turn take full advantage of the opportunities which are granted to us by the Russian government.
The minister told us of the meeting between himself and his Russian counterpart in the field of trade. I am sorry he was not able to go into more detail, because the Soviet Union is and can be an important buyer of Canadian grain, pulp and paper, and other exports; anything which can be done to encourage a still greater readiness on the part of the Soviet Union to purchase the commodities we have to offer will work to the great advantage of this country.
We welcome the minister's statement and the tabling of this agreement. We shall await with a great deal of interest the development of this new arrangement between the two countries.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for having worked out these mechanisms for closer integration with the Soviet Union in respect of the exchange of information, technical know-how and trade. It is undoubtedly true that as nations learn to trade with each other there is a tendency for some of the tensions that can lead to conflict to be reduced. I think the minister has taken a very excellent first step in this direction.
When Your Honour's predecessor took a delegation of parliamentarians to the Soviet Union in 1965 we found that the Soviet Union was interested in a great many commodities which Canada produces. One of the main obstacles to trade was that they in turn wanted to sell in Canada so that they could pay for their purchases. I think that the machinery the minister has set up should make it possible for the Russians to find markets in Canada for goods that are competitive and this should enable them to purchase more Canadian products. I think the minister has taken an excellent first step and we hope that success will attend his efforts.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself are most happy that the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) tabled copies of the agreement between the Canadian government and the government of the USSR on cooperation in the industrial application of science and technology, as well as copies of the protocol of the first meeting of the Canadian-Soviet Mixed Commission and the press release.
[Mr. Danforth.l
As the leader of the New Democratic Party just mentioned, during the visit of a Canadian delegation to Russia in 1965 there were definite talks about establishing more cordial relations between the two countries with the specific objective of co-operating in the industrial application of science and technology.
I believe this is another step towards fostering better understanding between both countries in order to achieve more significant trade relations.
*$*	-4*	-I*



TABLING OF PRESS RELEASES ON FINAL PAYMENT FOR BARLEY AND OATS AND SALE OF FLOUR TO RUSSIA

Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table copies in both official languages of a press release on the final payment for barley and oats for the 1969-70 crop year, and also a press release on a flour sale to the U.S.S.R.
* Hs *



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the complete disregard of the public interest in the Atlantic region which the railways have shown by taking advantage of the government's failure to work out its promised special transportation policy for the Atlantic region in the past two years, which has meant that in less than a year and a half freight rate increases have averaged 25 to 35 per cent and those on lumber as much as 40 per cent. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That this House believes that the railway freight rate increases in the Atlantic region since September, 1969, have prejudicially affected the public interest in the Atlantic region and orders the Minister of Transport to appeal these increases, for and upon behalf of the public, under section 16 of the National Transportation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Moncton which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent the motion cannot be put.
February 4, 1971



INDUSTRY


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to ask leave of the House to make a motion under Standing Order 43. I hope I have more success. I refer to the announcement today by the Wabush Mines consortium that their proposed $100 million expansion program at Wabush, Newfoundland, is to be shelved because of economic factors, including the general level of taxation in the country.
My motion, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) is:
That the Standing Committee on Finance immediately invite representatives of Wabush Mines to appear before them to elaborate on the factors which forced them to make this decision and thus enable the committee to recommend measures which would create an economic climate in which this company and others may expand and develop.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed for the consideration of the House. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion, to be put, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sure the matter is of such concern to him that it will be within his knowledge. Has the government now indicated that it is no longer opposed to the acquisition of the control of Home Oil Company by Ashland Oil Company, Limited, or is it still trying to interest some Canadian company in making a more acceptable proposition?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the situation as far as I know is still the same as that revealed in the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, assuming that the government of Canada is interested in putting Canadian compa-
Inquiries of the Ministry
nies in a position of equity in bidding for control of other Canadian companies, does the government propose to take any measures to put Canadian companies in such a position of equity? For example, I have in mind the privilege United States companies now have in borrowing money to buy shares in Canadian companies and charging the interest on those loans against net income for income tax purposes, whereas this right is not available to Canadian companies. Will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance tell the House whether the government proposes to take any measures immediately to put Canadian companies in a position in which they can hope to negotiate on a competitive basis with United States companies?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is asking a very complicated question. I am sure he has read the proposals in the white paper which do-


An hon. Member:: The white paper; that makes it worse.


Edgar John Benson: -alleviate the situation to some degree.


Mr. Bell:: The white paper is the cause of the whole trouble.


Edgar John Benson: Obviously my friend has not read the white paper. I am also sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is familiar with the submissions which were made to the Commons and Senate committees in respect of this problem and which are contained in their reports.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I judge from what the Minister of Finance says that the government does not propose to take any such action. I have another question for the Minister of Finance. Again with a view to putting Canadian companies in a position where they will be competitive in bidding for control of Canadian companies, does the minister propose to take any action with reference to the inability of Canadian oil companies to charge against income their losses from drilling abroad, as in Alaska, whereas United States companies buying control of such Canadian companies can transfer that operation and get back through tax deductions much of the money expended in acquiring control of the Canadian company? Does the minister propose any action to put Canadian companies in a competitive position in that regard?


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend is getting into some very interesting areas where I would maintain that it is sometimes possible for Canadian companies, through the use of offshore subsidiaries, for example, to take advantage of offshore depletion. This is really what my friend is talking about.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know what I am talking about.


Edgar John Benson: It also was a question which was contained in the submissions of the oil companies to the

February 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
parliamentary committees, which I am sure my hon. friend has read and which we are presently considering.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the reports that a solution is being worked out between Home Oil Company and Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky so that there will be Canadian ownership of a new company but effective control by Ashland Oil Incorporated, thereby divesting Canada of the control and transferring it to the United States, would the Prime Minister undertake to see that such a deal is not completed at least until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made his promised report to parliament and we have had an opportunity to discuss this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not understand what report the hon. member alleges that the minister said he would make.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last Tuesday I asked the minister if he would report back to the House before this deal was completed and the minister undertook to keep parliament informed. The main point of the question I am asking the Prime Minister is whether, in view of the seriousness of having the last remaining, large, independent oil producer taken over and effective control placed in the hands of a United States company, the Prime Minister will undertake to assure the House that such a deal will not be completed until parliament has had an opportunity to look further into this question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only repeat the commitment of the minister, who is following this question very closely and who undertook, as the hon. member just said in his second intervention, to keep the House informed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the indications are that this deal is likely to be completed this week and, unless the minister makes a statement tomorrow, it may be too late, I want to ask the Prime Minister this question. Having regard to the fact that Home Oil owns about 10 per cent of the shares of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, would the government undertake to ensure that steps will be taken to see that an increasing number of shares of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines are not divorced from Canadian ownership?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question along the lines of that asked by the Leader of the Opposition in reference to the white paper. Since the United States and, indeed, Great Britain and other countries have a set capital gains tax and ours, as set out in the white paper which the minister talks about reading, will be applied on a progressive rate and could reach as high as 50 per cent, has there been any clarification so as to encourage Canadian capital and Canadian companies to buy Canadian corporations in this field in particular?


Edgar John Benson: I am sure again that my hon. friend has read the recommendations in the House of Commons and Senate committee reports. With reference to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, there is a basic question involved with regard to offshore depletion: should the taxpayers of Canada generally be giving up money to oil companies in order to encourage them to drill for oil in Alaska, Malaysia or somewhere else rather than in Canada?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he thinks it an appropriate policy for the government of Canada to follow which actually and effectively gives United States corporations a very substantial advantage in buying Canadian corporations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that is not Canadian policy; it is American policy. In the United States there is a shortage of oil and they are willing to encourage their companies to go into other countries and drill for oil. The question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are getting rather deeply involved in a debate on this very interesting subject, and perhaps we should try to limit ourselves to seeking information and, on the part of the government, giving information. The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the policy of the Canadian government to leave Canadian companies at a disadvantage, admittedly created by United States law, which has the effect of making it easy for United States corporations to acquire control of Canadian corporations as opposed to other Canadian corporations acquiring control of them?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is talking more broadly than the specific question he raised earlier with respect to oil companies. As I indicated, if he would read the submissions to the House of Commons committee and the Senate committee and the recommendations those committees made, he would know what has been said in this regard. The government's policy with respect to the future will be indicated when the legislation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I suggested, perhaps we have embarked on a debate. Do I understand the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary
question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. Mine is not a supplementary question. The Minister of Finance thought about an answer to give the Leader of the Opposition and forgot about the question I put to him. I know he did not do this deliberately, and I know he is anxious to answer it because of discrimina-

February 4, 1971

tion in the recommendations in the white paper with regard to a capital gains tax.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member read the House of Commons committee report he would have seen that the result would be a lower rate of tax in Canada on capital gains than in the United States, but I cannot say at this point whether we are willing to accept the recommendations in that report until we introduce the legislation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course not.


Edgar John Benson: Now, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to say something-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question either to the Minister of Finance or to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since Home Oil Company of Calgary last year purchased some $52 million worth of equity stock in Richfield Oil in order to get into development in the far north, and the sale of Home Oil will now mean that $52 million of Canadian investment will fall under the control of an American company, does the government intend to do anything to prevent this steady erosion of Canadian savings into the control of foreign companies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, just speaking off the top of my head, I think the investment in Richfield was for exploration in Alaska and not in northern Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see hon. members wish to ask supplementaries but I think we should go on to another subject and in a short while return to hon. members who have supplementaries. I notice in particular the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and I will return to him in a moment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, and I do not care whether the answer if is off the top of his head. Will he explain how he expects Canadian companies, Home Oil or any others, to do business in view of all the indefiniteness that has been created by recent government actions on this matter, including the white paper itself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel that the supplementary asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster is an indication that we have embarked on a debate. Perhaps there will be another opportunity to pursue the matter further.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
Would he tell the House whether he intends to revise the unemployment insurance policy in order to convert this plan into a social security measure financed by the federal treasury?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE PROPOSALS RESPECTING AMENDMENT AND REPATRIATION OF CONSTITUTION

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
In view of the important statement the minister made yesterday concerning revision of the Constitution on the occasion of the coming federal-provincial conference, may I ask him whether the government intends to put before the provinces amendments other than those included in the federal government publication on the Canadian Constitution?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, all matters being the object of preliminary discussions with the provincial premiers have already been announced by the federal government.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
Can he tell us if the federal government will put forward a new formula for the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution or if it will propose other amendments?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, both subjects are among those that will be discussed.



POLLUTION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the very serious problem of air pollution in the city of Montreal, which has gone well past the danger level of .1 up to .6 on the pollution index. Can the minister indicate whether any special plans for

February 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
assistance are being formulated by his department, or whether in fact he has received any request for assistance from the municipal authorities in Montreal?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: To answer the latter part of the question, no. However, I think this particular area of air pollution in terms of the environment is more appropriately the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, and I will refer that question to him and have him answer it in the House.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of the problem and the well known difficulties that the government encounters with the constitution, can the Prime Minister indicate whether any plans or efforts will be put forward with respect to special services by Canadian National Railways, thus alleviating one of the major sources of pollution in Montreal, automobiles, because I understand that Decarie Boulevard is almost completely invisible because of air pollution? Does he know of any immediate assistance on a mass transit basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not, Mr. Speaker, but I imagine if there is any such plan it would come to the attention of the Minister of Transport rather than myself.
* *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday in answer to a question he said that he suffered from the general blackout in regard to the alleged invasion of Laos. Is he now out of that blackout, and can he say whether that invasion has taken place?


Hon. Mifchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. Our officers have been in touch with the United States government and no information has been given to us.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Has the minister been able to obtain any information in this regard from our new mission in Peking?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. They seem to have kept the Chinese in doubt too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FINANCE


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement today that Wabush Mines is suspending plans for a proposed $100 million expansion of iron ore operations in Wabush, Newfoundland, and also in the province of Quebec because of economic factors, including the level of taxation, would the minister introduce his tax reform legislation immediately, instead of in April, to remove the uncertainties in the economy that cause industry to postpone such vital developments?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in this regard and without accepting the premise that tax was the basis for this action which I do not think was the case, I would be pleased to move forward the tax reform legislation. The opposition has indicated from the beginning that there should be widespread discussion of these proposals in Canada, and I would hope that when we can introduce the legislation the opposition will help us to move forward with it very quickly.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Is the government currently holding any negotiations with the owners of Wabush Mines with a view to a possible reversal of this serious decision?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this point.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance whether he has had any discussions with or representations from the company, the consortium referred to by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, since the fall of 1970, and has he been able to offer any encouragement which would facilitate the beginning of this project?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have had any direct representations from this particular company. That was not the case with respect to Quebec Cartier Mines and the Iron Ore Company of Canada, representatives of which came to see me about tax problems. After an announcement as to some changes we were thinking of with respect to taxation, they are going forward with expenditures of more than half a billion dollars on their particular projects.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is prepared to make recommendations or to meet or negotiate with the companies in question in order to try to offer them some certainty with respect to their taxation position, as referred to by my colleague, and also the general economic climate, and perhaps give some indication to the companies of the legislative proposals to be brought forward so that they can move ahead in 1971 with this $100 million project?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to meet with representatives of the company at any time they want to see me, in the same way as I have indicated my willingness to meet with other Canadians and discuss changes in taxation in Canada. I would be pleased to see them at any time. But I could not indicate to them what the ultimate tax reform legislation might be without, of course, indicating it to the House of Commons first.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
February 4, 1971



INDUSTRY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a related question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he been able to be of assistance in offering incentives to Renfrew Aircraft and Engineering Limited in view of the lay-offs and the very serious unemployment existing there and elsewhere in Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any formal request from the company asking for assistance; but, in any event, I shall look into the matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to confer with the Member of Parliament for that area?


Jean Marchand: That has already been done, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The other day, in answering questions, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry indicated that he believed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was aware of and would be concerned about the massive pollution threat to British Columbia involved in the plan of American oil companies to ship oil from Alaska by tanker down the British Columbia coast. This is a matter of grave concern to many British Columbians. Would the minister consider making an early statement indicating what the position of the government is on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would consider doing this. I can assure the hon. member that the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry that we are very concerned is correct. We are following developments very closely. There are a number of lines upon which we can approach the subject. I think he is aware, however, that the ships would pass either through international waters or through American waters and never through Canadian waters. Therefore it would be a question of seeking international action to deal with the threat of pollution.



FINANCE


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would
Inquiries of the Ministry
he give favourable consideration now to further assistance, through tax concessions or tax incentives, to exploration companies interested in exploring for more oil in view of the uncertainty of supplies from the Middle East?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course any suggestion made by my hon. friend will receive consideration by me. I would, however, indicate that any announcement with respect to tax policy would have to be made in the ordinary way in the House of Commons in the budget.



TAKEOVER OF CINEPIX BY KALVEX INCORPORATED OF NEW YORK-PROTECTION OF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INVESTMENT

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has the Montreal based film company, Cinepix, been taken over by Kalvex Incorporated of New York? If that is the case, what action has been taken by the government to protect the investment of the Canadian Film Development Corporation in this former Canadian company?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the transaction mentioned by the hon. member has effectively taken place. I have no special information about it, but the sale was announced in the newspapers.
As to the measures taken by the Canadian Film Development Corporation to protect its investment in certain films produced by Cinepix, I will have to inquire from the Canadian Film Development Corporation before giving a reply to the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. As a result of the devastation caused by the corn blight in Canada last year and the uncertainties as to the extent of the danger this year and as to the availability of resistant seed, does the minister propose to make known, by way of a statement, press release or bulletin, all pertinent information on this matter before the planting season?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are watching this very carefully and also looking carefully at the forecast that the United States is making respecting the prospective plantings of corn in the United States during the coming season. We believe, from what we know, that there will be not sufficient resistant seed available for the whole of North America. Nevertheless, we certainly think there might be something that would be useful to the farmers which could be announced before the planting season and, if so, we shall do so.

February 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO PERMIT PUBLIC HOUSING


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Is he giving consideration to changes in the housing legislation which would permit public housing tenants to share the same building facilities with other tenants who are not subsidized?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, that accommodation would be possible in certain ways under the provisions of the Act as it stands now. We have been trying to exploit this matter by asking the provinces to be the prime tenant in buildings to accommodate such people which are not completely public housing units. There are other ways of doing it. This involves a rather detailed approach and I could discuss it with my hon. friend outside the House if he so wishes.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, in view of what he said, whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is preparing proposals which could be discussed with the provinces in order to put into effect this kind of policy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, discussions of that kind are going on all the time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It has to do with the tactical ground support air fighter known as the CF-5. Have the balance of the 115 CF-5's been delivered by Canadair? Second, in view of the shortage of storage space at Trenton, is the minister planning or arranging to dismantle these aircraft and store them at North Bay?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, my most recent information is that the assembly line will be delivering both NF-5's for the Netherlands government and CF-5's for another several months. I believe I am correct in saying that some of the aircraft are in temporary storage now at North Bay. I can inform the hon. member that we will be submitting the CF-5 to trials in Norway for the balance of this month. I would hope to be able to make a statement about the middle of March, probably to the committee on defence, with respect to the use of the aircraft.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might respond to a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member for Wellington has a supplementary.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I intended to ask a supplementary but the minister has answered it.



OPPORTUNITY FOR PROMOTION OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES WHO FAIL TO PASS SECOND LANGUAGE TEST

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East raised questions with regard to a circular distributed among units of the armoured corps units of the land forces on the question of bilingualism. I found that the circular related to opportunities for promotion with the Douzieme Regiment Blinde Canadien which is stationed at Valcartier. As the hon. member knows, there are four regiments in the armoured corps. In three of them the primary language of expression is English. In the fourth the primary language of expression is French. In the English-speaking units there is a surplus at present of senior NCO's.


Mr. Forresiall:: How come?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suppose they have more sergeants than time at present. In any event, there is a surplus owing to the reduction of the number of units from the previous force structure. There is a shortage of senior NCO's in the French-speaking regiment. Efforts have been made, of which the circular was one, by which NCO's would be given the opportunity to gain promotions by acquiring a facility in the French language and joining that regiment. I confirm to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek that, while that offers opportunities within the Douzieme Regiment Blinde Canadien, it does not affect regular promotion among Englishspeaking units, which will, as always, be on the basis of merit.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: wish to correct a misunderstanding with regard to the minister's statement. I did not mention a circular or directive in my question. I asked two straight-forward questions. Will promotions for English-speaking Canadians be based on an aptitute test and their willingness to serve in a Francophone environment? The minister has not answered those questions in his statement today. I wish to correct some of his statements. I know for a fact that certain officers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. This is now a debate between the hon. member and the minister.


J. Michael Forrestall: I welcome the indication from the minister, but in the directive that went out was there an indication that promotions within the armoured regiments of the Canadian Armed Forces would be restricted for the next two years to those who have a facility in the French language and desire to move into the Francophone unit?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not sure if that was in the directive. It was certainly in the copy of the document which the hon. member gave me. It would only be on the basis that, where there is a shortage of sergeants in the Francophone unit, obviously promotion will be
IMr. Olson.)
February 4, 1971

quicker than in the other units. I confirm that promotion within the English-speaking force will be on the same basis as always, but of course the same opportunities will not exist there because there are more men than positions at the present time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Just so that I will understand the situation correctly, is the minister in effect stating that there has been no basic change in promotional procedures within the Canadian Armed Forces, or is there some slight exception with respect to the armoured regiments because of an overbalance of both commissioned and non-commissioned officers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say there would be no difference at all in procedures. At the present time there is a difference in opportunities. Perhaps at a future time it may be balanced in the other direction.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


John (Jack) McIntosh: Perhaps my supplementary question should be directed to the minister in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Has a similar directive gone out to members of that force stating that promotion will be subject to a language aptitude test and willingness to serve in a Francophone environment?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the hon. member's question. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Has a similar directive gone out to officials of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stating that members must take an aptitude test, be bilingual and willing to serve in a Francophone environment?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister prepared to make an early statement as to the government's plans with regard to the implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The report is under consideration by the government, Mr. Speaker. I am not yet in a position to state what the future plans will be.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



RETURN OF FINGERPRINTS OF PERSONS RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Minister of Justice further to a question asked yesterday. I wish to clarify the record or at least my own mind. Have the fingerprints been returned to all the 435 people who were detained under the War Measures Act and subsequently released without charge, regardless of whether they were apprehended by the RCMP or by other police forces? Have all fingerprints been returned to these 435 people?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I used the word "returned" it might have left a certain ambiguity. What happens is that fingerprints taken by any police force in Canada are sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by way of a central depository. When I was Acting Solicitor General and Minister of Justice at the same time I advised the RCMP that they had to return these fingerprints. These fingerprints were returned to the police forces that originally took them. The prints are presumably in the hands of the police forces which originally apprehended or arrested these people, unless they have since been returned.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Yesterday the minister clearly
indicated that the practice of holding fingerprints was clearly illegal. What steps is the minister taking to ensure that police forces illegally holding these fingerprints will return them to the people who have been released without charge?


John Napier Turner: The steps that can be taken by the federal jurisdiction have been taken, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Have all the fingerprints been
returned by the provincial and municipal police to those people who were released without charge? Are there any fingerprints of those 435 people still in the hands of the police? If the minister does not have this information, will he please obtain it?


John Napier Turner: I will certainly get it, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
EXCLUSION OF CATTLE AND CALVES FROM FARM [DOT]	PRODUCTS MARKETING BILL
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of sharp conflicting interests between the cattlemen's associations and other producer groups, especially in eastern Canada, is it still the minister's intention to have cattle and calves excluded from Bill C-176 as he stated earlier?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it will be up to the Standing Committee on Agriculture as to how they wish to amend the bill. What I said was that there was general agreement, as found in the communique issued following the first ministers' meeting in September, that this would be an amendment upon which they would look favourably.

February 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



AIR-SARNIA-WINDSOR AREA-DISCUSSION OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROL STANDARDS WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report released yesterday by the International Joint Commission that air pollution along the St. Clair and Detroit rivers in the Sarnia-Windsor area has reached the point where it is detrimental to health, safety and property, and that much of this air pollution comes from the United States, have any moves been made to discuss international air pollution standards with the United States government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Randolph Harding: Will this problem of air pollution be transferred to the new department of the environment in the same way that water pollution problems are under the International Joint Commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: I expect so, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries, who is the minister-designate of the new department, has already put in hand steps for consultation between the United States and Canadian governments even before this report was made available.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent report of the International Joint Commission dealing with air pollution, particularly the section which states that in the Sarnia-Port Huron area Canadian and American culpability is 50-50, will the minister in conjunction with the new minister of the environment consider a pilot project of government aid and direction in this area in conjunction with the American authorities to clean up the air and set a pattern for all levels of government to follow?


Mitchell William Sharp: 

HOUSING


Mr. W. C. Scoff (Victoria-Haliburton):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. On January 21 I asked the minister if he had any statement to make with regard to Rochdale College in Toronto. He replied: "I shall be making a more elaborate statement on the situation in the not too distant future." I would ask the minister if he is in a position to make that statement today? If not, when can the House expect it?


Robert Knight Andras: cannot make it now. I will try to make it as soon as possible, but there are several negotiations under way at the moment with no final decision capable of being taken under the circumstances.



WELFARE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: wish to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the federal-provincial conference which is to take place next week and the indication that some premiers would like to discuss unemployment on a priority basis. Can the minister advise whether the federal government intends to offer to the provinces additional assistance to enable them to meet the high welfare costs this winter which are a direct result of unemployment?


John Carr Munro: I do not believe so. As I indicated in reply to a similar question on Monday, the government has this matter under consideration. If and when a decision is reached, an announcement will be made in the House.



SALE OF FLOUR TO RUSSIA, COMPLETION OF AGREEMENT. HANDLING OF ARRANGEMENTS BY MILLING COMPANIES-INCOME PROPOSALS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of your observation about supplementaries, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to make it a triple-barrelled question. Having regard to the statement of the minister concerning the sale of flour to the U.S.S.R. for delivery to Cuba, can the minister advise whether this completes the master agreement as far as flour sales are concerned or, if not, what portion of the agreement has now been completed and whether or not any of the private milling companies are handling these arrangements? Can he assure the House that the industry is in a position to handle this transaction without difficulties such as it has had in previous years? The third part of my three-barrelled question is this: is the minister now able to reply to the question I asked yesterday; in other words, can he assure the House that any announcement he may make respecting his proposals for grain income will be made here and not outside the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might be allowed to answer this triple-barrelled question quickly, but the question period expired a few minutes ago. I believe the Leader of the Opposition also has a question to ask and perhaps with the consent of the House he might be allowed to do so.


Otto Emil Lang: The flour sold to Russia was basically for shipment to Cuba during 1971. It amounted to 248,000 long tons, roughly the equivalent of 12,300,000 bushels of wheat. This would leave an approximate amount outstanding of 41,000,000 bushels on the long-term contract. The sale was negotiated by the Canadian National Millers

February 4, 1971

Association on behalf of its members and I have no doubt of their ability to fulfil the contract. As to the third part of the question, it would ordinarily be my intention to make any important announcements concerning government policy in the House.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the Minister of Justice has announced that the subject of unemployment will be on the agenda of the conference with the provinces, can we be told when the Prime Minister will be in a position to indicate to the House the agenda which the conference will be considering?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We shall follow the usual procedure. It has been usual to make the agenda public after its adoption by the conference on the Monday morning, and I will again propose this course to the provinces. I do not see why they would not agree, as they have in the past.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the Prime Minister will not reprimand the Minister of Justice for releasing a portion of the agenda.



POLLUTION


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I attempted to ask a serious question with regard to pollution in Montreal. Unfortunately, the minister responsible was not present in the House at the time. He will not be here tomorrow, and since there is an immediate problem I wonder if Your Honour would allow the hon. gentleman to tell us what steps his department is taking to deal with the emergency which has arisen with respect to air pollution?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The immediate situation is being dealt with by the local authorities but we have been in close consultation with the Quebec government on the subject of the clean air bill to be brought before the House shortly, a measure which will enable us to co-operate more effectively with the province in dealing with problems of this kind.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. MacLean:: Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he can announce the business the government proposes to bring forward tomorrow and next week.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. MacEachen:: Today, we shall continue to discuss the reorganization bill. Tomorrow, we propose to call the legislation dealing with the setting up of the Canada Development Corporation, or, alternatively, the bail reform measure. I understand there will be some consultation later today to determine which of those two subjects would be more appropriate.
On Monday I should like to call the CNR financing bill, to be followed by the government organization bill. After that, until Wednesday, the House will deal with any bills which now remain on the order paper at the report stage. On Wednesday and Thursday I should like to resume, and end, the budget debate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say just a word. It was at my request, during the negotiations which have been going on in the past hour, that the business for tomorrow was not made firm. We understood that the Official Opposition did not wish to go ahead with the debate on the Canada Development Corporation. We had some difficulty in getting ready for the bail bill. Now, I am able to say that if there is general agreement to proceed with the bail bill, this would be agreeable to us and we might proceed on that basis. It might be useful for everyone to know for sure what will be the business for tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is satisfactory. If, perchance, we complete the second reading of the bill respecting bail, we might take some of the smaller items which have already reached the report stage.


John Angus MacLean: It might be preferable to proceed as suggested and take the bail bill tomorrow followed, if there is time, by some small items.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 3, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. Before any hon. member rises, I should indicate that yesterday evening we had almost concluded discussion of clause three and that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had the floor.
On clause 3-Department Established


Mr. Barnett:: I have now had an opportunity of examining the observations made by the minister yesterday in

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 answer to some questions I raised about quality standards as affected by mine tailings. I cannot but express surprise at the indication that the proposed ministry will play a very passive role when it comes to the application of the new provisions in the Fisheries Act, for whose administration the new department will be responsible.
As I understand it, the application of the relevant provision of the Act as amended last session in connection with the requirement for the submission of plans by industry, is to be left in abeyance. The minister suggested that his officers might keep the situation under surveillance and take action of some kind if the situation seemed to require it. However, apparently no provision is being made for any official approval or permission being given before a plant proceeds with its plans. He said no permit would be issued.
I think the minister fully appreciates the importance, indeed the urgency, of this question in relation to some of the mining developments that are taking place near the coastal waters of British Columbia. Certainly, he is aware of the developments at the north end of Vancouver Island on Quatsino Sound. I am sure also he knows about the application by Texada Mines, which I understand is before the pollution control board of British Columbia, with regard to the disposing of its effluent into the Strait of Georgia. This is an area very dear to the minister's heart, and he has been talking about having it made into a national park.
I wonder whether the minister could enlighten us a little further on the statements he made yesterday with regard to how he envisages the new department of the environment will control mine effluents in water areas. This question is important not only to the commercial fishery but also in respect of many other amenities such as recreation and the enjoyment of areas such as the Strait of Georgia.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has been asking whether we are taking advantage of the new provisions of the Fisheries Act to insist on information from mining companies relative to their plans for expansion. I hasten to assure him that this is the case. We are reviewing a dozen projects at the moment. In instances where we find there is not likely to be any damage to the fishery or to any other aspect of the marine ecology, we still reserve the right to prosecute if later the development is found to be of a different character than we had been led to expect or our own analysis turns out to be wrong.
I must hasten to add that we do not give permits to carry out a given operation, but we do insist on obtaining the plans and vetting the intentions of the company in question. We can ask for modifications, as was the case with the Utah Mining company in Quatsino Sound, and will always monitor the industry's operations to ensure that the aquatic environment is protected. This practice is being followed in a number of places across the country. For instance, in the Miramichi we are working with the mining industry, vetting its plans for expansion and
giving advice with a view to reducing hazards to fish life in that basin.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there is one further aspect I should like the minister to clarify. I am not in any way seeking to encourage any areas of difference between federal and provincial administrations; nevertheless, I think we are all aware that from time to time, as a result of different approaches and the existence of different legislation, federal and provincial, there may well be at times some difference of view.
One of the things that has been puzzling me is this. Let me take as an example the Quatsino Sound operation of Utah Construction and Mining, to which both the minister and I have made reference. I understand a permit has been issued in respect of that operation by the pollution control board of British Columbia. I also understand that, generally speaking, the plans which are being developed have, if not the blessing, at least the acquiescence of the Department of Fisheries. This development is taking place in what is undoubtedly an important fisheries area. In view of this, if a permit were issued by the provincial pollution control board under terms and conditions that required action to be taken to deal with the discharge of tailings but which, in the opinion of the minister and the department, were entirely inadequate as far as the protection of the environment and aquatic life were concerned, what kind of machinery would the minister envisage to resolve an impasse of this kind? The minister has mentioned that no permit would be issued; that the blessing of the department with regard to the specifications for carrying out the operation has priority over the decision of any provincial board in such an instance as this. Could the minister enlighten the committee in this regard?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is thinking of a specific instance on Canada's west coast-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I intervene to say that I cited that only as an example. I am not suggesting there is any dispute in this regard; I am merely putting a hypothetical proposition to the minister.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, might I use the example that the hon. member brought forward to illustrate my point. My point is that there are federal provisions dealing with pollution in the west coast instance referred to, the Fisheries Act. There is also provincial legislation, the legislation setting up the provincial pollution control board. It is necessary for the company in question to comply with both pieces of legislation. While it is possible that this development would receive the full approval of the provincial authorities, it could still rim head-on into federal legislation, the regulations, for example, made pursuant to the federal Fisheries Act.
In the instance of the Utah Mining the company would have to do two things. It would have to satisfy the federal government, particularly with respect to the provisions of the federal Fisheries Act; it would also
LMr. Barnett.]
February 4, 1971

have to satisfy the rules laid down by the B.C. pollution control board. We have a good working arrangement with the B.C. pollution control board whereby, before it grants a permit, it has the application vetted by the federal department of fisheries regional office. We have had no instance within the last year or two of any provincial permit being granted without the scrutiny of and clearance by the federal fisheries people. We are working closely together. But in an imaginary case where the industry offends the Fisheries Act but somehow manages to gain the approval of the provincial control board, it, the industry, is still in trouble with the federal authorities.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Coming back, Mr. Chairman, to the minister's statement that no permit is issued, what evidence does an operating mining company have that in fact it has the approval of the federal authorities? Take the case of a mine development where, as matters stand, part of the ability of the firm to secure the necessary development financing hinges on federal approval of its operating plans. If there is no system of permits, what evidence does the mining company have that, in fact, the plans that it is proposing have the approval of the federal control authorities?
This is one of the administrative questions that arise in the development of this kind of legislation which I think is of interest and concern. I can see some important question being raised with regard to the ability to develop a resource as well as the ability of a company to give evidence to concerned citizens in the area that its plans have in fact been examined and approved.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the company would be unwise to proceed with its plans and to invest a substantial amount of money in a development which was likely to have an unfavourable impact on the local ecology without first having discussed it with our federal people in that area and having been satisfied that we saw no great difficulty in their planned proceedings. In situations where the provincial board also requires the approval of the federal authorities the industry should make doubly sure that our federal people are happy with the development and can see no major problem arising from it.
Of course, the federal department can step in and demand plans in cases where the company has not been cooperative in making its plans available, or neglects to make modifications which our engineers say should be made to protect the local environment. This is a matter involving disclosure, close liaison and frank advice on the part of the department. As I said, we do not approve of the project. The provincial authorities may give approval, but we reserve the right to move in at any time and to require further modification if there is any evidence of danger to the environment.


Randolph Harding: I have several questions I should like to put to the minister. I asked a question this afternoon of the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the moving of international air pollution problems into the
Government Organization Act, 1970 jurisdiction of this new department. Does the minister feel that the existing legislation gives him the power to deal with these problems? As I see it, he only has authority to deal with international problems in respect of water. If the powers are not there, will he bring in an amendment to make certain that solutions in respect of international air pollution will fall within the purview of the new department?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the essential elements of the new clean air act.


Randolph Harding: Does the minister then feel he needs nothing in this measure to indicate that his department is the one which will deal with these problems? I think the authority should be included or at least clarified. Will it be included in a schedule to the new clean air act? If it is not, it should be in order that international air pollution problems may be handled by the minister's department.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the clean air act is not a fact. It has not yet been introduced in this House. It is the government's intention, however, to include a new clean air act as one of the responsibilities of our new environment department.


Randolph Harding: That is very welcome news. Is it the intention of the new department to set up a council of the environment based on similar lines to the Economic Council of Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: We are giving this matter very serious consideration. I doubt, however, whether legislation to set up a council can be brought in during the current session. It will have to be considered during the next session of Parliament because of the heavy agenda we already have ahead of us in this House.


Randolph Harding: Who or what section of the new department will be in a position to assess the ecological costs of different development programs throughout the country? I am thinking in terms of a hydro plant being built on some river. Are there powers under the minister's department to carry out an ecological survey in respect of the cost of these projects?


John (Jack) Davis: I think the hon. member was one of those who said the fisheries service should be separated from the environment department. One of the capabilities which will be brought to bear on any hydro development in a fisheries river will be the staff of the federal fisheries service. We will also have the support of the biologists in our wildlife service and the engineers from the water sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We will have the technical competence to assess the ecological consequences of hydro dams and other types of industrial development as well. One of the reasons for including the fisheries service in this new department is to include a biological competence to deal with the ecological aspects of industrial development.

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Randolph Harding: Might I just follow up with another question or two on this matter? The fisheries department has always been interested in navigable waters, and in a position to take a stand on anything that would have an effect on the fisheries in navigable streams. The point I am getting at is that Crown corporations which wish to build a hydro dam are not covered by the Navigable Waters Protection Act. They are answerable to no one, either provincially or federally. We are bringing the water resources branch into the new department but why are we not putting the Navigable Waters Protection Act under the jurisdiction of this new department? This is one of the things excluded in schedule A.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the simple answer is that the Navigable Waters Protection Act has to do with navigation and not ecology. If a hydro development were likely to interfere with navigation or the use of a river for that purpose, such an assessment would, I think, be made by the Department of Transport rather than a department dealing with the environment.
This is not to say we will not be concerned about the impact of that development on living resources, or about an industry which exploits the living resources of a stretch of river including fisheries, wildlife and, to the extent we have federal authority, forests and so on. We will be concerned about hydro development or any other project on a river, and we will have some views about navigation as well. Nevertheless, the administration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act should be a matter for the Department of Transport, not the department of environment. I think the hon. member sees this as a way of stopping pollution rather than protecting navigable waters for navigation. This Act is to protect Canadian waters from the point of view of navigation alone.


Randolph Harding: I think this is one of the key points as far as studies of the ecology are concerned. I have in mind what might be done behind a hydro dam, for example. The Navigable Waters Protection Act prevents one from putting many types of pollution into a navigable water. However, the point I am coming to is that the minister's department will be helpless to do anything about the ecological damage which occurs behind a dam. The department will be able to make ecological surveys, but will not be able to do anything about the damage unless we make the Navigable Waters Protection Act applicable to Crown corporations in the name of the provinces or the federal government. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to this aspect.
As the minister knows, we have had several disasters in British Columbia. One occurred behind the Duncan Dam, where tens of thousands of acres of valuable tim-berland were flooded. This pollution problem will exist as long as we allow this type of thing. The Mica Dam on the Columbia River will create a lake 125 miles long, and none of the timber is to be cut before the area is flooded. Since this is a navigable stream, it is within federal jurisdiction. There must be some provision in the legislation which will force hydro authorities to clean up. We will not allow that type of pollution to exist. This is the point I am trying to make. We cannot allow this legislation to pass without some provision for checking on the type of development that has taken place all over Canada, not only in B.C. These are the things about which we are apprehensive. I urge the minister to attempt to insert into these acts-and the Navigable Waters Protection Act is one-a provision which will make Crown corporations subject to those acts.
I think the minister's department should call for ecological surveys to be carried out. If the cost of the damage behind the dam is so extensive that the project is not a paying proposition, we should turn thumbs down on the project and obtain power by other means. This is of vital interest to all sections of Canada. New dams will be built; some of them will start this year. We cannot let this situation go on any longer. Someone has to start surveying, and I suggest this new department should tackle it.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised an interesting point, but let me draw his attention to the Fisheries Act which enables us to do the very things that he has been mentioning. The Fisheries Act was amended in several ways last spring, that is in the spring of 1970. One way in which it was amended was to include Crown corporations and agencies, provincial and federal. We have used it against Manitoba hydro, requiring it to release water into the lower reaches of the Nelson River recently. We required Manitoba hydro to look after the ecology downstream of the big new dam at Kelsey on the Nelson River. We have done in Manitoba just the sort of thing that the hon. member is suggesting we do under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Under the Fisheries Act we can deal with pollution and directly. We do not have to use the pretext of navigation. We have the powers which he is asking us to use.


Mr. McCleave:: I should like to draw to the minister's attention a recommendation by members in the Official Opposition in connection with the environmental council of Canada to which reference was made a few minutes ago by my hon. friend to the left. Earlier in the debate I referred to the report of the pollution probe conducted, under the auspices of the Leader of the Opposition, a document signed by one John A. Fraser and our colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka who has been absent from this debate because of illness. The House will be pleased to know that he is recovering and we hope will be back with us very shortly. When a person of his calibre is missing there is a substantial loss to a debate like this.
I should like to quote, without very much embellishment because I am not as knowledgeable in this field as is the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, one of the recommendations of the pollution probe carried out under the auspices of the Leader of the Opposition.
Establish an environmental council of Canada, composed of a majority of members outside the government service, drawn from such organizations as citizens' anti-pollution groups, universities, industry, labour and conservation bodies, and with

February 4, 1971

government representation. The council would be provided with the necessary funds and facilities to advise the government and Parliament on environmental matters generally.
I have quoted word for word what is contained in that document. Since the minister is faced with the challenge of a new department and with some rather substantial problems indeed, some of which have been raised by me and some by other members during the debate, members on this side of the House as well as those on the minister's side would probably find it acceptable if he were to decide to take the plunge and establish an environmental council of Canada.
The only other point I would make to the minister, if he were to consider such a worthwhile step, is that he and the government pay more attention to such an environmental council's recommendations than the present government is now paying to the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Recently, a report of the International Joint Commission painted a pretty dim picture of the situation so far as the Great Lakes are concerned. I was pleased to learn yesterday during the debate that the minister is establishing national standards which will apply across Canada. I understood from his answer that the standards set by his department would be the yardstick so far as pollution levels across the country were concerned. I asked him yesterday about the Great Lakes and quoted from clause 5 which provides that his department is to enforce rules and regulations made by the International Joint Commission. The question is this: does the International Joint Commission have the necessary expertise in this particular field to make these recommendations? If they do, will we not be duplicating this service through the minister's new department? I am concerned that one day the International Joint Commission might make a regulation with which the minister had nothing to do other than to enforce it.
I respect the dedication of the minister, but I am afraid that he may wind up one day in a strait jacket, being told what to do by IJC and their regulations may not meet his standards. Is there not a chance that we will be duplicating services? Every time you do that you are just postponing the day when this problem will be solved. The more bodies we have, the more chance there is for a foul up.


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is that there is no overlapping and no duplication. The International Joint Commission is a very compact commission. In a sense, it is like a court, a six man body made up of three Canadians and three Americans. I believe the staff of the Canadian section includes one engineer only, one lawyer. It looks to government personnel in each country to find answers, factual answers and make technical judgments. These studies are provided by agencies of the Canadian government, of the U.S. government and, on occasion, provincial and state water resources commissions.
Our technical people in the new department of environment, with the people from the Ontario Water Resources Commission in the case of the lower lakes, will be doing all of the basic technical analyses. We will be
Government Organization Act, 1970 making many of the technical recommendations that flow up to the International Joint Commission. Those six gentlemen, in their wisdom, will make certain general recommendations to the heads of government in the two nations. So, coming back to the same technical people, these recommendations will, in large measure, stem from their technical expertise in the first place, and will be coming back to them to enforce. Of course, the IJC, in its wisdom will make the recommendations, delete some, and perhaps modify others, but the technical overlap is at an absolute minimum. There is no duplication and the technical recommendations made by our staff to this IJC may be recommendations which they, months later, will be required to enforce.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's statement that under the new regulations the federal government insisted that Manitoba Hydro take steps to assure the water flow in the Nelson River, behind the dams that are being built, would be sufficient to protect the ecology in that area. Could he tell us what he and his department are doing about the pollution of very important waters in the province of Manitoba by industries outside the province?
Lake Winnipeg is one of the largest lakes in the country, and probably for a hundred years very important commercial fishing operations have been conducted there. Now, the lake has been closed to commercial fishing because it has been polluted. The Manitoba government is in the process of taking legal action against a paper company in Dryden, Ontario, and against a chemical company in Saskatoon which has been discharging poisonous material into the Saskatchewan River which flows into Lake Winnipeg. Can the minister tell us whether, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the Fisheries Act, he has the authority to take steps to prevent companies from continuing to discharge into waters which eventually flow into another province, the kind of substances which would destroy both commercial and sport fishing operations?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer to the hon. member is that we do have the powers. We have powers today which are sufficient and have been sufficient in the case of mercury pollution affecting the Lake Winnipeg fishery. The two plants in question, one in Saskatchewan and one in western Ontario, have ceased to discharge mercury in any quantity into their neighbouring waters. They have reduced their pollution by upwards of 95 per cent in one case and by 99.5 per cent in the other. This reduction has been the result of our action under the Fisheries Act.
We have another problem here. We do not have adequate legislation to deal with compensation for the downstream interests that have been affected by pollution of this kind. It is principally under provincial legislation that the damage done to property is covered, and this is the main reason that the Manitoba government is using provincial law to prosecute the two polluters, one in western Ontario and the other in Saskatchewan.

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Similarly, the government of Ontario has passed legislation which will enable its arm, the Ontario Water Resources Commission, to deal with polluters in that province and gain compensation for downstream interests for loss of income and injury to property. We are looking at ways and means by which we could deal with this problem at the federal level. In other words, we do not have all the legislation we may need in order to deal with the problem.


David Orlikow: With respect to mercury pollution, can the minister say whether his technical people have made any studies, and reached any firm conclusions, as to when the steps taken recently to prevent further pollution will be so effective that the content of mercury in Lake Winnipeg will have dropped to a point where commercial and sports fishing will again be feasible?


John (Jack) Davis: It is difficult to tell. We do not have enough information. But the northern end of Lake Winnipeg has improved to the extent that recently the Premier of Manitoba was able to announce that it would open to summer fishing in 1971.


Mr. Ritchie:: I would like to ask the minister what facilities he will have in his new department for the evaluation of tests to determine the toxicity of various products? I ask this in view of the fact that mercury has to be measured in very small quantities and, according to our tests, it has suddenly become a large pollutant. However, I notice that recently scientists are starting to question the validity of the tests, and whether it may not be mercury in its natural state which is responsible.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I did try to answer that question yesterday. Briefly, there is mercury present in minute quantities in nature. These quantities vary from one location to another. We are endeavouring to find out what the background levels are in order to assess the over-all problem.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask one or two questions dealing with reclamation projects. For example, a section of the Ottawa River has been so badly polluted by mercury that it has been closed to fishing. There are a number of rivers all over the country in a similar state. Is the minister's department going to look into the question of reclamation projects, as I call them, for these rivers, and assess them on a basis of priority? What is the over-all plan in this regard?


John (Jack) Davis: We will do our utmost to rehabilitate our fisheries. In some cases dredging out mercury deposits near industrial plants may be the answer. In other cases, we may have to concentrate on other fish species in the area which are not affected to the same extent.


Randolph Harding: My next question applies not only to mercury pollution but to other sources of pollution that have caused tremendous damage. One is pollution from sewage. Where is the money coming from? Will the minister have enough money to handle reclamation projects? Is his department setting up some kind of loan fund so that plants or communities involved may be able to get cash to tackle these projects?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Chairman, the federal government, through CMHC, has already made hundreds of millions of dollars available to municipalities to improve their sewage collection systems and to add to their sewage treatment facilities. I think it will be the principal vehicle for dealing with these situations which, in the first instance, must be assessed and dealt with by the municipalities, backed on occasion by the provinces. We will help fund or make moneys available at the federal level for the purpose of cleaning up.


Randolph Harding: I admit there is some money available through CMHC, but not enough. I think the fund was originally $75 million, and this was jumped to $80 million. There are a host of programs that municipalities cannot tackle because they do not have the cash. The money is not available to provide all the sewage treatment facilities needed. Something must be done. More money has to be made available through the department or through CMHC. Some 97 per cent of Montreal's total sewage is being poured untreated into the St. Lawrence. We often hear that there is a sufficient volume of water in the river to flush the effluent out to sea, where it cannot do too much damage. Yet, we find the same thing happening all across the country, even in British Columbia. The capital city of British Columbia is dumping its effluent in the sea. May I suggest to the minister that, even if we pass effective measures to deal with effluent, we shall have to increase the funds available to municipalities for the cleaning up of the sewage problem.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked several questions of the minister, one of which was related to the Canadian Armed Forces Base in Moose Jaw. Having read Hansard I may say one answer leaves the impression that, despite the amount of money spent on the sewage disposal plant at the base, a certain amount of unwelcome effluent is still discharged into the Moose Jaw River. The fact remains that all the effluent from the base flows into the river, and is treated. The point I wish to illustrate is this: On Monday last, February 2, the Moose Jaw and District Labour Council attempted to present a brief to Moose Jaw City Council. According to a news release, they got part way through their presentation and were hammered down.


Mr. Francis:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have been trying to follow the hon. member's remarks. I fail to see how his remarks are relevant to the clause before the committee.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is patient he will see the relationship between my remarks and the subject we are discussing at this time.


An hon. Member:: Don't make a speech first.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I will not repeat what I took the opportunity of saying yesterday. My hope is that when we come to clause 5, we shall not discuss at length those matters which ought to have been discussed on clause 5.

February 4, 1971


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, you made that quite clear yesterday, when the hon. member for Ottawa West may not have been here.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I was here.


John Leroy Skoberg: One of the base officers appeared before Moose Jaw City Council last Monday and said that effluent from the armed forces base was treated to a greater degree than required by the Department of National Health and Welfare. My question to the minister is this. Although the standard to which that effluent is treated is above the national standard set by the Department of National Health and Welfare, has the department taken into consideration the fact that there is practically no water flow in that river at this time of year or, indeed, early in the summer? In the supervision and policing of regulations, will this fact be taken into consideration? I ask this because various departments of government set various standards which they consider to be effective for the control of pollution.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, one must assume that any standards which are well drawn would make some reference to the surroundings into which the effluent is being discharged.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago the minister made a speech in one of the maritime cities, Fredericton I believe. He is reported to have said that the new regulations being drafted by his department would prohibit or prevent industrial operations from polluting air and water, but that one would not expect existing plants to be brought up to standard immediately. I do not think any member of this committee or any person in Canada would disagree with the statement the minister is reported to have made. After all, we have plants in operation which are anywhere from five to 50 years old. When built, their designers did not pay the attention to pollution matters that we are now paying. I wonder if the minister would indicate whether, when he made that statement, he or his department had in mind some kind of timetable. Is there some time within which existing plants will have to be brought up to standards? Is it one year, five years, ten years or 20 years?
The hon. member for Ottawa West made a remark just now about speeches being in order. When I drove home last night, I thought I needed a gas mask. The odour coming from the paper plant across the river was so strong that one could hardly breathe. Could the minister indicate to members of the committee whether there is a timetable for imposing strict controls on new plants. What sort of timetable will be established with respect to plants already in existence?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the deadline for each old plant or old mill will vary from plant to plant and mill to mill. It will be negotiated case by case. The longest time span I have heard of is seven years. For the great majority of instances involving plants such as pulp mills in western Canada, it will be less than five years. In other words, it will be two years or three years. Seven years is the outside limit.
Government Organization Act, 1970


David Orlikow: What about the pulp mills on the Ottawa River, Mr. Chairman? How long will they be given?


John (Jack) Davis: The province of Quebec and the province of Ontario will, of course, be involved as well in cases where the mills are in Quebec or Ontario. Negotiations have yet to take place. However, our new regulations dealing with pulp and paper mills will shortly be promulgated and, as soon as they are, we shall have definite standards to enforce in these negotiations.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the interjection by the hon. member for Ottawa West a moment ago, I recalled that not too many days ago he made a brief but eloquent speech about restoring the Ottawa River to its former pristine glory. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Moose Jaw River is quite as important to the people of Moose Jaw as the Ottawa river is to the hon. member and to many of us who must come here to transact the public's business.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is just one more river to cross.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I, therefore, wish to indicate to the hon. member, and to members of the committee, that the point raised by my colleague for Moose Jaw was most germane to the question of the establishment of the department of the environment. He spoke of the effluent being discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces base in the area. I had the opportunity of visiting Moose Jaw and of hearing some of the presentations on this subject. Nevertheless, as the minister said yesterday in committee, the federal government and the federal Parliament must clean up its own house first.
Although it may be true that, according to the health standards of the Department of National Health and Welfare the effluent being discharged into the Moose Jaw River is safe in that it will not breed diseases adverse to humans, the fact remains that the nature of the effluent discharged, effluent treated with chemicals such as chlorine, is such that it uses up the oxygen content of the water in the river. In the Ottawa River, this process has reached the point at which fish and other forms of aquatic life cannot survive. The people who like to take good fish out of the stream in the hon. member's constituency are finding that their local fishing has been destroyed; similarly, fish in the Ottawa River have been destroyed. The point I wish to have elucidated by the minister is whether, in his view, this department will effect some measure of improvement in situations such as these.
May I mention another point? I was inclined to agree with the minister when he suggested to my colleague from Kootenay West that the primary concern of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is navigation. None the less, I think the minister will agree that the interrelationships, in certain circumstances, between the Fisheries Act on the one hand and the Navigable Waters Protection Act on the other are quite important. While in some cases the amendments to the Fisheries Act, which are binding on Crown corporations and which were passed very quickly in the previous session, can be effective, there may be other cases where the effect on a fishery

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 will not be quite so great. Other forms of wildlife not covered by the Fisheries Act or the Canadian wildlife service may be affected. It might be effective to have a clear provision in the Navigable Waters Protection Act as well to make the Act binding upon both federal and provincial Crown corporations.
Possibly the minister might be willing to accept the offer of a gift. I would be glad to pass to him the initiative for taking over Bill C-105 which stands in my name. This bill puts a provision into the Navigable Waters Protection Act which is on all fours with the provisions included last year in the Fisheries Act. This could be very quickly dealt with in this House. I wonder whether the minister or his colleague, the Minister of Transport might see fit to put that proposition forward as a government proposal. It could then be brought forward on the Order Paper and dealt with quickly. It would ensure that disasters, such as occurred on the Peace River would be avoided. The fishery aspect of that disaster was not immediately apparent. In addition to protecting the fishery, we could ensure that Canada would have a further control over developments in various areas which directly or indirectly affect people in other parts of the country. Is the minister prepared to indicate whether he would accept that bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act?


John (Jack) Davis: Some hon. members have argued that there are already too many departments in the act, and that the new department of the environment should have more powers. The hon. member is suggesting that under the guise of navigation, in effect the Department of Transport, we could deal more effectively with pollution. I cannot see the compatibility of those two arguments. I think that under the Fisheries Act or Canadian wildlife act we have the power to deal with the situation or to make other federal powers more explicit through new legislation, but not under the guise of navigation or under the general heading of transportation. Let's deal with pollution head on and call it by that name.


Randolph Harding: The minister referred to a Canadian wildlife act. I was not aware that we have a Canadian wildlife act on the statutes books. We have acts dealing with wildlife, but I did not think that we had a specific Canadian wildlife act on our statutes books. When are we going to have a Canadian wildlife act? Is it part of the policy of the new department to bring the various segments of wildlife under one act? Is this part of the plans of the new department?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I should have used the right name of the act. It is the Migratory Birds Convention Act. My slip of the tongue was related to a wildlife act which is being prepared in my department. As the hon. member knows, many of the powers relative to the management of wildlife are provincial. When drafting our federal legislation, we have to be careful in this respect.


Randolph Harding: I have one or two short questions. This is very important. Will the new department have any con-

trol over the enforcement of the land use regulations which are in the process of being drafted for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon district?


John (Jack) Davis: Not directly, Mr. Chairman. The Northwest Territories administration, in many ways, acts in a similar manner to a province. Certainly, there will be close consultation. I expect in the department of the environment we will have much of the expertise upon which northern affairs can draw when preparing recommendations and developing a policy with regard to land use.


Randolph Harding: This is one of the weaknesses of the new department of the environment. A department which focuses mainly on economic development and not on protection of our northern ecology has control over 40 per cent of Canada's pollution regulations. Many of us are extremely worried. We feel that the new department should be an umbrella over all government activities rather than have its jurisdiction limited to a specific resource area.
I have one final question. I understand that the department will be dealing with the Skagit river. Can the minister indicate how these negotiations are progressing as this topic is very important to the people of British Columbia?


John (Jack) Davis: I understand that there has been close and continuing liaison with the United States through the Department of External Affairs. I hope to make a statement with regard to progress in that connection within the next week or two.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Deputy minister.
Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, you have been following the line of questioning quite closely for the last half hour or three quarters of an hour. I am sure you will agree that all members are faced with a dilemma in view of the scope of this bill. Clause 4 reads:
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer called the Deputy Minister of the Environment to be the deputy head of the Department of the Environment and to hold office during pleasure.
As I stated when speaking during the debate on second reading, I have no objection to establishing a department of the environment with a deputy minister of the environment whose prime responsibilities will be related to pollution control, especially as it affects our seacoast and inland fisheries. The department will also be responsible for our renewable resources, including the forest resources of Canada, migratory birds and other domestic flora and fauna. The department will be responsible for meteorology reports, the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality. It will be responsible for technical surveys within the meaning of the Resources and Technical Surveys Act as well as the enforcement of any rules
February 4, 1971

or regulations made by the International Joint Commission which may be promulgated pursuant to the treaty between the United States of America and His Majesty King Edward VII relating to boundary waters and questions arising between the United States and Canada as far as they relate to pollution control.
I feel sure that all members will agree this is a tall order. The minister and the deputy minister, who will be responsible for the administration of this department, will be kept more than busy. In view of the many and varied responsibilities heaped upon the minister and the deputy minister by the establishment of this new department of the environment, all members from Atlantic Canada are concerned that the department of fisheries, which is being phased out by this legislation, will become the unwanted stepchild of this new department. This will, of course, be unfortunate, especially in view of the importance of this industry to many important areas of Atlantic Canada where fishing is a way of life, and where the income derived from fishing is the only income available in some regions of economic disparity.
Fishing provides a livelihood for some 68,000 Canadian fishermen and it is estimated that the value of fishery products derived from last year's catch, of which 70 per cent was exported, will amount to approximately $370 million. However, part of this industry is today being threatened by mercury pollution of the seas. Only last week some 30,000 pounds of swordfish landed in Nova Scotia were found to contain mercury to the extent that they were unsaleable for human consumption. This has resulted in the closing down of this industry. In reply to a question I put to the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, as reported on page 2941 of Hansard, the minister replied:
Unfortunately, most swordfish caught on the high seas at a considerable distance from Canada contain more than the half part per million of mercury.
He then went on to say that the government would endeavour to do much the same thing as was done for other fisheries in this country, namely, support the incomes of fishermen until they can find work in another segment of the fishery or be retrained for employment in other industries. Mr. Chairman, this is not good enough. Many of our fishermen do not wish to leave a way of life or a vocation which they have followed since childhood. Some are incapable of learning another trade, while others have a lifetime of earnings and savings invested in ships and fishing gear which today cannot be used as a mean of providing for their needs and the needs of their wives and families. I ask the minister and I ask the government: what are these men to do with their ships and with their fishing equipment? Even if they qualify for retraining, who is to pay them for their equipment now made obsolete by the pollution of the seas?
It seems to me that the government has an immediate and urgent responsibility to determine the source of mercury pollution in some species of fish, especially swordfish and tuna. Fortunately, we have a large oceanographic base at Bedford Basin near Halifax, and one of our
Government Organization Act, 1970
first priorities should be to undertake an immediate water study in the hope of determining the sources of mercury pollution. As the matter is also of concern to the United States, I feel certain that the American government would be willing, if approached, to co-operate by making its facilities at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, available for a joint water study.
I mention these matters in connection with the clause under review because I wish to make it clear that the deputy minister of the environment will bear vast and varied responsibilities. I have given the committee an outline of some of them, and there are one or two other items I wish to bring to the attention of the committee in order to buttress the motion I intend to move at the conclusion of my remarks.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The hon. member has now cleared up the point I had in my mind.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I intend to move an amendment at the conclusion of my remarks.
I referred to the fact that this question might well be of concern to the United States government. As it happens, it is the regulations enforced in the United States which prevent our selling swordfish to that country. I believe 90 per cent of the catch goes to that market. This is something the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry should be doing. He should be working quickly in consultation with the United States to determine the sources of mercury pollution.
It may well be that mercury compounds in anti-fouling paints used on the bottoms of our ships are among the culprits or it may be the methods used in the manufacture of caustic soda by shore installations are adding greater quantities of mercury to our air and water than first realized. I cannot help but wonder if the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has given any thought to outlawing the present method of producing caustic soda which releases mercury tainted waste. There is another method which might be used but it is more expensive, and industry resists making a costly change-over.
Can anything be done to prevent an increase of these plants? Last spring, when the Lake St. Clair fisheries were closed, there was a great deal of publicity about mercury pollution. One newspaper article mentioned that there were a dozen chlor-alkali plants releasing mercury across Canada, including one shortly to go into operation in Nova Scotia.
Now, in Ontario, they have found that reducing the amount of mercury entering the water has no effect on reducing the mercury level already present. In other words, mercury does not dissipate as does radio-activity. Once it is there, it is there to stay. Notwithstanding this, in the Globe and Mail of January 19, 1971, we read:
Dow Chemical of Canada Limited is still dumping mercury from the Sarnia plant into the St. Clair River and the governments of Canada and Ontario are considering legal action, the U.S. Supreme Court was told yesterday.
This company has now located in Nova Scotia, and I wonder if the process they will use in their chlor-alkali plant will add more mercury to our sea water. Has the
February 4, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970 minister investigated this company's plans, and were they approved by his department?


Jean-Thomas Richard: I hope the hon. member will soon relate what was to be the background of his argument to clause 4, which has no bearing on specific types of pollution such as mercury content in fish.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That you, Mr. Chairman, but if you will bear with me I am sure you will see my point. As it is at present, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and his deputy minister are more than overloaded with responsibilities pertaining to fisheries alone. Clause 4 provides only for the appointment of one deputy minister of the environment. Obviously, if the existing deputy minister is, along with his minister, unable to cope adequately with the problems facing the department, the arrangements we are now asked to make are not adequate. I want to lay the background in support of an argument for a special, separate deputy minister for the fisheries to ensure that the fisheries, along the problems of Canadian fishermen, do not become orphans. These are not problems which can be taken lightly. These are projects we must carry out immediately. The whole chain of our fisheries resources might be threatened if there is delay.
For these reasons and many others I could cite, I firmly believe we should have a separate deputy minister of fisheries. He would be responsible for the continued good health of our fishing industry and would not only look into matters such as mercury pollution but lead the fight for the preservation of the fishing resources on our continental shelf, which today are seriously threatened by overfishing from massive fleets of foreign nations.
The proposed deputy minister of environment has a good reputation for competence arising out of his success as deputy commissioner general of Expo '67. But a resume of his previous activities makes absolutely no reference to any experience in matters relating to fisheries. This lack of fishing knowledge will not be helpful to our industry or to Canada when we meet with other fishing nations for discussion of our fisheries resources at the next Law of the Sea Conference to be held in 1972. Who will press for a solution to the thorny problems concerning relations between France and Canada as they relate to fishing rights surrounding the French-owned islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon? Since 1964 we have been told these matters are under discussion with the French government, but we have never received a report in this House on the result of those discussions. While this question of fishing rights around these islands is unresolved, we can never fully implement our 1964 Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-our 12-mile limit legislation.
For these reasons, and for many more that I could mention, I want to move the following amendment. One of my colleagues has just asked me what I mean by "these reasons", and I am referring to the reasons I have given, though there are others. The deputy minister of the department of the environment will have conflicting

responsibilities. On the one hand, he will be responsible for the purity of our water and our air while, on the other hand, he will be responsible for the development of our renewable resources. However, sometimes the development of our resources brings with it the polluton of our water and our air, so I am just wondering which hat the deputy minister of the environment will be wearing when he is faced with this problem.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate:
That clause 4 of Bill C-207 be amended by adding thereto, next after line 3 on page 2 thereof, the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) the Governor in Council may appoint an officer called the Deputy Minister of Fisheries to hold office during pleasure and to perform all such duties and functions of a deputy head as extend to and include all matters relating to sea coast and inland fisheries."


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes to support the amendment moved by my colleague from South Shore and also to add a few comments in this debate since I have not had the opportunity to take part. I specifically want to address my remarks to the fisheries.
I have absolutely no objecton to the creation of a department of the environment or to any move that will help clean up this young Canadian nation of ours. Perhaps 1 could suggest that the minister commence a pilot project to keep the most easterly province of Canada completely pollution free as a sort of garden for the rest of Canada, an area where tourists can share the beauties of a relatively unmolested province.
If I may deal with the amendment, I may say that most of the major nations of the world today which are coastal states and have anything to do with fishing are stepping up their fishing activities. I need not tell the minister this because he is only too well aware of it. Just going back over the last two decades we find that a number of nations, including not only coastal states but some of the eastern European nations that are not coastal states, have developed their fisheries to such an extent that Canada's fishing efforts appear miniscule in comparison. For example, two decades ago Russia was almost unheard of as a fishing nation. Countries like West Germany, Poland, Roumania, the Scandinavian countries and the countries in southwest Europe have continued making major efforts to become fishing nations.
The minister of fisheries knows that the marine environment as a renewable resource-I am not referring to mineral resources or to oil, which are non-renewable resources-is one of the great frontiers of Canada, yet in many ways is unexplored and undeveloped. Bill C-207 now before the committee seeks to eliminate the fisheries department. My colleague from South Shore has placed on the record in no uncertain terms the contradiction implied in the government's move to create numerous ministers of state and, on the other hand, to eliminate entirely the department of fisheries. The excuse cannot be used that this is a move to cut down on bureaucracy or to try and create efficiency in government, because in another section of the bill that argument is disproved. If I were to argue that the creation of a deputy minister of
February 4, 1971

fisheries is sound in terms of managerial and administrative theory, then the minister, who has considerable background experience, might disagree.
It has been proposed over the years that two ministers of fisheries should be appointed. The argument for this is that there is a difference between the fishery of the Atlantic region, eastern Quebec and the Gaspe, on the one hand, and the Pacific coast fishery on the other hand. I think it would be logical for the minister to argue that two ministers, each given equal power within the one department, or each having dual administrative control, would not be sound in theory and in most cases would not work out in practice. The amendment moved by my colleague from South Shore does not suggest this at all; rather, it suggests that over and above the general responsibilities of the minister of the environment there should be appointed a deputy minister responsible for fisheries.
I do not want to go into the detail of this matter. Indeed, perhaps I am not capable, with the knowledge that I have about administrative responsibility, of arguing that there should not be dual control or any areas that have to be well defined, because there might well be in fact. But I do contend that we would be creating a department where the weaknesses of dual control would certainly be minimal.
I suppose the minister of fisheries will argue-I hope that he does get an opportunity to place on the record a more forceful argument than he has to date-that there will be no degradation of effort on the part of the federal government as far as our fishery is concerned. But it seems to me that we are going to be at a considerable disadvantage as far as our national and international fishing efforts are concerned if we do not have at least a deputy minister of fisheries to speak on behalf of our fishermen.
During the last few years there has been a good deal of kerfuffle over the depletion of our resources by foreign nationals. I need not go into the detail of this because all of us are only too aware of it. Members of this party, indeed members on both sides of the House, have supported the need for a great deal more activity in the area of international discussion and bilateral agreement vis-avis the fishery, and some of us have been pushing for a conference on marine resources which would place Canada at the same table as many of the nations that are harvesting our resources in waters above our continental shelf so that we might come to some definitive conclusions. But as yet we have not been able to get to that stage, and perhaps this is understandable when the international law of the sea is as complex as it is.
Of course we have a great disadvantage. As I look across the way, I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs sitting in his seat. I have known him as far back as 1953. He has treated the fishing industry very badly and would prefer to eliminate fishing as an industry with any priority at all in the Canadian nation. Very many of the problems the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has faced in the last couple of years have involved trying to
23786-53i
Government Organization Act, 1970 push obstructions out of his way which were placed there by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have read some of the statements made in the last 12 or 15 years by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and have discovered conclusively that his idea is that fishing should not occupy any position of priority, or perhaps any position at all, in the economic structure of Canada.
This business of environment and pollution has become a major issue in the last few years. Any government worth its salt would have realized the political consequences of siding with motherhood and moving legislatively into the area of environmental control. In that respect, I am not suggesting that legislation is purely and simply a political move, but I must remind the members of the House that ever since we have had a Fisheries Act there has been legislative provision for the government to move in respect of pollution control.
I think I have now gained the attention of the minister for external affairs. Perhaps I had better not count on that because it is obvious his interest in fisheries can be covered in about a two second span.


An hon. Member:: There is trouble in Toronto.


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, perhaps there is trouble in Toronto, but that is the extent of his interest in fisheries.
We have had a Fisheries Act ever since 1867. Down through the years there have been provisions which would allow the federal government to get involved in pollution control. It does us little good to remind ourselves of this because successive governments have never really considered it necessary to use them. I do not refer to this particular government alone, but governments over the last several decades. It was never really an issue because it was felt that in this country, with very few people and a great land mass, pollution would never become a problem. In the last few years, it has become a problem.
Let me point my finger at what I think is a major concern of the thousands of people who earn their livelihood from fishing. I think the Canadian people will realize that by submerging the department of fisheries under the department of environment we are taking away the status that department has enjoyed. No one is going to get up in the House of Commons from now on to talk about fishing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: We have had a dual response, one which indicates that this is a serious matter and another which applauded the possibility that fish will not be on the menu once or twice a week in the House of Commons.
Perhaps there is little we can do about the situation because the Prime Minister has introduced a piece of legislation and it is going to be pushed through. We feel it is a mistake to eliminate the department of fisheries because it will downgrade the fisheries industry in Canada. The department will certainly not have the status it has enjoyed in recent years, and neither will the fishing industry.
February 4, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970
I must say that in the last couple of years the fisheries department has gained a great deal of status. I think this is the result of the combined effort of the minister and members on this side of the House who have responded to fisheries issues in an effort to draw more attention to the value of this industry which should occupy one of the top priority positions in the nation. It is unfortunate that members do not realize the value of the fisheries industry to the Canadian economy. They might then realize the tremendous return from investment in the fisheries area, not only to the fishermen but to others located in other than coastal areas.
As the minister has pointed out, this year the United States market has never been better for fish products. In any supermarket across Canada today you will find sections in the meat area specifically set aside for fish products. Anything related to the marine resource is, in fact, a good investment for businessmen and for the government.
We were hoping that the government would give the fisheries industry an important position in the hierarchy of decision making and spending. The minister will perhaps say that he intends to work hard to see that this industry is given a position of priority and prestige. I cannot accept the minister's word for that because of Bill C-207. As a result of its provisions, we will never again hear about fishing in the House of Commons. As hon. members, we will have to ask the minister of environment about fish. Why could the department not be referred to as the department of fisheries and environment?
If I recall correctly, we had a department of fisheries in 1957, and then that department became the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. With the passage of Bill C-207, even that department will no longer exist. I have watched the minister in the last couple of years and I have come to the conclusion that his ambition goes much further than being the minister of fisheries. I think he has wanted the role he will now have with the government. I have read the speeches he has made all across the nation, and I have watched the way he has handled himself in the House of Commons.
I have also watched the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources eyeing the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, handle questions on air pollution so well. His background and professional qualifications would indicate that he could do a job in this area. I do not see why the government finds it necessary to eliminate the department of fisheries. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs is delighted by this elimination and probably hopes that the fishing industry becomes non-existent.
This has been one of the major stumbling blocks. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has consistently refused to offer any support in the House of Commons as well as on an international level for Canadian fishermen. The attitude of the government has been wishy-washy, and there is more backbone in a marinated herring than has been shown by the Department of External Affairs down through the years in respect of our fisheries. As far as fisheries are concerned, the minister's statements since 1953 have borne out this fact. Perhaps I might suggest
that the minister has a political backbone as solid as a marinated herring. He is not too concerned about the fishing industry. He sits there smiling and laughing. He is pretty jovial about the whole matter. I cannot see him standing up at a conference on the law of the sea and getting very excited about fishing.


An hon. Member:: What is there to get excited about?


John Howard Lundrigan: A friend of mine in the Liberal party asks what there is to be excited about.


An hon. Member:: They will be there until doomsday.


John Howard Lundrigan: know how sound that would be in the opinion of the minister, but what will happen to us now when we have a minister responsible for the environment as well as a deputy minister responsible for the environment? Will there be anybody in the department at that level who will have the authority, both nationally and internationally, to deal with fisheries policies and programs, with protecting the industry, developing the technology of fishing, marketing skills and transportation techniques, as well as negotiating with the Soviet Union as was done on the west coast in the past year?


The Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point of order to inquire whether the amendment before us has been accepted by the Chair. It occurs to me that a question of the expenditure of public funds is involved, and I wonder whether the amendment is in order.


Russell Clayton Honey: My understanding is that the amendment was accepted by the Chair and that the debate is now on the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have been ruminating for the past few minutes on just what the Secretary of State for External Affairs would look like if he were marinated. However, I do not think I will pursue that question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps he would be more durable then.


An hon. Member:: Anyhow, we only marinate herrings.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a more serious note, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the amendment which has been proposed to the committee by the hon. member for South Shore may be the answer to the conundrum with which a number of us in this House have been wrestling ever since it became apparent that the proposal for the establishment of the department of environment would involve the merging into that department of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Those of us who participated in the discussions last session on the amendments to the Fisheries Act had it impressed upon us very firmly, as a result of evidence and debate, that undoubtedly the Fisheries Act stood in the front line of the defence of water quality across Canada. So, I think there is undoubtedly much virtue in the idea of establishing a department where policies in respect of water quality and fisheries are co-ordinated. It is apparent that this is part and parcel of the proposal in this part of the bill which involves the setting up of a department of environment.
The question that has very obviously been of concern to some members from the Atlantic coast who represent many commercial fishermen, and some of us from the Pacific coast who also represent areas where the commercial fisheries are very important, is the apparent dissolution of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, or what might be construed as a downgrading of it. I think many commercial fishermen have, quite rightly, been fearful that in the process of setting up this new department with much broader responsibilities under the minis-
Government Organization Act, 1970 ter who has been the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, less attention, less money and less effort will be given to the commercial fisheries. So, I think the proposal put forward by the hon. member for South Shore may be in part at least, the answer to the problem.
As I understand the functioning of a department, the primary responsibility at the policy level rests with the minister who, together with his colleagues in the cabinet makes determinations of policy directions. I would agree that in the areas which are under discussion, particularly those relating to fisheries and water-leaving aside for a moment the sections of the bill which deal with air and soil quality-close co-ordination at the policy level by a minister who is prepared to evolve a policy for the protection of the over-all environment, can very well be tied in with creating the necessary circumstances for the growth and survival of fish. However, if my understanding is correct, the main function of the deputy head of a department is that of administration. I would be prepared to argue that the administration of a department involved with the commercial fisheries is certainly important enough to warrant the full time of a deputy minister.
Our present department is called the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, and we had no quarrel with the concept of adding to the department of fisheries the federal responsibility in the area of forestry. I think members of the committee will recognize when we are talking about fisheries and forestry we are really talking about-I was going to say-two different kettles of fish so far as the operations of the federal government are concerned. As has often been said, the primary jurisdiction constitutionally over forestry and forestry resources of Canada, their harvesting and development, rests with the provincial governments. However with regard to fisheries federal jurisdiction over seacoast and inland fisheries is firmly embedded in the BNA Act. So, in this particular area we exercise a jurisdiction over the management and the well-being of this resource industry that is parallel to the powers exercised by the provinces in relation to forestry.
Essentially, what happened was that we played an ancillary role in respect of the forest industry in Canada by undertaking research programs, and programs leading towards fire protection, protection from disease and that sort of thing. In addition, of course, the federal government agreed to co-operate with the provinces in the development of an inventory. But, Mr. Chairman, those are very different kinds of responsibilities administratively than administering the very far flung commercial fisheries of Canada which involve three oceans in addition to the vast inland waters that we have in this country. So, I think a very logical argument can be developed for the proposition that, even if we were having a unified ministry, there should be two deputy heads.
The hon. member who preceded me made some reference to the apparent lack of interest of the Department of External Affairs in fishing matters. I am not sure I

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
agree with all of his observations in detail, but for a period of years I have felt that our Department of External Affairs regards the increasingly important international questions involved in the survival of our commercial fisheries as very peripheral matters so far as the foreign policy of Canada is concerned. This may perhaps be another good reason why we should have at least a deputy minister of fisheries who, from time to time, can deal as a co-equal with his opposite number in the Department of External Affairs. I think even the unmarinated Secretary of State for External Affairs would agree that there is a need for very close co-operation on the matter of fisheries. I hope he will more and more agree that his department should be a very important arm of what, up to now, has been called our department of fisheries if we are to maintain this resource, and if it is going to be worth while putting federal money into helping develop this resource.
I would like to point out to the committee that this proposition of having two deputy heads within a single department is not an unprecedented proposal. In fact, at the present time we have two deputy heads within the Department of National Health and Welfare, one with responsibility for the administration of health matters and the other with responsibility for welfare matters. Over a period of a great many years in the Department of National Revenue there were two deputy heads, a deputy minister for customs and excise, and a deputy minister of taxation, performing pretty well defined functions but under the general policy jurisdiction of a single minister. I have not heard that this created any insuperable problems in that department.
So, I suggest that this proposal which has been placed before us has merit. Certainly, it is worthy of very serious consideration. Undoubtedly, there will be overlapping of areas of responsibility in some respects. Such bodies, for example, as the Fisheries Research Board undoubtedly would be providing expertise which would flow through both the deputy head of the environment and the deputy head of fisheries. Nevertheless, as I see it, the responsibility of the minister for the commercial fisheries of Canada is pretty clear, distinct and well defined, and necessitates a full-time deputy head.
As has been so often stated, there has been argument among fishermen, and even in this House, that we really need two ministers of fisheries, one for the Atlantic coast and one for the Pacific coast. I have never accepted that proposition. When it has been suggested to me by fishermen on the west coast, I have tried to point out that it could lead to differences in policy matters and I do not think we want this. But undoubtedly there is a need for differences in administration regionally as between the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast, and there is also a need for co-ordination of administraton, which of course must take place at the headquarters of a department.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask hon. members of the committee, including those who occupy positions on the treasury benches, to give serious consideration to the amendment that has been proposed. I think it may go a long way toward satisfying the real and legitimate concern that commercial fishermen across Canada will have
at the apparent disappearance of fisheries as a separate ministry within the operations of the federal government.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is five o'clock.


Russell Clayton Honey: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order, to rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin): Grain-Sharing by government of cost of storage; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave): Agriculture-Inquiry as to continuation of feed grain freight assistance; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett): Indian Affairs-Alberta- Establishment of facility in dinosaur area.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), and public bills. Since there are no private bills, the House will proceed directly to notices of motions (papers).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John Leroy Skoberg: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Heward, Newman and Associates and Julian, Hebert and Associates, Montreal, regarding information media relative to the war on poverty undertaken in the year 1967-68, for the Privy Council Office, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on January 14, 1970, I brought forward motion No. 212, standing in my name on the Order Paper. That motion is the subject matter of the present debate. The parliamentary secretary answering for the government at that time said the report requested was intended for use only by government officials and was not in a form suitable for other than internal use. The firms acted collectively as a staff extension of the special planning secretariat, supplying an expertise that was not available internally at that time. He asked whether, for those reasons, I would agree to withdraw the motion.
[Mr. Bamett.l
February 4, 1971

I think that when we talk about the war on poverty we must know what the government is attempting to do. It ought to tell members of the House what its plans are for dealing with this situation. In my opinion, it is not good enough for those plans to be used for the internal purposes of the department only. If members of the House are to debate intelligently the proposed actions of the government, they ought to have access to that information obtained as a result of research by experts. That information is available to the government and to the department concerned, but has not been given to the House of Commons. Even though the information may be in a form that is suitable only for internal use, as is the case here, I think that the government ought to make such information available to the members of this House in an abbreviated form. Perhaps the information could be provided in such a way as to enable hon. members to know where the government is going.
Unfortunately, it appears that the government is using the war on poverty as an excuse for saying that this information cannot be divulged. We know that poverty is no longer merely of domestic concern. It is a national disgrace. Every member of the House, I submit, thinks that something must be done to cure poverty, and the research undertaken in this area, research going back over the years, ought to be made available to the House in order that hon. members may have a concrete idea of what is being done to eradicate poverty. The House of Commons and the people of this country are under an obligation to eradicate poverty in this country.
We know that once poverty takes root in a certain area or in a certain group, it completely destroys the fibre of that part of our society. If unchecked, it will destroy the fibre of our society and of our nation in the long run. I need not cite examples of poverty in any particular area of the country but we know that once grinding poverty sets in, hopeless despair is the result. As a result of that despair, the people affected by poverty will act; they will try to destroy that which brought about their poverty. I hope that we can prevent, in future, the sort of destruction we have witnessed in the past. The government and society must act to prevent this type of destruction. We can only prevent it if we are serious about fighting the war on poverty and if we consider the problem of poverty in its entirety.
Some are aware, I am sure, that the people of the middle classes would like to close their eyes to the war on poverty. They consider that policies such as urban renewal are sufficient for dealing with poverty. Our middle classes think as "haves" and they would like to think they are unaffected by the real problems of the "have nots". While this attitude persists, I submit that it will take a long time to bring about any changes in the conditions of the poor in our society. If we are to fight the war against poverty effectively, we must revolutionize our thinking in connection with such matters as pollution and unemployment, as well as many others which have been mentioned in the House of Commons. In this country we must bring about an employment ratio that will permit us to do away with poverty. We must be able
Request for Report on Poverty to create conditions in which everybody will be entitled to a job opportunity.
If we are truly concerned about poverty, we must train and retrain more people. Members of this House must examine government programs relating to urban and rural poverty. May I, at this time, refer to a question I directed in the House yesterday to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). It related to policies upon which the government is embarked. I said, as reported at page 3033 of Hansard:
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?
Unfortunately, that question was not allowed. I asked that question because many thousands of family farms are disappearing today. The people from those farms are being driven into large, urban centres, and they will swell the numbers of our urban poor. The migration of these people to our cities will create real difficulties. They are not trained for any particular occupations to be found in large urban centres, and there are no jobs for them. Clearly, we ought to be concerned about the rural poor. Our present system, under which we move the rural poor to our cities, will create difficulties that are graver than this government may realize. It appears that-there is a concentrated effort to put more farmland into the hands of large corporations and a result, there will be less and less employment on the land.
We know very well that many people in the country have voiced a wish to bring about some type of change. May I refer to what the Canadian Welfare Council has said? Mr. Reuben C. Baetz, executive director of the Council, has said the following:
If the just society is ever going to be anything more than a meaningless and flimsy abstraction, it must be based on certain tangible, fundamental rights, including social as well as civil and political rights. Among social rights, no right is more important than that of an adequate income. We should build this socioeconomic goal into our value system now. The method of administering the guaranteed income can be worked out later. If necessary, it can be introduced in stages.
There are various ways of looking at the whole question of poverty. Nevertheless, it was my hope that the government would make available the information asked for in the motion, in order that we might know what the government's thinking is. That way we could either subscribe to its actions, challenge them or critize them constructively, and the entire nation would benefit. So far the government has refused to divulge this information which, I submit, is necessary for the House of Commons to have.
Our party believes that the welfare of all depends on the well being of each one of us, and that every man is entitled to a basic share of the nation's goods and services, regardless of his power in the marketplace. We also know that we shall have to create a type of system in which there will be fairer sharing and in which everyone will be able to live above the poverty line. It is

February 4, 1971
Request for Report on Poverty necessary to bring about an increase in the personal disposable income for those Canadians living in poverty. We know of various ways and means that this can be brought about. If we are really concerned about the war on poverty, we must bring about a guaranteed minimum income. We must do this now, not tomorrow. It is too late to say that we should continue in the present manner and that we are not interested in a guaranteed minimum income.
There must also be an increase in public services in communities where people live in poverty. There must be increased investment, employment and economic growth in regions of poverty. This, too, must be done now, not tomorrow. I am pleased to note that the government is moving in the direction of providing some self-determination in certain programs. There must be an organized program to promote self realization and self determination for individuals, communities and regions. The government has recently announced projects for a number of areas in Canada to enable residents to develop effective citizens' organizations through which they can identify and solve local problems and needs. The most important part of any program is that those directly affected should be a part of it, since they are the ones who must be assisted in the long run.
I have noticed that when an announcement is made, a government member always announces the program for his particular constituency. I presume the same opportunity will be given to opposition members if and when announcements are to be made that affect their constituencies. If we are to be consistent in our war on poverty, we must make funds available for the poor. It is not good enough to do only little things as this will not solve the problem. At the present time 20 per cent of all Canadians live in conditions of poverty and another 20 per cent live on the verge of poverty. This is not good.
I urge the government to make available the information which is being provided by research directors. Many hundreds of consultants are preparing reports for the government. We do not want the type of information that is contained in confidential memos to departments concerning specific individuals. However, we do want information on research projects being carried out for the government. In this way, we will have information about policies. With that type of approach, we would have a far better government and Parliament. Canadians would, as a result be better educated. If the government made available the papers for which we ask, the Canadian public would know what is going on and would not engage in the revolution and destruction that has been experienced in the past.
I urge the government to give serious consideration to adopting an amended policy and tell us they will supply some information requested in this order for return.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we call it six o'clock?


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should call it six o'clock.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is general disposition to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise at the earliest opportunity on a question of privilege to correct a statement I made in the House. Yesterday I said in answer to a question put to me by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) that I had been informed by the RCMP that all fingerprints of those arrested but not charged under the regulations of the War Measures Act or under the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act had been returned.
Government Organization Act, 1970
By this I meant, as I explained today to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that I understood they had been returned to the police forces which had originally taken the prints. I learned a few hours ago that in fact the prints had not yet been sent by the RCMP to the police forces concerned, although they were ready for dispatch. I have been informed that the prints have now been sent to Montreal to be delivered to the appropriate police forces. I have already so informed the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. I apologize for inadvertently misleading the House.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Knowing the minister as we do, of course we all expected no less of him. Also, I want to record my thanks to him for letting me know that he was going to raise this question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Drury (for the Prime Minister)-Mr. Richard in the chair.
Jean-Thomas Richard: When the committee rose at 5 p.m. it was considering an amendment to clause 4 of the bill.
On clause 4-Deputy minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I may be permitted to raise the matter of the propriety of this amendment to clause 4 of the bill now before the committee. I do not wish to raise-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have already raised a point of order. I am not sure the hon. member can raise a point of order at the same time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not see
what right the minister has to raise a point of order on this amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps the hon. member should hear it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The minister cannot debate a ruling that has been accepted.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Before the Minister of Agriculture speaks I assume that he is raising a point of order on the validity of the amendment proposed
Richard
Richardson
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Serre
Sharp
Smerchanski
Smith
(N orthumberland-Miramichi)
Stafford Stanbury St. Pierre Sulatycky Trudeau
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Walker
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting-92.
3084

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 by the hon. member for South Shore. If this is so, I will not consider further representations because there has been a ruling by the Chair which was not challenged. Therefore, the amendment stands.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With great respect, an examination of the "blues" has been made and a question was raised as to the propriety of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Shore which would, in fact, increase the charge on the public purse. If Your Honour has finally decided that you will not entertain further representations with respect to the intervention that was made, then of course I understand the situation. But in my view we would be setting a very important precedent if indeed that judgment stood.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I am afraid that in this case the ruling must stand.


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to clause 4 which we are now discussing deals with the appointment of a deputy minister in charge of fisheries. As was pointed out by the hon. member for South Shore, the reason for the amendment is very simple, namely, we feel that the new department of the environment will be taking over the responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries plus new, added responsibilities. That is why we proposed this amendment and that is why we support it. It is essential that the Department of Fisheries be maintained as a definite entity within the new department.
I contend, as I have before-I do not intend to speak too long on this matter-that the minister will have more than he can handle as minister of the environment. This is why we from the Atlantic provinces proposed the amendment. We want to make sure that the problems of the fishermen will receive attention. The minister knows that I applauded him whenever he introduced programs that were worth-while to fishermen, and that I was critical of him when he introduced programs that I thought were detrimental to the interests of fishermen, or that at least were not in accordance with my ideas. Therefore, he knows that it is not out of criticism of him that I support this amendment.
We know that the minister is from the west coast and that he is very much interested in pollution matters. Having been in charge of fisheries and forestry for the past 2i years, he is probably looking for a new challenge; therefore, I suspect he will be paying a lot more attention to environmental matters than to fisheries. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman: none of us is opposed to the establishment of a department of the environment, but we believe there should be a deputy minister responsible for fisheries as well as a deputy minister responsible for forestry and for pollution in general. Therefore, I say the amendment is a valid one. Its validity is not in question at the moment; it has been accepted and we are debating it. We know that the minister and his parliamentary secretary will want to accept this amendment. His parliamentary secretary shakes his head in disagreement.
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard).]


Mr. Corbin:: I have confidence in the minister.


Louis-Roland Comeau: So have I; but I want to make sure that a Deputy Minister of Fisheries will be appointed, and if I dared to go further than the terms of the amendment I would ask that he be from the east coast. Although the parliamentary secretary comes from the east coast, he does not represent a real fishing area. Therefore I say the proposed deputy minister should come from the Atlantic region.
The minister will have added responsibilities in the new department. Many problems connected with the fisheries remain unanswered and I do not believe they will receive full attention when the new department is established. The minister and the parliamentary secretary may argue that the appointment of another parliamentary secretary responsible for fisheries would help, and that they will have a parliamentary secretary in charge of fisheries and a parliamentary secretary responsible for environmental affairs. I do not consider that adequate.
As I have said, there are many fisheries problems that have not yet been solved. There are problems in connection with the 12-mile limit. Not long before Christmas the minister ordered the closing of certain bays to foreign fishermen, including the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and certain bays on the coast of British Columbia. But that is not sufficient, Mr. Chairman; it does not fully meet the interests of the fishermen. This closure does not include one of the great herring spawning areas of the Atlantic region around Trinity Ledge; it is not protected from foreign fishermen.
This morning's newspapers record another complaint concernings the lobster season. Some of the fishermen are not satisfied. They have made dozens of representations with respect to the lobster season, particularly in District 4. A deputy minister in charge of fisheries would be able to pay more attention to such things than a general deputy minister in charge of many matters. There is another problem connected with the fisheries that has not been fully solved and which is becoming more serious as time passes. Last May the minister announced a program of assistance for the construction of fishing boats but to date the regulations affecting boats of 75-feet and over have not been promulgated. I know that they have to be made in co-operation with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but the delay is becoming longer and longer.
If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Shore is accepted, a deputy minister of fisheries would be able to tackle some of these problems. I know the minister is a good listener, as is his parliamentary secretary. I know that when they have heard all the arguments they will wish to accept the amendment. I repeat that fisheries must remain an entity within the new department and that there is a relationship between fisheries and the environment. Recently a question was raised concerning both. The Department of Fisheries has banned swordfishing on the east coast because of mercury pollution, and the fishermen involved will have to engage in some other activity at least for a while. I ask, what is to be done for them? It is a very important fishery on the Atlantic coast and also on the west coast.
February 4, 1971

These fishermen will have to devote their energies to other ventures. The Department of Fisheries ought to suggest what the fishermen should do next.
Unquestionably, mercury pollution affects our environment; there is no question about that. Nevertheless, these fishermen must enter another field of the fishery. They can only do that if their interests are taken into account. Someone in the Department of Fisheries must say to these people, "You can fish for scallops or go into another field, but there are limitations in certain areas." For those reasons there must be a deputy minister in charge of fisheries. As I say, there are too many questions still unanswered. Once the new department is set up and once the minister is given these added responsibilities, it is less likely that we shall obtain the answers to some of our questions. The Department of Fisheries is much too important merely to be amalgamated into the conglomeration which is being set up. The minister is to take over some of the responsibilities of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, in addition, some of the responsibilities of other departments. Therefore, too much will be left to one deputy minister who must also deal with fisheries. I submit, therefore, that a deputy minister in charge of fisheries should be appointed.
The minister is most enthusiastic about pollution control. I expect almost everyone here is enthusiastic about pollution control. At the same time, a proper balance must be struck and we must consider the interests of our fisheries. I said that many problems have been left unanswered. I was referring to fisheries regulations, to matters such as the lobster season and the 12-mile limit. There is also a problem with regard to fishermen who catch swordfish. Are they to engage in another part of the fishery? What is to become of these fishermen? I hope the minister will make a statement shortly about the mercury content of swordfish, for example. 1 hope his statement will be to the effect that the consumer need not be scared and that all fish are not contaminated. I know he has already said something along these lines.
What would happen if the consumer who will not eat swordfish suddenly were to say, "I am not going to eat scallops or lobster either"? That situation must be avoided and the minister must make a positive statement to allay fears. I am sure he will do that in due course. Many problems have not yet been solved in this field. With the additional responsibilities the minister is to assume, they will receive less attention. For that reason I say this amendment is a good one and should be accepted.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on the amendment before the House. I speak in support of the amendment. I submit that the amendment is simple yet it is essential. I do not understand why the government should not accept the idea that since we are now setting up a new department of the environment which will encompass the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and, in addition, assume responsibilities in the field of the environment, there should be appointed two deputy ministers each of whom should have clear and distinct
Government Organization Act, 1970 duties. That is what the amendment seeks to do and I think it is an excellent idea.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is plain common sense to remember that if you are going to enlarge the activities of a department and one man is to be given responsibility for the enlarged department, he will be able to give less time to the fisheries and forestry responsibilities of the department. I think we are making a mistake in not keeping the responsibilities relating to the environment clear and separate from all other responsibilities of the department. If that is not done, we shall find ourselves in a position we have been in so often. We will find, on the one hand, that the deputy minister of the department will be in charge of fisheries and forestry, resources which are exploited, and economic interests will be involved; but on the other hand we will find that the same minister must sit down and try to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Out of one side of his mouth he will say, "We will do this." Then from the other side of his mouth he will say, "No, nothing doing. We must hold the reins in because what is proposed will affect the environment; therefore, we shall have to clamp down on the type of development proposed." That would not make any sense.


An hon. Member:: There would be a conflict of interest.


Randolph Harding: There would be a clear conflict of interest and without doubt we would get into trouble if the department were set up that way. Since we are setting up this department now, let us do it properly: let us have two deputy ministers. Other departments of government have two deputy ministers. In the Department of National Health and Welfare a deputy minister is in charge of one part of the department and another deputy minister is in charge of another part. All we are asking is that one deputy minister be appointed to be responsible for fisheries and forestry and that another be appointed to take charge of the environmental responsibilities of the department. To me, that makes sense.
May I point out again that once you create a conflict of interest you will not be able to do the sort of job that ought to be done with respect to the fisheries responsibilities of the department or with respect to the environmental responsibilities. I think that is clear. The Science Council of Canada in its last report indicated to the government what ought to be done so far as fisheries are concerned. That body asked for a vast increase in the number of research projects on the east coast, the west coast and inland waters. It told the government that we need to have at our disposal vastly increased information in certain fields.
Also, the Science Council told the government that we are not assessing to the full the potential of our fisheries in all parts of the nation. This indicates to me, Mr. Chairman, that the fisheries responsibilities of the department ought to be expanded, especially so far as research and allied activities are concerned. It seems to me, however, that we are to load the responsibilities of a brand new department on top of the responsibilities of the existing department, and therefore we shall not obtain satisfactory results in all areas.
23786-54J

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
I will not go into all the details which have been covered by previous speakers. I reiterate that this is a sound and sensible amendment. I hope that this Liberal government for once in its life will accept one of the recommendations of the opposition and appoint two deputy ministers of the department. That would increase the department's efficiency; it would be good for Canada and good for both the fisheries and the environmental branches of the department. We need this deputy minister, so let us adopt the amendment.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make on the amendment of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) to Clause 4 of Bill C-207 which provides for the appointment of a second deputy minister who would be exclusively responsible for fishery legislation.
In Schedule A of Bill C-207, we note there are 19 acts relating to fisheries, 16 of which directly concern water utilization and fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, at first sight it would seem that the area of fisheries has been neglected in the new department of environment. However, those 16 acts on fisheries already exist and there is also a Department of Fisheries and Forestry that is responsible for their administration.
I greatly hesitate to support the amendment of the member for South Shore, because it tends to multiply more and more important positions in the government administration. It often happens that deputy ministers have more authority than ministers themselves. In the first place, they receive a higher salary and they seem to have better control over the officials around them than ministers do.
Mr. Chairman, the members and a large segment of the population-especially fishermen-are concerned by the result of the report which has just been communicated to us and according to which tuna and swordfish fishing is greatly compromised due to the mercury pollution of sea-water.
Nothing prevents the Canadian government from asking American authorities to fight mercury pollution. However, it has occurred. With a deputy minister directly responsible for the enforcement of fishery legislation, I wonder whether there would be an increase in efficiency.
Even if the bill does not provide for the appointment of a second deputy minister who would be responsible for the enforcement of fishery legislation, the minister still has the authority needed to appoint all the officials required to handle environmental affairs and water pollution matters. These officials will look after the implementation of fishery legislation designed to protect not just the fishermen from the Maritimes but also the fishermen from British Columbia and the Canadian consumers.
Although we five in central Canada, we are very concerned by the Canadian fishermen's activities because we are aware that if they cannot sail for the high seas to catch the swordfish, this will be reflected in higher consumer prices not only for swordfish, but also for other species of fish and sea products.
I am not at all sure that it will be necessary to appoint a second deputy minister to the Department of the Environment. I believe that we should rather give the present minister more power over his officials and provide the latter with the required freedom to wage war against pollution and implement the existing laws.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The hon. member for Halifax-


J. Michael Forrestall: With all deference to Your Honour, I used to be the junior member for Halifax. While I love that part of Canada, I have no connection with it, although I happen to like the military people there. That area is represented by the leader of my party and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. My constituency is in the greatest part of Canada, Dartmouth-Halifax East. If Your Honour does not think there is a significant difference, I extend an invitation to you to visit the eastern shore of Nova Scotia.


Louis-Roland Comeau: At Christmas.


J. Michael Forrestall: I do not particularly want to invite Your Honour at Christmas; it would be better to visit in the spring, summer or fall when the countryside is delightful.
I wish to make a few comments in support of the amendment now before us. I do not represent a large segment of the fishing community but I do represent a typical and very significant part of the total fishing industry on the Atlantic coast. There are hundreds of full-time inshore or groundfishermen. The families of fishermen I represent have fished for generations. Their fathers and grandfathers were fishermen as well as their sons and grandsons. They have all fished off the eastern shore of Nova Scotia. These people have pride in their way of life and ability to provide for their families. These things cannot be dealt with lightly. Their support of this traditional way of life has been characteristic of the support that has built Canada in a maritime sense.
The fact that this bill will deprive them of the right to recognition within the bounds of ministerial or governmental prerogative is not important. What is important is that if they are deprived of the identification of their way of life, this will be very harmful. I could speak meaningfully about fishermen from Ecum Secum to Halifax and from Halifax to Hubbards. However, this has already been eminently done by the hon. member for South Western Nova and the mover of this amendment. I support their views and concern. I simply echo the concern of those who live in Dartmouth and along the eastern shore of Nova Scotia.
What I wanted to do, because it is appropriate to the bill albeit a little out of context but still very important with respect to the development of this new department

February 4, 1971

of the environment, was talk to the minister for a moment or two about the way in which he ought to approach the question of information about his department. If I go a little outside the scope of the amendment I can quickly bring myself back within its terms, Mr. Chairman, and I know you will remind me if necessary. In recent months we have heard a good deal about information arrangements. I relate this in no small way to the role of information regarding the omnibus bill which is before us, because it is important in that sense if not in the total sense. Perhaps before we vote on the amendment tonight and move to the next clause, the minister will express his views on the subject and answer some questions I have in mind.
I wonder whether with respect to information the minister has considered instituting his own system. Will the new department have its own resources in dollars and cents and professional expertise to build up its own data system, experts who will be able to identify, through his policy directions, his needs in terms of the acceptability to the department of the environment of information from other sources? Or will he develop his own source in response to the need for bringing to him the type of information which would satisfy his requirements? I wonder if he intends to do anything about the storage of such data. I wonder if he will do anything about retrieving it as required. I wonder what he intends to do about computerizing it. I wonder what he intends to do about analysing it.


John (Jack) Davis: What has this to do with the amendment?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am talking about a deputy minister, the man through whom the minister must translate into practical working arrangements his own particular views. I can do this in half an hour or it can be done now, but one way or another you will get a little lecture from the junior member for Halifax about careful planning. I will bring it within the scope of the debate by indicating the necessity for a deputy minister. I do not think it is in character for the minister to be smart or impertinent. He has had a bad week or ten days. What hon. members opposite do not need in this chamber tonight, what the minister does not need, are enemies, particularly as he goes ahead with the work in front of him.
I wonder how he would go about creating the type of staff which will analyse this information, in the sense that it will be useful to him and to the people who are directly affected, in this case the fisheries; but not only fisheries, the total environmental program. The problem which occurs to me is that data collected by non-users of the data is very often of little practical relevance to those who are forced to use it. Put it in another sense and relate it to the deputy minister. The expenditure of public funds must be justified, with the result that the broad data collected is not forced down the minister's throat with respect to fisheries, or any other program in which he is involved, by somebody who has collected the information and finds he has to justify it because it involves the expenditure of public moneys. This is particularly true when the collectors of the data which must find its way to the minister are people who have no concern for the area in question.
Government Organization Act, 1970
If the program is to be successful it must be geared to the requirements of the minister. One of these requirements is fisheries. A broader requirement is the environment, the concept of the world we live in. I ask again to keep this information relevant. How is the information with respect to fisheries to be placed in front of the minister? In what form is it to be placed in front of the minister, unless there is a knowledgeable and acceptable deputy minister in charge of fisheries?
If the program is to be expanded, the department must have its own source of professional expertise. It must not be the result of random information passed to the minister in a form that neither he nor his department are capable of understanding or applying. He must have around him that area of expertise which is intelligible in the area of immediate concern. If he does not, the program will fail simply because he will be at the mercy of collectors of information, not users of information. The minister should be the user of the information.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I have been listening to the hon. member carefully. I think he has tried very skilfully to keep his observations relevant. At the same time, the matter the committee is now considering is, very briefly, whether there should be appointed an official called a deputy minister. Perhaps the remarks of the hon. member would apply more when clause 6 of the bill is under consideration. I mention this in the hope that the hon. member will come back to order.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am afraid you will have to rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman. The point I am trying to make is that there is a necessity for a deputy minister in this department with responsibility for fisheries. How will information be transmitted to the minister from somebody about whom we know nothing? You are right, Mr. Chairman. I am not only talking about the Department of Fisheries and the necessity for a deputy minister; I am talking about something I believe to be very revelant. If Your Honour orders me to sit down, I will, and I will speak again on a later clause. But I make the point that unless the minister gathers around him the expertise to determine what his requirements are, the legislation will fail.
e (8:50p.m.)
I do not want this legislation to fail simply because we have been shortsighted, narrow minded or concerned with other matters. The role of the fisheries in this country is a very important one. If those who are somewhat removed from salt water are not aware of this, then I suggest they become aware of it. The economy of this country has been built in no small way upon the efforts of those who go out in small and in large boats to reap the harvest of the oceans. If the hooter from Hamilton questions that, I suggest he goes east some time, goes out in a dory and finds out what life is all about.
I think the presence in the chamber of so many members on the other side is indicative that we are going to have a vote. I should like to know how many members opposite have spoken on this bill. Let the former mayor of Toronto tell us how he feels about it, or the great oil

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 man from Calgary. Let them talk to the fishermen and the unemployed of Canada. They do not even listen once in a while to those who express concern for the fishing industry of Canada, and this the fishermen in my part of the country find difficult to understand. This situation is symptomatic of the approach of hon. members opposite. What we need, instead of all the tired debate we are having on this bill, is a statement by the minister on how he will determine what information he needs to cover the broad spectrum of his responsibilities, including the necessity for having a deputy minister of fisheries. I hardly think that such a statement would be irrelevant to the debate.
The point I am trying to make was put much better than I can put it in a recent address to an international symposium held in Ottawa. Mr. R. F. Tomlinson, chairman of the symposium, in his opening address to the International Geographical Union Commission on Geographical Data Sensing and Processing made the following pertinent observation in regard to the value of making the proper use of information:
The environment is enormous; there will be too much environmental information available even with the use of current capabilities for data gathering in the next ten years, let alone the next one hundred years, for it to be handled efficiently and economically. The need, then, is to be selective about the data which will serve as a basis for the decision making process. For this reason, the data required must be chosen by the agencies responsible for their use, and not, as at present, by the agencies responsible for their collection.
This is the point I am trying to make to the minister, and if the minister is to remain credible I hope he will heed this suggestion. I hope he will be the one to determine his requirements in regard to information, instead of reacting to the advice of collection agencies that spell out his programs on the basis of information supplied to them by other agencies.


An hon. Member:: Such as Information Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, and others. I am not saying that their information is not of value or pertinent. However, unless the minister seeks the advice of professional experts and determines his own requirements-such as appointing a deputy minister of fisheries-I do not think-


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


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one or two simple questions before he accepts the amendment. Has the minister consulted the provinces in regard to eliminating the Department of Fisheries, and would he give the committee an indication of the response he received?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer really is no, Mr. Chairman. I have described our program and our new department to provincial ministers who are interested in the fisheries, forestry, wildlife, water and air. I have not asked them for their advice, nor have they sought mine in regard to the reorganization of their departments. Many of them are making changes that are similar to the ones we are proposing.


John Howard Lundrigan: Has the minister received any reaction from any of the ten provinces in regard to the diminution of the role of the Department of Fisheries?


John (Jack) Davis: I think I answered that question, Mr. Chairman. I outlined to them what our plans are and I have not received any unfavourable comment.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the first question I asked the minister was whether he had had any consultation winth the provices. I then asked whether the provinces had made any recommendations. I can hardly believe that the answer to my first question was what I thought I heard, that there had not been any consultation although the program had been explained to the provinces. Has the minister not had some sort of discussion to iron out some of the difficulties of consultation and future planning with provincial departments of fisheries and their future relationship with the now non-existent branch of the new department that will be set up to deal with the fisheries? Provinces like Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will continue to have their own department of fisheries, so I should like to know whether the minister has ironed out with the provinces how discussions will be held on a federal-provincial level.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, we have had discussions about programs and policies of a general character. We have also had some discussions, particularly at the council of resources ministers, as to the way we were organizing to cover our new responsibilities. The provinces were not asking Ottawa how to organize their affairs, nor were we asking them for their advice as to how we should organize our affairs.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I could follow that line of questioning, Mr. Chairman. When we have international discussions and bilateral discussions, as we have with the Soviet Union and anticipate having again with them and other countries, and when we have discussions on the Law of the Sea and what we hope will be a marine resources conference among various nations at some time in the future, who will represent the Department of Fisheries?


John (Jack) Davis: It is hard to say, but we will get the most competent people we can to represent us, whether they are in the public service or have to be retained from outside.


John Howard Lundrigan: I hope the minister will not send the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I am sure this will meet with the approval of the House. In reacting to the debate we have had today, would the minister indicate whether it whould be in order, in accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Shore, to have a very competent person in marine resources and fisheries as the deputy minister, that is, the type of person with expertise similar to Dr. Needier? He commanded tremendous international respect. It will be necessary to have that kind of man at the highest level in
February 4, 1971

the department in order to carry on the bilateral discussions we must have if Canada is to continue to maintain a fishing industry.


John (Jack) Davis: I think the simple answer is that we hope Dr. Needier will continue to represent us at these negotiations. We will be asking him to act on a retainer basis to perform some of the functions he has performed in the past in the international sphere. We will have both Dr. Needier and an Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries, which is a better arrangement than the hon. member is proposing.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Did I understand the minister to say that Dr. Needier would be associated with the department? If he is to remain in the department, what will his position be? Will the minister make a comment in this regard? My question is simple.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Some hon. members only come here to say, "Come on" and, "Oh, oh". That is all they are here for tonight. We never see them here in the evenings. Some of the faces we see here tonight we hardly recognize. Will the minister accept his responsibility, while he is still Minister of Fisheries, of protecting the interests of the fishermen by accepting the amendment presented by the hon. member for South Shore? Give us some argument as to why you are going to defeat this amendment. We understand you intend to, because you have all your members here.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the
question?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Does the minister not want to answer my question or present any argument? Can he tell us who the deputy minister of the new department will be and where he will come from?


John (Jack) Davis: The Prime Minister has already announced the appointment of Mr. Robert Shaw as the prospective deputy minister of the new department of the environment. The present Deputy Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Dr. Needier, has indicated that he would be willing to negotiate an arrangement with the department to help us out, particularly in the international sphere. So I hope we will have the services of both these gentlemen in the years ahead.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Can the minister state what experience the new deputy minister will have in the fishing industry?


An hon. Member:: None. He was with a foundation company.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Can the minister answer that question, Mr. Chairman?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. He said that the Prime Minister has announced that Mr. Shaw will be the deputy minister. Will the minister ask his colleagues why Mr. Shaw was chosen
Government Organization Act, 1970 for this particular position, when he was recommended by members of the cabinet to be chairman of the board of Devco? The cabinet also chose Mr. Fullerton, and everybody knows Mr. Fullerton's record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to yourself and the lateness of the hour, I want to complete my-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down.


J. Michael Forrestall: Hon. members may laugh and treat this matter as lightly as they wish. The urgency of having somebody next to the minister who has expertise and an awareness of the industry may be important in a very minor way to most hon. members over there, but some of us think it is very important. I should like to reiterate, in order to complete the remarks I started earlier-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I realize the hon. member is entitled to the floor, and I want him to have it. My only admonition is that his remarks should be relevant to the amendment under discussion in the committee.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to describe to me the relevant procedure for transmitting information to the minister. I suggest that Mr. Robert Shaw knows not a wit about fishing. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister when was the last time he was out in a dory.


Thomas Miller Bell: Another Jack Pickersgill, that's all he is.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, when I moved the amendment to clause 4 this afternoon I did so in all seriousness and with the realization that the fishing industry is, and will be, in desperate need of a spokesman during the months and years ahead. As the minister is very much aware, the fishing industry in Canada today is facing very serious problems. The fishing industry is faced with a tremendous problem in respect of mercury pollution in Atlantic Canada. It is faced with a tremendous problem of overfishing by foreign nations on our continental shelf, to the extent that our resources are being seriously depleted. I am aware that the minister has taken some action to conserve our haddock stocks. He is also aware that his action has not in any basic way helped solve the problem. I say to hon. members who have enjoyed a dinner of haddock, you would be well advised to obtain that fish if you can find it in the supermarkets, because the quantity available is seriously depleted on the offshore banks and the continental shelf.


An hon. Member:: No commercials, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: This is only one of the many problems facing our fishing industry. In moving the amendment to clause 4 I realize that our fishing industry needs as its spokesman a person who will have as his primary concern the needs of Canadian fishermen. This is a primary

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 industry which provides employment for many thousands of people in Atlantic Canada. Fishing is the only type of work these people know. Through circumstances beyond their control, many of them are uneducated and cannot be readily trained for other types of employment.
We cannot allow this industry to be relegated to second place. We cannot allow it to be put in a position where it will only receive secondary consideration by this government, by the minister and officials of the Crown. This is our genuine fear. It is a fear expressed to me by leading people in the industry in letters and telephone conversations. I wish hon. members could talk to some of the sea captains whose lifetime earnings have been spent on a long-liner which is now tied to the dock and cannot be put to sea for swordfishing. This is the problem that many of them face. They have put their entire savings into boats and equipment and now, through no fault of their own, they find their ships tied to the dock with no alternative fishery available to them.
The minister and his officials may well say that these ships can be converted to another form of fishing. However, the minister is well aware that there are very few types of fishing to which a longliner can be converted. A longliner does not require much power. You can put 300 horsepower in a 100-foot ship and it will have adequate power; but once long-lining is no longer profitable, you cannot use the ship as a scallop-dragger, for example, because the power has to be doubled.
The minister said that some way will be found to assist these fishermen. I wonder when he or the deputy minister of the environment will find the time to meet and counsel these fishermen and set up a plan to assist them. Will the government make available the necessary funds to repower some of these ships? A 600 horsepower engine costs in the neighbourhood of $60,000 or $70,000. These are astronomical figures to Canada's fishermen. You must remember, Sir, that their operations have not been overly profitable; they are operating in regions that are well known to be economically disadvantaged. Hon. members from Newfoundland could give a more graphic description of the plight of some of these fishermen. I am also well aware of the difficulties they face.
For all these reasons I ask-in fact if it is necessary, I beg-the minister to give careful consideration to what he will be doing by not making available a deputy minister who will be responsible for fisheries. The minister said a few* moments ago that the retiring deputy minister, Dr. Needier, may well stay with the department for another few years. This is encouraging news and we welcome it. But I ask the minister, does this mean that Dr. Needier will continue in his position as deputy minister? If this is to be the case, the amendment I have moved is somewhat redundant.
I think that before we take a vote the minister should make a clear statement about the position of Dr. Needier. He has been with the department since 1929, I believe. He has a tremendous grasp of the fishing industry and tremendous knowledge gained through experience in the industry and of individual fishermen over the years. Dr.
Needler's knowledge, as I have said before and as I repeat, would be invaluable to the fishermen and to Canada when this country attends the conference to determine the amount of fish which will be taken on our offshore banks. I refer to the international conference to be held in 1972. Therefore, I think it is necessary that the minister clarify the position of the one known specialist within his department, namely, Dr. Needier. We would like to know if he will continue as Deputy Minister of Fisheries. I hope the minister will make this clear to the committee.


John Howard Lundrigan: The opportunity to say a few words on fisheries when there are so many members in the House is rare, because I have never seen more than a dozen hon. members in the House when we have been talking about fisheries. I would like to supplement the remarks of my colleague, the outstanding fishermen's representative from South Shore who has been involved in fisheries ever since he was knee-high to a grasshopper, a man who understands the fishing industry of Canada from the dory to the dragger, the long-liner and the like. I was amazed a few minutes ago to hear several hon. members ask, "What the heck is a long-liner?" Someone else asked, "What is groundfish?" Perhaps they think it is something you put through a mincer to end up as a patty. I am not surprised at this lack of knowledge about fisheries in the House of Commons because we do not often have fish on the menu here.
We have in Canada five provinces on the Atlantic coast and one on the Pacific coast which are directly affected by the fishing industry. There is British Columbia, the east part of Quebec, the Gaspe area and the four Atlantic provinces. I do not know whether members know this, but fishing was the staple industry of the nation. They did not start Canada with the great industrial complexes of Ontario. They did not develop the railway across Canada to open up the fishing industry, either. That came a lot later than 1497. People came over from Europe and asked why we did not turn the east coast of Canada into a marvellous garden of marine resources, a great area where there exists the most advanced marine resource industry in the world.
The British, 400 years ago, milked the economy of the Atlantic region with their great naval fleets. The Spaniards sent out their fleets and so did the Portugese. They came across the Atlantic and developed the economy of the Atlantic region which supplemented their own economies. That was the beginning of these great European nations. The British always treated Newfoundland as a vessel moored off the Gulf of St. Lawrence, a very convenient vessel moored along great fishing banks such as the Grand Banks, the Georgia Banks and all the great fishing areas of the Labrador coast, Hamilton Inlet and Groswater Bay. We could never really develop our fishing industry because of lack of industrial expansion and because we did not have the type of taxation base to give us the necessary funds.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will move very quickly to the area of relevance dealing

February 4, 1971

with the amendment before the House. I hope his initial remarks are introductory, but I also hope he will soon speak to the amendment before us.


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, these are introductory, preliminary remarks. I want to lay the foundation. The fact is that we could not develop our economy appropriately because we did not have a taxation base, and the wealth of our resources was not developed to a point to allow us to develop our fishing industry. Twenty years ago we became part of the Canadian nation. But so far as Newfoundlanders are concerned, the Canadian nation has been most disappointing because it has never treated the fisheries as a major part of the economy, with the result that you get a sheaf of Newfie jokes passing around, just like the one that a member of the NDP told earlier this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Howard Lundrigan: If hon. members would allow me to complete my remarks, their attitude is that the eastern Canadian is some kind of stepson in the unity of this great nation. We have to depend on handouts-this has been the case year after year-when trying to develop our economy. We have never been given a full opportunity to develop our resources, particularly the fisheries. The Canadian fishing industry has gone through several years of relative depression. The Soviet Union, West Germany and Poland have depleted our resources. Now I understand that even Algeria is building a fishing fleet.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I invite the hon. member to move quickly into the area of whether or not there should be appointed a Deputy Minister of Fisheries. I know that he is building up an argument in this respect, but again I invite him to move quickly to the question of why, or why not, such a deputy minister should be appointed.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am not at all surprised that the Chair does not recognize the relevancy of my argument. In 1968, for example, the Russians took 25 per cent of the fish stock off the Hamilton Inlet Banks, which are the great spawning grounds for the Labrador fishery. The amount of fish they took was one billion pounds, enough to keep the biggest fish plant in my riding going for 100 years.
Canada has sat on its haunches. It has not moved aggressively to protect these resources. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has not had the backbone, the courage or perhaps the interest to take any initiative. We have not identified this industry as being important enough. We have not been determined to harvest these resources ourselves. Mr. Chairman, just check the tins of kippers that you put on hors d'oeuvre at your cocktail parties and you will find they do not come from Nova Scotia, P.E.I. or Newfoundland. They come from Europe, because the Germans sent over great fleets to take the herring, package them and send them back to us.
The Norwegians and the Icelanders have developed their fishing resources. The fisheries are almost their
Government Organization Act, 1970 whole economy. But what have we done? This year, after all the fuss we have had about fish, all the racket we have raised, the "W5" programs on television with the minister coming across on the tube and saying he is aware of the problem, with the people of B.C. almost launching a naval attack on the Russians, and after the bilateral discussions we have had with the Russians, what have we done? We are going to retire the Deputy Minister of Fisheries. We are going to get rid of the Department of Fisheries. After spending a lifetime in the service of the fisheries, we are going to retire Dr. Needier and tell him, "If we want your advice one of these days, we will ask you."
The Minister of Fisheries is not concerned. He is moving into an area in which he is very competent. I know he will be competent in controlling various types of pollution. This is the job he has been seeking. But the government has not said that it will appoint one of the proposed ministers of state to be responsible for fisheries. No longer will we be able to ask questions in the House of the Minister of Fisheries. Instead, we will have a minister of the environment, another man called the deputy minister of the environment, and away down the line we will have an assistant, an associate, a kind of director or some other kind of character responsible for fisheries. This cannot be tolerated. The Prime Minister's Bill C-207 should be carefully torn up and thrown into a large waste paper-basket.
The people of Canada whom I represent, the fishermen of Canada, are not fully aware of the implications of this legislation. At a time when France, the U.S.A., Germany, England and other countries are setting up special departments to launch an aggressive initiative in the area of harvesting marine resources, because they know this is the last great frontier, we in Canada are eliminating our Department of Fisheries in order to create a very beautiful, sweet tasting, sugar-coated department of the environment, and this solely because environmental pollution is the political issue at the moment. That will not solve the problems of the fisheries. It will be a sad day for the fishermen of Canada when this bill is passed. If the government does not want to help us harvest our fishery resources, then it had better develop a beautiful welfare scheme or put us all on the dole.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I hesitate to rise again because this is the third time that I have interrupted the hon. member. With respect, I think the hon. member has not dealt with the amendment that is before the committee. I earnestly invite him to deal with the question of the appointment or non-appointment of a deputy minister of fisheries.


John Howard Lundrigan: If I am going to have as much trouble convincing the minister as I am the Chair, then I had better quit right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, the question posed by the mover of the amendment is serious enough to warrant a reply from the minister. How, exactly, will the

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 fisheries be represented in the new department-in what capacity, at what level and with what authority in relation to the minister? I will accept your admonition, Mr. Chairman, and not talk about information, although I think that is equally relevant. Before we vote on the amendment I think the minister should reply.


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the understanding that this will be the last statement before there is a vote on this issue. The organization of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry at the moment is that we have a deputy minister. We have an Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and an Assistant Deputy Minister of Forestry. That structure will be retained in the new department. We will have an Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and an Assistant Deputy Minister of Forestry so that organizationally the new department is the same as the old one.
The real problem that the fishing industry has faced over the years is that of environment, pollution, power dams, discharges from industry, sewage from cities, and so on. If we deal with the environmental problems we will have solved half of the problems of the fisheries. If we can get the ocean fisheries on to a sustained yield basis, which again is a matter of environment, we will have gone three-quarters of the way toward solving the fishery problems of this country. So basically our approach is to deal with the main problems of the fisheries by dealing with the environment of the fisheries. Hence a new department of the environment.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Crouse) negatives: Yeas, 29; nays, 51.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Duties of Minister.
Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I took advantage of the discussion on clause 3 to ask some questions about the water problems encountered in Ontario. Clause 5 stipulates and lays down the duties of the minister and the different areas in which he has such duties. I am thinking of the water problems of Ontario, one of the most outstanding of which is the one that has developed in the Great Lakes and particularly in Lake Erie. I ask the minister whether there have been any recent agreements involving the International Joint Commission, the government of the United States and our federal government on setting a date for cleaning up Lake Erie. Has a target date for any such cleanup been set?
This is a tremendous problem. We find that 30,000 tons of phosphates are dumped into Lake Erie every year. When one realizes that 1.5 pounds of phosphate enrich
10.000	gallons of water, one can imagine the effect of
30.000	tons of phosphates being dumped into Lake Erie each year. Anyone who has been in that area realizes that something must be done. I know that the federal government assists the provinces, through CMHC, in sewage programs.
I am glad the minister in charge of housing is here tonight because I should like to ask him a question in connection with this water problem and sewage. I understand that the money to be allotted to the provincial governments has been used up. I am referring to the money that is available from CMHC to assist the province of Ontario with its sewage problems. I understand that all the money available in that fund has been used up. Is that correct?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, the sewage treatment fund for 1970 was allocated early in the year. Like most of our budgets it is, I fear, not sufficient to meet all the requests or needs. There was an increase in the sewage treatment fund in 1970, from $50 million to $75 million. Those funds are all committed and used up. They were used up some months ago. Further requests are coming in for 1971. The CMHC budget will be announced very shortly. We shall be in communication with all the provinces, including Ontario, with regard to their share of the sewage treatment fund as well as other matters. At the moment I cannot disclose that share because I am still awaiting final approval. I expect to wait for another few days.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Ontario minister in charge of the environment has been writing to the minister. He has complained that he has not received replies. He wrote to the minister in November in connection with this matter and is disturbed because he has not received a reply. I presume that the minister will decide how much to give the province before replying to the letter. Is this correct?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I cannot remember the letter to which the hon. member has referred. I would be chagrined if the letter had arrived and had not been acknowledged. I rather suspect that this is the case. I will check forthwith. I return to the main point. The fact is that the 1971 budget is being considered now. The funding will be made known to all the provinces very shortly and, indeed, to the House at the same time.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, is there to be an increase for 1971 as compared with 1790?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, hope springs eternal in the human breast. I am hopeful that that will be the case. However, until my budget is ready to be announced in the House I could not deal with the kind of detail the hon. member seeks.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, may I address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whom we understand will be in charge of programs involving the environment. Could he answer the question as to whether there have been any agreements or discussions with the

February 4, 1971

federal authorities of the United States? Has any deadline been set for cleaning up Lake Erie, or is any percentage of that lake to be cleaned up within a certain time? Will that be possible? Have there been any discussions in this regard? If so, what deadline has been set?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, the International Joint Commission tabled its final report, including a number of recommendations some months ago. Those recommendations were to the effect that a number of water quality objectives be met in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and that they be met by the mid-1970s. This recommendation has gone not only to the government of Canada but also to Washington. We expect to hear shortly as to the endorsation or otherwise by the United States government with respect to these objectives.


William Marvin Howe: I understand that this clean-up will necessitate the use of special equipment which is provided for special programs already under way, in particular in Ontario. I talked to some Ontario officials today and understand that in the interim the province will require $30 million in order to instal nutrient-removing equipment in existing sewage disposal plants. Will the government go part way with the province in meeting this expenditure?
Yesterday the minister told the committee that the extent of federal aid in these water programs would depend, of course on, whether the federal government was involved. In this case there is an indication apparently, that it is involved because the waters I am speaking of are international waters, and the recommendation referred to has been made by the International Joint Commission. I was told that $30 million would be needed. I expect the minister knows about this already. I hope the federal government will help the province and provide part of the $30 million which is necessary to obtain this special equipment. The equipment must be installed and used in conjunction with present sewage treatment programs if Lake Erie is to be cleaned up as we hope it will be. I do not ask the minister to give me a definite, affirmative answer tonight. I merely ask, will the federal government help the province of Ontario in this program?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is definitely yes, Mr. Chairman. The figures which the International Joint Commission quoted were between $200 million and $250 million to clean up the Ontario side of the lower lakes, and roughly six times that amount to clean up the United States side. As has been the case in recent years, I am sure that the Canadian government will, through loans, assist the municipalities with sewage treatment plants in future years. I think the annual expenditure of this program to clean up the lower lakes will run somewhere between $30 million and $40 million per year, not $30 million in total.


William Marvin Howe: Perhaps I have the wrong figure; it may be $30 million a year as the minister has suggested. I am
Government Organization Act, 1970 glad to hear that funds will be available. As this is a specialized program, I sincerely hope this will not be considered part of the money received through CMHC, but that it will be a special fund to assist the province of Ontario in this area. They have already set up sewage treatment programs. If this money is taken out of the funds allocated through CMHC, there will be less money for that and for developing new programs where they are required.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, concerning clause 5, I would ask the minister whether he has received a report from those in charge of the investigation into the polluted waters flowing into James Bay, which created major problems for Eskimos fishing for white whales.
Last year, white whales were considered unfit for consumption because of mercury pollution, whereas this cetacean is an important source of food for the Eskimo population living along the coast of Hudson's Bay.
Following questions put by me at the end of 1970, I was told that an investigation was under way to determine the source of mercury pollution in James Bay and Hudson's Bay.
Has the minister had any reports on this investigation and is he in a position to tell us what steps are to be taken to avoid that waters flowing into this inland sea continue to be polluted by industrial plants. In fact, there is not much doubt that they are responsible for such pollution.


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, our scientists and engineers have been making investigations. The principal sources of pollution by mercury from industry have been detected. The industries in question have taken the appropriate action and the discharges of mercury have been reduced by more than 90 per cent. By April 1, these will have been reduced by more than 99 per cent. However, the mercury in the river system and in James Bay is persistent. The problem may continue for some months or even years.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Can he say which industries have been a source of pollution in the rivers flowing into James Bay?


John (Jack) Davis: The principal source of pollution and the principal source of mercury in this case is the industry manufacturing chlorine and caustic soda, normally referred to as the chlora-alkaline industry.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 of this bill gives the minister of the proposed department tremendous responsibilities and authority. He will be responsible for a whole list of important aspects of our life. Under subclause (c) the minister is responsible for water. I pre-

February 4, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 sume that means the quality of water. Under subclause (e) the minister is responsible for the following:
the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality;
These are very important responsibilities. The minister and his officials have been thinking about the problems which we will face in the future. A very interesting and important paper was presented by Mr. J. W. MacNeill, director of policy research in the department, at a meeting in Washington. I shall quote from that paper because the author deals very well with some of the problems which Canada will face:
-Canada Is now one of the most highly urbanized countries in the world-
-73 per cent of the Canadian population was urban in 1966. By 1981 this proportion is projected to rise to 85 per cent and by 2000 to 94 per cent-
-within 30 years more than half the population of Canada- some 16 million people-will be resident in 21 centres stretching along the St. Lawrence lowlands from Windsor to Quebec City.
This being the case, the minister and his officials must realize what is happening in terms of urbanization of this country. I am completely astounded and constantly amazed at the lack of concern the federal government has shown about what is happening. In the largest cities in Canada we are permitting, and the minister is encouraging by his lack of action, municipalities to dump almost all or most of their waste into rivers fronting or running through them, with virtually no treatment. What is the federal government doing about this situation? Almost nothing.
The Sixth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada, entitled "Perspective 1975" deals with this question. It states that the following cities have virtually no facilities for the treatment of sewage being dumped into rivers or the sea: St. John's, 100 per cent no treatment; Dartmouth-Halifax, 99 per cent no treatment; Quebec city, 100 per cent no treatment; Montreal, 91.6 per cent no treatment; Windsor, 85 per cent no treatment; Saskatoon, 93 per cent no treatment; Vancouver, 59 per cent no treatment; Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, 98.9 per cent no treatment.


An hon. Member:: What about Toronto?


David Orlikow: Toronto is doing somewhat better, no thanks to the federal government. For a considerable time the citizens of Toronto have been trying to meet the problem. This also applies to my city of Winnipeg. What is happening around the capital of this country, Ottawa? In the 80 miles between Ottawa and the mouth of the Ottawa River, near Montreal, there are 14 communities which are pouring raw sewage into the Ottawa River, ten in Quebec and four in Ontario. I am not going to deal with the pulp and paper plants because the minister stated that they have a program and timetable. I will take his word for it. I think, however, that they should speed up the timetable. The minister stated that within seven years it is expected that even the old pulp and
paper plants will have installed the kind of equipment which will end the dumping of effluents into the rivers.
c (9:50 p.m.)	.
The minister has said not a word about the problem of the cities and, particularly, of sewage disposal. Ottawa only takes care of 30 per cent of its sewage; 70 per cent is dumped into the river virtually raw. The city of Hull, with a population of 57,000 people, has no facilities for sewage treatment. I have already mentioned Montreal. I put these facts on record not because I am critical of the cities-no one living in any city in Canada can fail to notice how his taxes go up year by year-


Mr. Whelan:: May I ask the hon. member a question? How recent are his figures?


David Orlikow: I said these appeared in the sixth annual report of the Economic Council. That was published probably last year or the year before.


Eugene Whelan: I know that the city of Windsor last year turned one part of the city into a treatment plan.


David Orlikow: Then I congratulate Windsor, but I would be interested to know how the figure I quoted for Windsor of 91 per cent untreated sewage has been reduced. I am sure that a substantial majority still goes untreated. It is not that the municipalities are unaware of the problem. On March 3, 1970, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities made a submission to the Commons committee which was then discussing the water act. The submission shows clearly that they recognize their fault and they came to the federal government for help. I quote a few sentences from that submission:
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities recognizes that to make such a massive co-operative effort successful-
They are talking about sewage treatment systems in Canada.
-municipalities will be called upon to assume many responsibilities, to make many important adjustments in their programs and methods of operation and, in many cases, to alter their scales of priorities for spending.
There is little doubt among municipalities that the primary creative role in combating air and water pollution should be assumed by the provinces.
The brief went on to say:
Federal involvement, through fiscal, technical and resarch assistance and, ultimately, through punitive sanctions, seems absolutely essential to effective planning and enforcement in any region in Canada.
I do not have time to quote further from the submission, but it is clear from the few passages I have placed on record that the cities of Canada know what the problems are. What they are looking for now is leadership and meaningful assistance from the federal government.


An hon. Member:: You mean money.

February 4, 1971


David Orlikow: Yes, they are looking for money. I say that in 1971 to have a city the size of Montreal, a city of 2.5 million people, dumping its sewage untreated into the St. Lawrence River is a disgrace. And what has Ottawa done about it? Nothing. Ottawa has said: We have $75 million a year available for all of Canada but if you want to hold the Olympic games we will give you substantial financial help. It is circuses instead of bread. I would take the government more seriously if instead of the fine phrases we get from them they were to show real concern by putting up the money required.
The minister has told us that in seven years he expects the pulp and paper mills to have cleaned up the pollution they have created over the years. I wish he could get up and say that within twice seven years or three times seven years the cities of Canada will have been required, forced by law and helped by the federal government to end the disgraceful practice of dumping raw sewage into the rivers and lakes of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Question.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say on this clause.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Randolph Harding: It is anything but a filibuster. Clause 5 is very important.


Mr. Deakon:: We all know that.


Randolph Harding: I should like to read the clause:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister of the environment extend to and include all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to-
Then follows a long list of the items with which the new department will be concerned. In my opinion there are several gaps in this program. The most important concerns our Arctic areas, 40 per cent of Canada's territory.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on January 13, as reported at page 2369 of Hansard, I
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
asked the minister in charge of the Wheat Board the following question:
In view of representations by representatives of the farm organizations concerning the storage of the six major grains, can the minister say whether or not the government has decided to share the cost of storage of some basic amount of these six major grains, or whether the government is at least considering such a policy?
The minister replied that discussions were going on with the producers about many things-I did not ask him about many things-but that it was not his intention to speculate on the results of the discussions until a full announcement could be made. I chose to discuss the matter on this occasion because I hope that the minister will reconsider what seems to me to be a position on which he has already made up his mind. It seems to me that the minister gave me a non-answer, one that many in the House, and more importantly the members of farm organizations, feel indicates conclusively not only that the government is going to cancel its program of sharing with the producers the storage costs of wheat but that his mind is closed on this and other similar measures.
With this type of stubbornness and arrogance the minister continues to ignore basic principles and minimal fundamentals that apply to agriculture, specifically-in this case-to western grain farmers. He offers not the slightest acknowledgement or even shows an awareness of the fact that, in fairness if nothing else, the Prairie grain farmer is entitled to treatment and benefits that are at least equal to those the government feels justified in providing to other sectors of the economy, sectors that are not nearly so basic to our economy.
The government to which the minister belongs feels it is fair and proper to pay up to $120 million to store and stockpile uranium, to pay millions of dollars to support our gold mines or to pay millions to subsidize the railroads, but that somehow it is bad for the nation to share with the Prairie grain farmers the cost of storing a reasonable inventory of grain. In his proposal-and had the minister proposed in this way to a lady he would have been a born loser-the minister states that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would be abolished. This is an item that has cost the federal government an average of $41 million a year since 1956. By abolishing this measure the minister-I suspect in agreement with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), if not at his urging- will then have funds to pay most, if not all, of what he might need to put into what he calls the grain income stabilization fund.
This means that little or no new federal money will go into the western grain industry, particularly after the current crop year. In other words, the minister can be a hero to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance by using money already provided for a different purpose, getting the federal government off the hook so far as participating to a greater extent in the assistance of western agriculture is concerned. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act gave proper recognition to the principle that the country as a whole has a responsi-

February 4, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion bility to bear a fair share of storing an inventory of wheat, as is the case with gold. That act is not perfect; I think the minister as well as I would agree that there are inadequacies in it. But at least it took account of the benefit to the nation as a whole of maintaining an inventory of "on ship" or "en route to on ship" loading of western wheat.
Public responsibility for sharing the cost of storing this grain recognized the benefits to the nation as a whole of grain exports, as well as what it does for our foreign exchange position, for enabling our importers to have new avenues of trade with other nations and for the nation in the eyes of other countries, particularly those who buy our wheat. The minister can choose not to consider my views or those of my colleagues and I would not blame him for that. After all, we are members of the New Democratic Party and he is a Liberal. I can understand that, accept it and even forgive him for it. But he ignores at his peril and at the peril of agriculture the spokesmen of those organizations which represent farmers. They unanimously opposed the abolition of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I quote Mr. Ted Turner, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, as follows:
-that some of the cost of grain storage is a public responsibility. Producers reject any move to eliminate that principle from national agricultural policy.
I ask the minister to reconsider, because I think he has made up his mind to abolish national participation in sharing the cost of grain storage. I suggest he will never find disagreement in me or farm organizations if he retains this principle and brings in new legislation that will provide a cost-sharing program for the storage of a reasonable amount of all six grains.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question the hon. member has raised was originally pinned to the question of a program of paying for storage, but he touched on a number of issues at the same time. One thing which is clear in the proposals that have been made, and upon which further discussions are to take place, is that the government's financial commitment to the grain industry is being significantly increased by the new form of action. This is due in no small measure to the fact that you will not find stronger advocates for the case of justice for the grain farmer than you find today in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and other Liberal members from the Prairies who have been supporting the farmers so stongly.
The hon. member asks about farm representation. I say to him that when I put to farm organizations the question whether they are simply asking that more money be paid or whether they really want a storage program, they admit each and every one that it is the former rather than the latter in which they are interested. If the Wheat Board, for instance, were to pay for on-farm storage, and therefore the final price to the farmer would be lower, they would no longer be interested in such a program.
This simply turns us back once again to the fundamental and broad argument about whether it is right for the
treasury to pay for the support of the grain industry. As I think our proposal indicates, our commitment in this regard has and is increasing, due in large measure to the stalwart support for the grain farmer of the Liberal members in this House.



AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUATION OF FEED GRAIN FREIGHT ASSISTANCE

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, as recorded at page 2892 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) the following question:
Could the hon. gentlemen indicate whether feed grain freight assistance will be continued, as requested at the meeting this week of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?
The minister replied:
-early last summer we indicated that the rates in effect now will continue until the end of this fiscal year. Of course, in the new fiscal year we will have to bring estimates before the House for the appropriation of funds for the levels we set for that year.
I then asked:
I wonder whether the minister would tell me whether he said yes to me or whether he said no.
That is the purpose of my exercise at this time. This question is probably the most serious one to face agriculture in my part of Canada, and I make no apology for raising this matter at least once a year and for having this enjoyable debate during the "late show". There is suspicion among the farmers of the Atlantic area, and I think among others as well, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is trying to axe this program. I think the farmers also suspect that the Minister of Agriculture is a doughty proponent of the program, and I hope he will be able to hang in there and see that his colleague does not exercise what would be ridiculous and dangerous parsimony.
I have been talking to people who attended the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, some of them being in the chicken business in Nova Scotia. Of course, chicken is one food that has not changed very much in price over the last few years. Enormous quantities are being produced now and dispensed to the public by such people as Colonel Sanders, Chubby Chicken, and the like. I asked the suppliers of this chicken whether they were getting greater returns for it: the cost must have gone up, so how on earth could they stay in the chicken business? After a long pause one of the most successful ones in Nova Scotia replied, "Well, it must be the feed grain freight assistance that made the difference between having a chicken farm that operates at a profit and one that would have operated at a loss". So it is frightfully important to the livestock industry in Halifax-East Hants and the adjoining farming communities in Nova Scotia.
I think the minister will recognize that it is important that these people receive an answer to the question, if only so that they may plan ahead. Who wants to be

February 4, 1971

ordering extra livestock if suddenly the animals are going to be eating the head off the farmer because the assistance program is not forthcoming or is watered down? I think the minister will recognize the merit in my bringing the question before him at this time. The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, in its position paper regarding the report of the federal task force on agriculture, made some points with regard to this problem. I quote from page 6 of this document as follows:
We are amazed over the fact that no mention was made of the transportation problems, especially in the maritime region. Factors such as railway tariffs, transportation facilities, access to markets and systems of agreed charges are the root cause of many problems. A special study should be undertaken to look into this matter and recommendations made for the solution to these problems.
On the following page this statement is made, and perhaps it is a misprint:
We must take great exception to the recommendation that the feed freight assistance program be disconinued by August 1, 1970.
This document was put out on November 1, 1970, so I am at a loss to understand why that particular date appears where it does. In any event, they make the point that Nova Scotia is only 20 per cent self-sufficient in feed grain production, most of which is oats: there is also some barley and mixed grains. They say, "The prospect of self-sufficiency by 1980 is a far removed dream". So I ask the Minister of Agriculture to take that message to the Minister of Finance and tell him to put it in his pipe and smoke it. We are not likely to become self-sufficient in this area, commendable or attractive as that objective might appear to be.
We are one country. In the west we have farmers who are growing grain and doing their darndest to find somebody to buy it. In the east we have farmers who for their livestock or chicken industries desperately need foodstuffs. So I suggest, what is more obvious and practical than to bring the supply to the demand and thus bring health to agriculture at both ends of Canada? Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture two questions. Will the program continue after March 31, 1971? If so, at what level? That is, will the formula be the same?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to question the hon. member's right to bring this matter before the House of Commons and to request or demand a reply. However, I do not believe he should purport to be the spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I am aware of the motions that they accepted and the ones they defeated. I understand they are going to put them in a brief which will be submitted to cabinet. It will be presented by that organization very shortly to the cabinet. However, I want to make it very clear that as yet we have not received that brief based on the resolutions which were accepted and defeated at the recent convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The hon. member is demanding a yes or no answer. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in many cases-this is
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion one of them-the most accurate answer cannot be either a categoric yes or no because quite obviously there are anomalies that creep into the system, changes in the freight rates in various zones from one year to the next, and it is our intention in consultation with the farm organizations to review them and adjust them accordingly. I can say to the hon. member that there will be a feed freight assistance program after the end of March 31, 1971. He wants to know how and at what level the expenditures will be. I think he is asking a question that he knows I cannot answer. We have to bring these estimates to Parliament about April 1, at the beginning of the new fiscal year, and when that new fiscal year starts we generally make an announcement of what the rates will be.
Last year, during the course of the year, because of apprehension about the task force's recommendations, we announced that we were prepared to carry on the rates at the existing level to the end of this fiscal year. This year, if we can make the announcement early in the new fiscal year we will do so because it is useful for farmers to have that information.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-ALBERTA-ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITY FOR DINOSAUR AREA

Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in raising this matter tonight is in recognition of the fact that on some matters it is impossible to get governments to act, particularly where more than one level of government is involved, except through arousing public opinion. While I realize that within the four walls of this chamber tonight there is not present a very large segment of the Canadian public, nevertheless I hope to make a contribution to the resolving of the issue.
The record of Hansard will show that on January 13 last I sought unanimous consent of the House to move a motion which, if passed, would have resulted in the repatriation to the public realm of the areas of Wood Buffalo National Park alienated under timber lease agreements. In my introductory preface to the motion I indicated that what was going on in that national park was a complete negation of the basic terms of the national parks trust, and that it was incompatible with the general administration of national parks in Canada. As a matter of fact, what precipitated my decision to move that motion which, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, did not get the unanimous consent of the House, was the story which appeared in that day's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail, a Canadian Press story which was headlined, "National Park Being Stripped-Forester Says", the forester being one of the people involved in the administration in Alberta of the national parks.
Since that time I have seen a rather interesting cartoon depicting the buffalo trying to graze around in a sea of stumps. The implication was that this was not a very satisfactory habitat for wood buffalo. As a follow-up to that and as a result of the report of the attempt to have that motion dealt with in the House, a statement was issued by officials of the parks branch here in Ottawa to the effect that among other things the parks branch did
February 4, 1971

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not have the kind of money that would be necessary to repatriate these areas which were under timber lease. It mentioned that they had spent money buying out timber leases in Jasper and Banff National Parks. As a followup, I asked a question of the minister which Your Honour thought should be placed on the Order Paper. In Hansard this rather ambiguous heading appears over the question, "Alberta-Establishment of facility in dinosaur area".


An hon. Member:: That refers to Liberals.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That heading does not explain what kind of facility is meant. An hon. member near me has made a remark agout the kind of dinosaur in Alberta that I perhaps had in mind. However, Mr. Speaker, the question is a serious one and I was not altogether ignorant of what was involved when I asked it. As a matter of fact, the minister had an opportunity or replying as a result of a related question asked by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He pointed out that timber is being cut in Wood Buffalo park and went on to say, as reported at page 2447 of Hansard:
-we are presently negotiating with the government of Alberta to establish new limits, as far as Wood Buffalo park is concerned, which would enable us to obtain in exchange the areas where dinosaurs are still to be found, in Alberta.
I think the minister's statement was a little ambiguous. I am sure members of the House realize that we were talking about rare dinosaur bones and not about living and roaming dinosaurs. The point at issue is this: When are the two governments going to get together and really do something about this matter? I remind the House that on April 23 of last year a minister of the Alberta government, Hon. A. O. Fimrite, appeared before the committee and presented a brief. He was questioned by the members of the Northern Affairs Committee on the subject. I refer to the issue of April 23. At page 12:42 Mr. Fimrite explains one section of the brief which says this:
If Wood Buffalo Park was fulfilling the function of a national park, matters would be much different, as a viable national park would be served by road or rail and significant facilities would exist to serve the visiting public. The operation of a national park similar in scope and attractiveness to either Banff or Jasper would be a substantial asset to the province. Such, however, is not the case.
He went on to say that not all national parks have the same kinds of attractions. He continued:
I would give as an example the Dinosaur Park in Alberta in which the federal government has indicated an interest for an exchange with Wood Buffalo park. The provincial government is prepared to consider this suggestion because this area does lend itself for a park of a type which would be the only area in Canada with this particular attraction.
This was said last April, almost one year ago, yet the other day in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) said that the government is negotiating with the government of Alberta. I know that discussions between the two governments went on for a long time before the minister of the Alberta government made that statement before the committee. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, in Wood Buffalo park there is a basic violation with respect to national parks trust.
I suggest it is time the two governments got together, reached agreement and established new national parks in the province of Alberta. They should redefine the Wood Buffalo park's areas so that if there is logging in some areas it will be done under management and conservation arrangements and under the law of the province of Alberta.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help feeling that I am in an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere tonight. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was somewhat vilified in the questions asked by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I did not have the opportunity of responding to their questions. However, I now have the opportunity to respond to a question.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) devoted approximately 80 per cent of his time to timber operations in Wood Buffalo National Park. The question on the adjournment debate is the establishment of a dinosaur park in the province of Alberta. I am very pleased to have the opportunity on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) to respond to this very important question affecting the province of Alberta.
The desirability of including Dinosaur provincial park in the national parks system has been discussed with the province of Alberta since 1963. A joint federal-provincial survey of the area in June, 1966, confirmed that the scenic and scientific values are sufficiently significant to warrant designating this area as a national park. This area is reputed to be the richest bed of dinosaur fossils in North America, with well over 200 finds since the first fossil was found in 1912. The exposure of a large portion of the Oldman geologic formation in this area has resulted in an extensive example of badland topography. Within this park the prairie vegetation gives way to a dry vegetation type, providing a unique combination of plants and animals not portrayed in any national park of Canada.
Acquisition is directly connected with federal-provincial discussions on Wood Buffalo National Park. Alberta has requested the release of all Wood Buffalo Natioal Park lands in the province to permit resource exploitation. Successive federal administrations have rejected this request but have expressed a willingness to consider an exchange of some lands in Wood Buffalo for other areas of high quality in the province. This exchange would not necessarily be on an acre-for-acre basis. It is

February 4, 1971

an express condition that national park values in Wood Buffalo be retained within any reduced boundaries.
The federal position was reiterated by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the provincial minister responsible, Hon. J. Donovan Ross, at a meeting with him in March, 1970. At that time Dr. Ross
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
was asked to submit a proposal indicating the lands within Wood Buffalo of interest to them and which could form the basis for an exchange of lands. That proposal has not yet been received.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Friday, February 5, 1971