1971-03-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) may I lay on the table of the House, in both official languages, copies of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances which was adopted by the United Nations Conference at the conclusion of its work a few days ago in Vienna.
In view of the pending final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Canada did not sign the convention. However, it is hoped that at some future date hon. members will have the opportunity to discuss the advisability of signing and ratifying this important document.
As hon. members are aware, the conference was called to provide the international community with a legal instrument for the effective control of psychotropic substances, including hallucinogens, stimulants and depressants, which are being increasingly used and abused in many parts of the world. Hon. members will be pleased to hear that the Canadian delegation took an active part in the development of the convention.
I will not attempt to summarize the document in detail. However, I wish to point out that the main thrust of the convention is toward international recognition of the need for rigorous measures to restrict the use of psychotropic substances to legitimate purposes. The convention, however, recognizes that the use of these substances is indispensable for medical and scientific purposes, and that their availability for legitimate use should not be unduly restricted.
In general, the convention envisages levels of control similar to those already in effect in Canada. It was for this reason that the Canadian delegation was able to make such an effective contribution to the work of the conference which led to the development of this important international legal instrument.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I agree it would hardly be appropriate for Canada to sign the convention at this stage in view of the commission now inquiring into the use and regulation of the use of drugs in this country.
The minister indicated that the regulations set forth in the protocol are very similar to those in effect in Canada.
23966-30J

March 1, 1971
Grain Payments
However, I express the hope that the Canadian authorities will make as certain as possible that we in this country co-operate fully in regulating the international traffic in drugs because we have a great interest in this matter. There must be many measures that the government of Canada can take, if it is not already taking them, in line with the protocol to reduce the traffic without in any way prejudicing the decision that this Parliament may ultimately make with regard to any recommendations of the Le Dain commission.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfieldl) lin commending the government for taking the position of not signing this convention until we receive the final report of the Le Dain commission and are able to act on its recommendations. From a quick glance I am glad to see that marijuana is not included in the list of drugs which are to be restricted. It is pretty obvious that marijuana is not a drug like the others.
If and when we extend the program to restrict the use of psychotropic substances, I hope we will recognize the fact that attempts by Canada and other countries to restrict their use have been marked by almost complete failure in this field. We should pay a good deal more attention to developing educational programs so that people who have been using these drugs will recognize the real dangers and difficulties that can arise.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INITIAL PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS FOR 1971-72 CROP YEAR

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I wish to inform the House of the level of initial

payments for wheat, barley and oats which will become effective for purchases by the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop year beginning August 1, 1971. For wheat, the basic grade for the new crop year will be the new grade, No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring Wheat, which will replace the present grades of No. 1 Hard and No.l and No. 2 Northern. The initial payment for No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring Wheat for the 1971-72 crop year will be $1.46 per bushel. This is the same as the initial payment for No. 2 Northern in the present crop year.
The initial payment for No. 2 Canada Western Six Row Barley will be 91 cents per bushel, the same level as in effect from August 1 to March 1 of the present crop year.
The initial payment for No. 2 Canada Western Oats will be 60 cents per bushel, the same as the initial payment for the present crop year.
All initial payments are basis in store, Thunder Bay. This early announcement is part of our effort to give the maximum amount of information to producers prior to seeding time.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, western Canada will of course welcome any type of announcement with regard to at least the initial payments on the three major grains which are under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.
The other day, however, in releasing the quota arrangements which will go into effect, the department stated that each farmer would have to assign certain fixed acreages for the coming crop year. I note that in the statement released today certain total volumes of wheat, barley and oats are shown and the Wheat Board has indicated it will take in approximately 388 million bushels of wheat, 230 million bushels of barley and 45 million bushels of oats. It is difficult for a farmer to assign any particular acreage if he does not know what the delivery quota will be on a bushel per acre basis. We have a situation in which we have two unknowns and only one known up until now. We cannot figure out an algebraic formula in which there are two unknowns and only one known and come up with a correct answer.
Unless the government is ready at this particular time to indicate what it means in terms of bushels per acre the announcements to date do not make too much sense. Farmers may feel that they have sufficient grain for a six-bushel delivery quota, but if more farmers take advantage of the 388 million bushels of wheat that will be taken in they may find themselves in the position of facing a four-bushel quota and as a result will lose some of their assignable acreage.
The 388 million bushels that the Wheat Board has indicated will be taken in does not fulfil the initial promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the government would set its sights on a total of approximately 1,200 million bushels of wheat to be sold over a three-year period. In addition to the price of wheat being lowered, reflecting a comparison with No. 2 wheat last
March 1, 1971

year, the price of barley is again lowered to the level it was prior to March 1. Even although from March 1 to the end of the current crop year the government seems to be providing some incentive to farmers to make deliveries, I suggest the lowering of the price offers no inducement to them to do so next year.
The announcement also indicates that the government is somewhat reluctant to provide incentives to farmers to produce feed grain, a commodity that we sadly lack in terms of the export market. There was also one other indication-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize how important is the matter to which the hon. member is referring at the present time, but the hon. member knows, as the House knows, that the rule requires that a brief statement be made in reply to a statement made by a minister. It is never easy for the Chair to determine what "brief" is; all this is so relative. However, I would think that the hon. member should try to bring his statement to a close.


Stanley James Korchinski: In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that statement also indicates how hard it is for our farmers to reach a high income position. Having once suffered a slump in world markets and lost some of these markets, a long, hard road faces the farmers on the journey back to the position they were in three or four years ago.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, what the minister's statement means to the western grain farmer is that not only will the initial price of wheat not be increased but it will in fact drop some four cents a bushel, and barley will be at the same level. I think this assessment is a fair reflection of the questions that have been put to the minister repeatedly during the last week or two about the International Grains Arrangement. As a result of the failure of the price negotiations, I think the government's announcement is an indication of what our farmers can look forward to in the international market in terms of price.
What the lowering of the initial price of wheat by four cents a bushel and the restoration of the initial price of barley to its previous level, with the exception of a small increase of ten cents in the current crop year, means to the farmers is that a really tough competitive position is facing them in the export market in the coming crop year. We should have liked the minister to state clearly in the extra information he gave just how competitive we can expect the export market to be. Certain volumes of wheat and barley have been mentioned, but we do not know just how tough we will have to be in competing with the United States, which according to United States Department of Agriculture reports is increasing acreages of corn, sorghum, barley and spring wheat this year. For example, they are projecting an increase of some 17 per cent for spring wheat. This means we have not received any co-operation in cutting down on acreage and that we are going to be in a tough, competitive market. The real question the farmers are asking is, are they going to get volume.
We still do not know what will be the outcome of the minister's proposed stabilization program. Perhaps he is
Grain Payments
still negotiating with the farm organizations to see whether they will accept all or part of what he has put before them. Does this delay in any announcement regarding the stabilization program indicate a lack of acceptance by farmers and farm organizations in western Canada? These are questions which are left unanswered by the minister's statement today. We still have to await the outcome of the talks he is having to find out what the government's price stabilization program is really going to be.
I welcome his announcement today on initial prices as it will at least give the farmers a clear indication of where they are going.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Prairie farmers will have been especially encouraged-if I can use that word-during the last week in February, because for the second time, a minister has announced amendments to the initial prices to be paid for grain, provided of course that it is stored in Thunder Bay.
Previously, it had been announced that an amount of $40 million would be allotted to a program aimed at encouraging western farmers to devote themselves to fodder growing.
I must say that in eastern Canada, there is an exceedingly serious problem. During the weekend, farmers and agricultural organizations have again made to me representations to the effect that they are still encountering difficulties in obtaining feed grain and that prices are constantly increasing.
Even though prices might be somewhat higher in the East, I hope the western farmers will benefit by it, although it seems from the statements I have just heard that it will not be so.
In any event, I would again ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to see to it that the eastern farmers are able to get feed grain at better conditions, by increasing grants to transportation if necessary, because at the present time many hog, broiler and even egg producers are on the verge of bankruptcy. We seem to be heading towards utter confusion.
Over the weekend I heard that the Quebec Minister of Agriculture wanted to built a slaughter-house in the Quebec area so as to encourage the farmers who had to give up dairy production to switch to hog production; grants would be paid to them, so that the land that was used for the production of fodder could now serve for the production of grain, thus enabling them to feed their pigs at lower cost.
In the West, farmers are told to stop growing grain and to grow fodder. In the East, they are told to do the opposite. And that, in the same country.
Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary to come to an agreement, to sit down and seriously discuss, in one and the same country, the best programs to be carried out, in order to ensure to both the eastern and the western farmers, better conditions and their fair share of the national revenue.

March 1, 1971
Questions



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-226, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (Housewives' contributions and benefits).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable housewives to make contributions and collect benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. Since many housewives spend part of their careers working in industry as well as working at home, they should be permitted to continue their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan while at home to ensure them a full pension at retiring age. The bill recognizes the equal importance of work performed at home with the work performed in industry and provides housewives with the same pension opportunities.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Chair puts the question, I think I should bring to the attention of the House the explanatory note attached to the bill. I am informed this has not been looked at by the law branch and there might be some procedural difficulties in connection with the bill in respect of the extent that it is in conformity with the explanatory note. However, this might be a bit unfair to the hon. member since the motion has already been put to some extent to the House. The Chair wifi look at the matter and confer later with the hon. member for Waterloo.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: I insist again that this bill, which has now been read the first time, will appear on the order paper subject to the caution to which I have just referred.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Brewin: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to ensure that the Crown corporation, Polymer, withdraw all its investments and cease any technological or other agreements which it has with South African companies or concerns?

2.	Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to give consideration to abrogate the 1932 Trade Agreement embodying the exchange of preferential tariff entries between Canada and South Africa?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government of Canada that it cease the expenditure of public funds to promote trade and investment in Southern Africa, by the withdrawal of Canadian Trade Commissioners in South Africa and the cessation of a variety of other government services which presently promote commercial relationship with Southern Africa?
4.	Is it the intention of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to continue to make appeals to Canadian investors and traders to take advantage of the opportunities in South Africa in their publication Foreign Trade?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to indicate to Canadian companies investing in South Africa that such investments are made without the support of the federal government?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government of Canada not to participate whatsoever in the building or equipping of the Ca-bora Bassa Dam in Mozambique?
7.	Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to discourage investment and deny export credit guarantees to Canadian firms wishing to invest in Namibia?
8.	Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to provide financial, technical and medical assistance to the various African liberation movements to the United Nations or to the Organization of African Unity?
9.	Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to extend the ban on military sales to Portugal and to South Africa, to include the sale of spare and replacement parts for military equipment and for piston and jet engines?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliameniary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed as follows: 1. See answer to Question No. 59, Hansard, January 11, 1971, page 2250.
2.	There is no intention at present on the part of the Government of Canada to give consideration to the abrogation of the 1932 Canada-South Africa Trade Agreement which provides for the exchange of tariff preferences between our two countries.
3.	The Government's recent announcement in the House on November 2nd stating our support for the July 1970 U.N. Resolution extending the arms embargo against South Africa included the statement quote in complying with the recent U.N. Resolution on this subject, the Government does not intend that normal trade with South Africa in goods for civilian use should be affected unquote. There is no intention therefore that normal trade promotional activity vis-a-vis South Africa should be discontinued.
4.	See answer (3) above.
5.	Under the guidelines established by the Government for investment outside of Canada and the U.S.A. by Canadian incorporated companies, other than financial institutions, South Africa is included in a group of countries in respect to which companies are asked to exercise restraint in embarking on new investment undertakings which involve capital transfers or other forms of financing from Canada or the United States, and to give priori-
March 1, 1971

ty to investment which will contribute importantly to improvement in Canadian trade and payments. Within the terms of these guidelines Canadian non-financial companies are free to invest in South Africa on the basis of normal commercial considerations.
6.	The Government of Canada is not participating in the building or equipping of the Cabora Bassa Dam in Mozambique.
7.	Canada supports the U.N. position that South Africa has no legal jurisdiction over Namibia. No approaches have been made to the Government requesting financial assistance for potential investments in Namibia.
8.	In the past, the Canadian Government has made contributions to the United Nations Education and Training Programme for Southern Africa and to the United Nations Trust Fund. The Government has also provided scholarships for study in Canada for a number of students from Namibia, and has supported the Commonwealth program to provide education for refugees from Rhodesia. Continued support to efforts to provide educational facilities for refugees from southern Africa is planned. The Government has no plans to provide assistance to the various African liberation movements or to the Organization of African Unity.
9.	The Secretary of State for External Affairs announced in the House on November 2nd the Government's decision to terminate the sale of spare and replacement parts for piston and jet engines for use by military or paramilitary organizations in South Africa. The Canadian Government has not permitted the export to Portugal or the territories under Portuguese administration, of any aircraft, aircraft engines, and parts, etc., which in the Canadian Government's judgment would be used for military purposes in the Portuguese overseas territories.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the years 1967, 1968, 1969, how many clerks and other staff were employed by the Wheat Board for the purpose of issuing permit books?
2.	In the present crop year, how many clerks and other staff were employed for the purpose of issuing permit books?
3.	How much was charged to the Lift program for the additional cost of issuing permit books?
4.	From 1967, to the present, how many permit books have been issued?
5.	What was the total cultivated acreage in each year to the present since 1967?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. 1967, 80; 1968, 90; 1969, 82. These figures indicate the maximum staff employed during the peak period for issuance of permit books, approximately June-September of each year. In other months of the year the number is about 30 per month.
2.	For 1970 the number of personnel employed during the peak period as follows: June, 80; July, 150; August, 144; September, 79.
Questions
3.	Nil as at November 24th, 1970.
4.	1967, 192,057; 1968, 190,606; 1969, 190,004; 1970, 181,778 (as at November 24th, 1970).
5.	1967, 80,053,225; 1968, 87,699,796; 1969, 89,346,321; 1970, 87,923,710.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-MAN-HOURS SAVED AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Justice during each year since computers have been used?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1968, 13,000; 1969, 26,000; 1970, 26,000.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-CHANGES IN PERSONNEL AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Justice, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


John Napier Turner: (a) None; (b) six.


TELESAT CANADA-COMMON CARRIERS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	(a) What are the names of the government approved telecommunications common carriers involved in Telesat Canada (b) where is each located (c) who are the directors of each company (d) how many shares are held by individuals, directors and/or officers of each company?
2.	Of the 2,000,000 common shares in Telesat Canada Corporation, what proportion of shares will be open to the public and will the public be allowed to purchase such at the preferred rate of issue to the companies of $10.00 per share?
3.	What are the conditions, if any, attached to the common shares without nominal or par value?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: 1.
By way of a general remark, it should be noted that Telesat Canada is a private commercial firm in which the Government is a shareholder; it is not a Crown corporation. Consequently, some of the information here is supplied voluntarily by the management of the corporation. Other items, it will be noted, come from the Act of Parliament which created the corporation. Here is the information requested:
(a), (b) The approved telecommunications common carriers involved in the corporation are those listed in Annex A of the Telesat Canada Act: Alberta Government Telephone, Edmonton, Alberta, Bell Canada, Montreal, Quebec, British Columbia Telephone Company, Vancouver 2, British Columbia, Canadian National Railways Company, Montreal, Quebec, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Montreal, Quebec, The Island Telephone Co. Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Co. Ltd.; Manitoba Telephone System, Winnipeg 10, Manitoba, New Brunswick Telephone Co. Ltd., Saint John, New Brunswick; The Newfoundland Telephone Company, (formerly the Avalon) St. John's, Newfound-

March 1, 1971
Questions
land; Ontario Northland Transpotration Commission, North Bay, Ontario, Quebec-Telephone, Rimouski, Quebec, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Regina, Saskatchewan. (c) Up-to-date list of directors available from organizations listed above, (d) None. The shares are held in the names of the telecommunication common carriers.
2.	No. None of the two million shares subscribed for by the approved telecommunications carriers and the Government of Canada on December 17, 1970, was available to the public. This issue represented the first one third of the total allotment of shares to the Government and the approved telecommunications common carriers, (a) The president of Telesat informs me that the board of directors intends to recommend issuing shares representing approximately one-third equity in the corporation. These are to be offered to the public. No decision as to the timing of this offering has yet been made and the whole question is under constant review with the corporation's financial advisers. Approval by the Governor-inCouncil will be required for such an issue, (b) The value of the shares offered to the public will be set in the normal manner at the time of offering.
3.	The conditions pertaining to the ownership of common shares in Telesat Canada are set out in the Telesat Canada Act, of 1969.


TELESAT CANADA-DEVELOPMENT OF LAND STATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 768
Mr. Blouin:: During the first stage of the development of land facilities for the domestic communications system through Telesat Canada, does the government plan to build 35 land stations and, if so (a) where will they be located (b) how much will each cost (c) when are operations expected to begin?


Eric William Kierans: The government does not plan to build any part of the domestic satellite communications system to be owned and operated by Telesat Canada, which is a private commercial corporation and not a Crown corporation. Such decisions are the prerogative of the management of the corporation. For this reason I would urge Members to address such questions, in the future, to the corporation. The president will be glad to provide the information. In this instance Telesat Canada has informed me that it has invited proposals for the construction of an initial baseline system of 35 earth stations. Ten companies have responded to this request and their proposals are currently being evaluated by Telesat Canada, (a) The baseline system currently calls for two Heavy Route (HR) stations at Allan Park, north of Toronto, and Lake Cowichan, north of Victoria, (B.C.); one Telemetry, Tracking and Command (TT&C) station, at Allan Park; six Network Television stations (NTV) near Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland; two Northern Telecommunications stations (NTS) at Frobisher and Resolute, and 25 Remote Television stations at 25 Northern communities. The number and location of the stations in this baseline system were developed in conjunction with the corporation's present
customers. This baseline will be reviewed as customers' requirements are finalized and is subject to change, (b) Telesat is currently evaluating the proposals submitted by the competing potential contractors, and is not at this time prepared to make public the anticipated costs of the initial earth station complex, (c) Assuming a successful launch of the first satellite late in 1972, commercial operations are expected to begin early in 1973.


CRIMINAL CODE-BREATHALIZER AMENDMENTS
Mr. Robinson: With regard to the Criminal Code amendments concerning the breathalizer, will the government advise if an approved container has been developed and, if not (a) is research continuing for such a container (b) will the government consider the advisability of removing Section 223 of the Criminal Code until such time as a satisfactory container is developed?


John Napier Turner: (a) Research on the development of such a container is being carried out by the National Research Council at the request of the Minister of Justice, (b) No useful purpose would be served by introducing legislation for the purpose of removing section 223 from the Criminal Code until a satisfactory container is developed. Section 223 is essential to the practical operation of the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to drinking and driving.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS
Mr. MacRae: How many Canadian citizens were drawing unemployment insurance on January 29, 1971 and approximately how many of those people are now employed?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Statistics on the number of Canadian citizens drawing unemployment insurance benefit at the end of January 1971 will be published by DBS in their "Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act" near the end of March.


POST OFFICE-CHRISTMAS STAMPS, 1970
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many Christmas stamps were printed in 1970 in (a) 5-eent denominations (b) 6-cent denominations?
2.	How many of each denomination have been sold?
3.	What will be the disposition of the remainder of the stamps?
4.	What was the total cost of production of the 1970 Christmas stamps?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.
(a) 232,800,000; (b) 141,900,000.
2. Exact quantities cannot be provided without a costly survey of all Post Offices. However, it is estimated that the following percentages were sold prior to January 1, 1971: 5 cents, 91 per cent; 6 cents, 99 per cent.

:* *


m

March 1, 1971

3.	Broken lots are to be sold until depleted. Any remaining surplus stocks are to be introduced for sale prior to Christmas 1971.
4.	$161,500 including the 10 cent and 15 cent Christmas stamps.


BIRD SANCTUARIES
Mr. Robinson: How many bird sanctuaries are there in Canada (a) where is each located (b) what is the size of each (c) what species of birds are protected in each (d) how much is the cost to the federal government to maintain each sanctuary?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: (a) and (b) There are 96 areas which have been declared bird sanctuaries under the Migratory Birds Sanctuary Regulations. A list of these can be found in the Migratory Birds Sanctuary Regulations which also show the location and area of each sanctuary. Copies of these regulations can be obtained from the Canadian Wildlife Service, (c) Several species of birds are protected in each sanctuary depending on location. In general, ducks, geese, swans and shore birds are protected in the sanctuaries in the Northwest Territories. Colony nesting sea birds such as gannets, puffins, murres and auks are protected in sanctuaries in coastal areas, (d) With the exception of the sanctuaries in the Northwest Territories which are Crown-owned most of the sanctuaries are privately-owned. It does not cost the federal government anything to maintain each sanctuary.


PUBLIC WORKS-BUILD LEASE POST OFFICES
Mr. Peddle: 1.	Who is the owner of the new building presently under construction at Happy Valley, Labrador for use by the Post Office Department?
2.	Who is the owner of the new building presently under construction at Goose Bay for use by the Post Office Department?
3.	How long is the lease period and what yearly rental is payable in each case?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The
owner is Loc Ranco Ltd. who was the lowest tenderer on the build-lease contract for a Post Office building at Happy Valley, Labrador.
2.	The owner is Loc Ranco Ltd. who was the lowest tenderer on the build-lease contract for a Post Office building at Goose Bay, Labrador.
3.	Happy Valley, 10 years at $16,224 per annum. Goose Bay, 10 years at $19,698 per annum.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?
Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: (a) Nil; (b) 51 per cent; (c) nil; (d) nil; (e) 49 per cent (grant to ACEF); (f) nil.


PRIVY COUNCIL-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Privy Council Office is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programmes (f) hiring of additional employees?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: (a) Nil; (b) nil; (c) 10.3 per cent; (d) nil; (e) 69.0 per cent; (f) 20.7 per cent.


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Communications is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programmes (f) hiring of additional employees?


Eric William Kierans: The Department of Communications did not submit supplementary estimates for 1970-71.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 968
Mr. Robinson:: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programmes (f) hiring of additional employees?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) nil;
(b) 25 per cent; (c) 64 per cent; (d) nil; (e) 11 per cent; (f) nil.


CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION-APPOINTMENT OF DR. LOUIS TOUCHETTE
Mr. MacRae: What is the war service of Dr. Louis Touchette, who was appointed to the Canadian Pension Commission on February 10. 1971?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Dr. Touchette, a former medical officer at Ste. Foy Veterans Hospital, did not serve in the armed forces of Canada.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern

March 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Development (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a) nil; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Reid: 1.	How many food service outlets are in operation in government-owned and/or occupied buildings in the National Capital area?
2.	What were total sales in these outlets in 1969?
3.	What is government policy respecting the operation of such outlets?
4.	Does the policy apply to all government departments, including, for example, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of National Health and Welfare?
5.	When calling for tenders of food services, do the specifications cover the cost of equipment, utilities, and maintenance?
6.	Is the successful bidder obliged to operate according to a pricing policy laid down by the government?
7.	Does the government provide inspection services to ensure proper handling of food and care of equipment?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L, Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with the presentation this morning by the Canadian Labour Congress and the discussion which must have been very wide-ranging. In view of the contents of the brief of the CLC, did the government discuss with the representatives of the Can-dian Labour Congress the possibility of a program of voluntary restraints in the future as part of an anti-inflationary program and, if so, under what conditions the CLC would be prepared to consider or discuss such a program of voluntary restraints?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I merely raised the question that we may have another cycle, and undoubtedly will, in the future where inflation becomes a serious problem, and I said the government would be interested in having their views with regard to
policies to be adopted by government, business and labour in such conditions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it that the minister did not press the subject this morning. I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to pursue the matter of achieving a voluntary incomes or voluntary restraints policy in view of the experience in other countries that this sometimes can be achieved when inflationary pressures are not severe whereas it may fail when inflationary pressures are severe. Does the minister intend to pursue this or can we assume that it is a dead issue?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would expect the Canadian Labour Congress would pay the same attention to our request to them as we would to their submission to us.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister, now that the policy of the government is to expand the economy, whether he now intends to mount defences against inflation, or is it the intention of the government to rely upon compulsory controls in the event of new inflationary pressures in the future, or does the government intend to rely once more on the policy it used last year of deliberately creating unemployment in order to eliminate inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government did not follow a policy of deliberately creating unemployment last year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: The Prime Minister said it did. Six per cent is what he said would be acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. Thomas S. Barneil (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on a matter of emergency which is causing widespread concern on the Pacific coast. Normally I would address it to the Minister of Transport but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Prime Minister. I may say I was in touch with the office of the Minister of Transport on Friday after news of this event reached Ottawa. Can the Prime Minister report to the House on the nature and extent of the mass of heavy oil moving onto the shore of Vancouver Island's west coast in the vicinity of our new national park, and can he advise what steps are being taken by the Department of Transport or by any other agency to effect a clean-up?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have no report on this. I will direct the attention of the Minister of Transport to the situation.

March 1, 1971

;[ Translation]



CRIMINAL CODE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice concerning abolition of capital punishment.
As is well-known, the suspension of capital punishment is to expire during the course of 1972, and Parliament will have to decide whether the suspension is to be extended or whether capital punishment is to be re-introduced. Does the Minister of Justice intend to consider the re-introduction of capital punishment in 1972?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question concerning 1972. There are still ten months to go before we are in 1972.
I am under the impression that the question has already been put. If the hon. member could rephrase his question, I would gladly allow the minister to reply.



INITIAL PRICES FOR 1971-72 CROP YEAR-TAKING UP OF POSSIBLE POOL LOSSES BY GOVERNMENT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It has to do with the statement he made this afternoon concerning grain prices. In view of the possibility of international competition of a fire-sale nature in wheat and possibly other grain products, if the intial prices that have been set out by him result in a loss in the pools will the government of Canada take up that loss or is it the plan to pass it on to the farmer in the ensuing year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, while I should like to say again that we do not share the gloom and doom of the right hon. gentleman, I would add that the whole question of the initial payments in the pools is one which is part of our other proposals, to which hon. members have referred, on which discussions are coming to a conclusion and upon which I hope to be able to make a statement to the House or present the necessary legislation before long.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as gloom is concerned, it is all over western Canada because of the failure of the minister to act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the right hon. gentleman kindly ask the supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, ministers should not have the right to make these gratuitous statements and then the opposition be denied the right to reply.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has the floor for the purpose of asking a supplementary question. I invite him to ask the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask the minister whether or not it is the intention of the government to pass on any losses that take place in the pools to the farmers in the ensuing year. Is he prepared to answer that or must we stay in gloom throughout western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: I think I answered that exact question earlier by saying that it was a part of our proposals which deal with the question of losses on any pools, and that this has been a matter which has been undergoing discussion and upon which we will make a further statement in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: So the farmers will be taken in again.



WHEAT-INITIAL PRICE FOR 1971-72 CROP YEAR AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION-PROPOSED STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask the
minister whether the decrease in the initial price of wheat announced a few minutes ago indicates the government's assessment of the competition and the price cutting they are going to meet in the international market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member no doubt refers to the initial price proposed from August 1, for wheat. He will have noted that the $1.46 proposed is exactly the same price as the initial price for the No. 2 grade at present, and the No. 2 grade as it is now known will constitute the greatest quantity of wheat in the ordinary course entering into the stream under the new grade of No. 1 Canada western. It is true, of course, that the Wheat Board will be in a position with the new grading system to sell wheat on the basis of some protein differentiations. This is the tremendous advantage from the new grades, but it is not yet possible at this time to distinguish between the protein gradings at the producers' level, and it is for this reason-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I take it that the minister does not really choose to answer the question I asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: All right, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the announcement today on initial prices for the coming year and the announcement a few days ago of the new quota provision indicate that the minister has not been able to obtain agreement on the proposed stabilization program and that all or part of it has been or is about to be abandoned?


Otto Emil Lang: It certainly does not indicate either of those things. What we are doing is moving forward with various parts of the proposals which we made initially, and

March 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
particularly with those parts which we had hoped to have in place by March 1. Further statements, proposals and legislation in regard to the stabilization plan will be forthcoming before long.



INITIAL PRICES FOR 1971-72 CROP YEAR-INDICATION OF QUOTAS PRIOR TO SEEDING

Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether he has any intention of indicating what the number of bushels per specified acre might be prior to the commencement of seeding of each particular grain?


Otto Emil Lang: In the newsletter which is being mailed beginning today to all the permitholders within the region we have indicated the amounts of the various grains which we expect to be taken in on a minimum basis from producers during the course of the next year, and accordingly certain minimum figure calculations for the quota which will be available on these various grains in the crop year 1971-72.


Stanley James Korchinski: We have had similar situations in other years when all the amounts indicated have not been taken in. Would this be cumulative for another year in order that the quotas delivered may be levelled off?


Otto Emil Lang: Not only is that question hypothetical but I do not expect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LACK OF INTERNATIONAL PRICE AGREEMENT-SUGGESTED BILATERAL ARRANGEMENT WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: This is a related question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since no floor or ceiling prices were established at the recent IGA conference held at Geneva and in view of the serious position in which this places the Canadian grain industry, would the minister, in company with one or two other cabinet ministers, arrange a meeting with their United States counterparts at the earliest date possible with a view to arriving at some form of bilateral agreement not to commence a price war on grain, a matter of very grave concern to Canadian grain farmers generally at the present time?


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure that that particular form of meeting would be desirable at present. Of course we are attempting to maintain the maximum amount of co-operation in regard to orderly pricing in the world, and I may say that some of our producer organizations, in order to pursue the same objective, have some contract with producer organizations in other countries, and that may indeed be a fruitful technique.



WHEAT-REASSIGNMENT OF QUOTA ACREAGES IF CONDITIONS WARRANT

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: My question is for the
minister in charge of the Wheat Board. With regard to
the new quota system announced by the Canadian Wheat Board last week, can the minister assure the House and the farmers that provision will be made for reassignment of quota acreages if conditions on individual farms warrant such changes? May I add that I was pleased at the earlier response to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot add that he is pleased.


Otto Emil Lang: I understand it is the hope of the Canadian Wheat Board to take a look at specific cases where some supervening difficulty arises with the original assignment in order to cope with special cases.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementary questions. We will have to go on to another subject in a moment. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw followed by the hon. member for Athabasca and then try to return to the hon. member for Regina East in a moment.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON PLANS TO CONSOLIDATE FARM UNITS PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION OF STABILIZATION PROPOSALS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the minister's concern that farmers have the most precise information possible in deciding what they should seed, will the minister now provide information to producers as to what the plans are in so far as the consolidation of farm units to a more efficient size is concerned before he brings in his stabilization plan?


Otto Emil Lang: The question with regard to appropriate procedures for assisting farmers in particularly difficult situations will require a lot of discussion with the provinces and producers before the plan can go forward. From the point of view of the individual producers, one thing they can be assured of is that it will basically depend on their choice as to what particular form of assistance they want, and there will be no imposition upon them from the government.



WHEAT-INITIATIVES TO REACH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON PRICES

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is for the
minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Will the minister, by way of a statement on motions, indicate what new initiatives Canada is taking in an attempt to reach an agreement on international wheat prices to ensure that a price war does not follow the present failure to reach an agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that this kind of information should not be given at this time. The minister might want to indicate whether or not he proposes to make a statement on motions.

March 1, 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Whereas some unemployed workers who have been entitled to withdraw unemployment insurance benefit for the past two months have not been paid this benefit and whereas the Commission's staff in Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres are doing a great job, is the hon. minister thinking about having the Montreal computer repaired since it appears to be responsible for all the errors that occur?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the intention of the department to take steps to inform prospective Canadian immigrants who are temporarily resident in Canada that they have no need to employ or pay private immigration consultants to assist them in making an application to the department, and to make it clear that such services are available free of charge from the department and, I dare say, also from Members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot dare say anything.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the department does attempt to make it clear to immigrants that advice is available from the department and also from Members of Parliament. I will look at the question of whether this is adequate in view of all the current circumstances to see if I can give the hon. member an assurance of further steps on our part.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday I asked the Minister of Justice a question of which his parliamentary secretary took notice, and I also gave verbal notice today. Have he or his officials been asked to consider any ways and means of reducing or limiting the liability of the province of Quebec for payment for the services of the armed forces which were sent in and stationed there during the crisis last fall, in spite of the clear and strict provision of the National
Inquiries of the Ministry
Defence Act which applies, as indicated by the Minister of National Defence last Thursday?


Hon.   John. N. Turner@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that I will do my best to ensure that the legal interests of the government of Canada are upheld. The Chair has always taken the position that there is a privilege in this House for legal advice given by the office of the Attorney General to the Crown and, although I stand to be corrected, I believe that privilege not only goes to the substance of the legal advice but also to the legal advice sought.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the minister is wrong. This may be a reason for the government to refuse information, but that has nothing to do with procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the minister, I would not dream of asking him for legal advice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: 

INCOME TAX


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if he could confirm to the House that he intends to introduce the tax changes the government has in mind by way of an amending bill? If so, does he intend to proceed under Rule 61, or does he intend to present a budget first to explain the changes?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know yet.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister stating a matter of government policy this morning in the session with the Canadian Labour Congress when he rejected 3 per cent unemployment as a national average as too low a level at which to aim?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, hardly government policy, Mr. Speaker. It would be desirable if there were no unemployment at all in Canada. When we talk of 3 per cent, and I believe the CLC talked about considerably less-they said 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent-these are goals, but I imagine they too would rather see zero unemployment than 1.2 per cent

March 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
unemployment. I do not think it is their policy to hope for 1.5 per cent unemployment. In discussing this matter we were simply trying to point out the difficulties of having an average across Canada say of 3 per cent, which would mean very high inflationary pressure in some areas of Canada which might have something less than 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent unemployment.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can we gather from his answer that the government is prepared to tolerate or define full employment in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec as 5 per cent or 6 per cent unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One would have to be very misguided to gather that, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. A week or two ago I asked him a couple of questions with respect to the number of people whose unemployment insurance had run out, and also the number of people who were collecting unemployment insurance and welfare simultaneously. Has he those replies today?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the time that these were very statistical matters. We are gathering the statistics and as soon as they are available they will be tabled.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the millions of dollars that are being directed toward the establishment of new or expanded industry in specific areas of Canada, can the minister indicate today if there are restrictions imposed to safeguard the government's financial involvement, and if many of these new ventures will not be abandoned directly after the government's financial concessions no longer apply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is of very wide scope. I wonder if it can be asked or whether the Chair should allow the minister to reply to a question which is so general in its

terms. If the hon. member were to make it more specific it would be easier for the Chair to allow the question to be asked.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, in view of the expressed interest in this matter perhaps in rephrasing my question I might ask the minister whether at an early date he would attempt to make a statement on motions outlining the government's position in screening companies that have expressed an interest in taking advantage of these grants, and indicating the safeguards that the government proposes in order to assure that the investment will be of a somewhat permanent nature?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to find an opportunity to answer this question properly.



MANPOWER


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It relates to a question I have asked the right hon. gentleman in the past, and also relates to remarks reportedly made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration last weekend. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to announce what plans the government has for student employment during the summer months? I draw his attention to the fact that in six weeks time students will be on the labour market, and I ask the question particularly in view of the remarks reportedly made by the Minister of Manpower in the west last weekend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question. He has invited the Prime Minister or someone on behalf of the government to make a statement of a general nature. Someone on behalf of the government might indicate whether such a statement is going to be made at the time such statements can be made.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do plan to make such a statement. I hope it will be fairly soon. But the House will realize that much of this action will at least partly involve provincial action, and it is necessary in some instances to get the response of the provinces to some of the programs we propose before actually announcing them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the remarks reportedly made by the Minister of Manpower that only resourceful students would be able to get employment during the summer, is the government planning a more extensive program than has been indicated by the minister?
March 1, 1971



ALLOTMENT OF MONEY TO CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY COUNCIL OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Has the government appropriated any money for the conference on the Transient Youth Service sponsored by the Canadian Council of Social Development, and will delegates be sent to this conference, which is scheduled to be held two weeks from now?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am not
aware that any grant whatsoever has been allotted to this conference, Mr. Speaker. And I do not know either whether government representatives will be invited.

BIRTH CONTROI___REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PROGRAM



TO PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the Canadian Unitarian finding that of 41 hospitals surveyed across Canada only two have family planning clinics, will the minister make an early statement on the progress of his program to prevent unwanted pregnancies by birth control measures, as recommended by the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to consider making such a statement.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It concerns a subject with which we dealt on Friday. In view of the international increase in the crime of hijacking commercial passenger aircraft, and in view of the Vancouver incident, is it the minister's idea to bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with the crime of air piracy?


John Napier Turner: I think that would be a very useful idea, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister consider discussing with the United States authorities whether the extradition agreement between Canada and the United States
Inquiries of the Ministry
covers this situation, and would he indicate whether the American now held in custody in Vancouver is being held for the crime of air piracy or for breaking the regulations of the Immigration Act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that in the current circumstances that remains to be tested by any application that is made under the extradition treaty between the United States and Canada but, as the hon. member knows, there have been recent discussions internationally to the effect of attempting to incorporate air piracy, or unlawful interference with an aircraft in flight, within international treaties on extradition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister advise the House under what law or on what grounds this particular American is held in custody in Vancouver? Is it a charge under the Criminal Code, or a charge under the regulations in reference to immigration?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that what is technically called a "further examination" under the Immigration Act is now being conducted.



LABOUR RELATIONS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour of which I have given him notice. Has the minister looked into the report of the summary dismissal of three senior executives of Local 2309 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers at the Noranda company, Montreal, on February 3 as a result of a labour dispute between the company and the union?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman's courtesy in giving me advance notice of the question. I have been informed that the collective agreement provides for a grievance procedure and possibly the problem will be settled at the arbitration stage.	-j


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the continued escalation of what the Secretary General of the United Nations has described as the most monstrous war in history, has the government recently made any representations to the United States government as to the desirability, in the interests of the whole world, of a withdrawal of United States troops from Indo-China?

March 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on each occasion that I have met with the Secretary of State of the United States he has discussed with me the program of the United States for the withdrawal of troops from Viet Nam, and I have been wholeheartedly in favour.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice respecting the application of the War Measures Act when there was an apprehended insurrection in Quebec.
A Belgian lawyer, Mrs. Nicole Dreyfus, commissioned by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, recently made a report to the organization in which she is accusing the Quebec and the federal governments.
Could the minister tell the House whether this organization is recognized as a bona fide and worthy international organization?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question is in order under its present form. However, if the minister feels that he can answer the question of the hon. member for Shefford, he is free to do so.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Walerloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since leading medical experts throughout the world continue to emphasize the health hazards of cigarette smoking, and as it is almost two years since a committee report suggested legislation with regard to this matter, to which priority was given in the last Speech from the Throne, when will the government bring forward the legislation suggested in the report of the committee which made such a thorough study of this whole question?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we hope to do so shortly. It is also our hope that we shall have the co-operation of the opposition parties in dealing with the matter with speed and facility.


William Marvin Howe: Since recent surveys continue to indicate a great variation in the amount of deleterious material in different brands of cigarettes, will the legislation contain powers to regulate the quantities of tar and nicotine allowed in all cigarettes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's statement is in the form of a representation for consideration by the government.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, while this matter is under consideration, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare discuss with his colleague, in this case the Minister of Transport, I presume, the question of the necessity of Air Canada regulations which require people to smoke cigarettes, if they are to smoke at all?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Having in mind the high level of unemployment among our young people today and also the high level of pollution across the country, will the minister consider the employment of youth power this summer to combat pollution and reduce unemployment?



WAR MEASURES ACT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the appearance of the Canadian Labour Congress before the cabinet and the Prime Minister's reiteration of his position that the proclamation of the War Measures Act related basically to the requests of provincial and municipal governments. In view of this oft-stated position of the Prime Minister, can we expect him or the Minister of Justice to introduce an amendment which will alter the terms under which the present War Measures Act is normally instituted so that this will in effect become the precedent for future use of the Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to move such an amendment, when we come to discuss the issue I will see whether I will support it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister prefers to play games with my question rather than answering.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would indicate whether this is actually the position of the government. Will this precedent be established in law or simply regarded as an effective precedent for other provincial or municipal gov-

March 1, 1971

ernments which in future circumstances may wish to make a similar request?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting any amendment of that kind. It is the hon. member who suggested such an amendment. Therefore I was not playing games with him. I might add-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.



SUMMER GAMES, BRITISH COLUMBIA-INCLUSION OF PADDLING

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister now in a position to indicate whether Canadian paddlers will be included in the summer games this summer?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, may I indicate to the hon. member that owing to his representations and those of others, representations are being made to the Canada Games Committee in New Westminster in this connection, but that I have not heard the result yet.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the creek that the government is up without a paddle?



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister considering enlarging the scope of the Canada Pension Plan to enable housewives to continue making contributions toward a full pension?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the white paper put forward many constructive suggestions for improving the Canada Pension Plan. We are discussing these with the provinces and interested parties, and are prepared to consider the representations of the National Council of Women, as well as representations made by the royal commission. We have not come to any conclusions with respect to them yet.



REPRESENTATIONS BY MENNONITES

['We shall see how well the minister does.']
William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is supplementary to that of the hon. member for Waterloo. Since the question of the Canada Pension Plan has been opened up, may I ask if the Mennonites were given the chance to make representa-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tions to any bodies with a view to further discussing the Canada Pension Plan, as they have asked so many times?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Mennonites have asked many times to make representations and have been given the right to make representations. They have been listened to most carefully. I do not think they agreed with the result, but that is a different matter. It is now open to them, as it is to other groups in our society, to make representations now that the question has been opened up for discussions with the provinces. The government has decided that constructive changes are to be made and has invited groups such as the Mennonites and other interested parties to make representations.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the interest of strengthening our ties with the Commonwealth Caribbean and, as a reciprocal gesture, can the minister indicate if the government plans the early establishment of a Canadian diplomatic mission in Barbados?
Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate of External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the opening of a mission in Barbados is on my list; I hope it is on that of Treasury Board, too.


Mr. McCleave:: I will drink to that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, when the minister settles down, I will ask him a supplementary question. During the minister's tour, will he be announcing the date for the opening of a mission in Zambia in view of the strategic location of that country in Southern Africa?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for supporting another of my applications.


Mr. Fairwealher:: We shall see how well the minister does.



BILINGUALISM


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. It arises out of the language policy announced by the Minister of National Defence on Friday. Is his department prepared to assist municipalities such as Halifax and Dartmouth,

March 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
which may have to bear additional education costs placed on them by this new policy?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite see what additional expenses the hon. member refers to, but I know that in bilingualism matters all the money paid to municipalities, as well as to school boards, is channelled through the provincial education departments.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the time delay factor with regard to any programs that the minister may have to cope with unemployment, and since many workers will no longer be able to draw unemployment insurance benefits as of May 15, and may have to go on welfare, is the minister considering extending beyond May 15 the provision of seasonal benefits?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the only tangible thing that I can announce is that we are bringing our new legislation before the House very soon.



CYCLAMATES-COMPENSATION TO FOOD PROCESSORS FOR LOSSES CAUSED BY BAN

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is part of a series dealing with cyclamates and is prompted by questions by the hon. member for Simcoe North over the past few weeks. The banning of cycla-mates in diet foods last April has caused severe financial hardship for some of the processors. Since other additives may be banned at any time on the ground they are dangerous or adulterative, is the government giving consideration to compensation for such losses to processors who previous to last April acted in accordance with the food and drug regulations?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the government has given consideration to representations of this kind. However, upon analysis one can see the tremendous cost that might be involved in such a program. It is a virtual impossibility to undertake such a program. The firms involved should be aware that if new technology shows something is harmful that is a risk they have to incur.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The Chair should recognize the ion. member for Matane.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the current food and drug regulations continue to allow cyclamate sweeteners to be sold over the counter with inadequate content labelling and without warning but ban the identical substance from being incorporated in food, has the minister any plans to end this discrimination or else ban cyclamate completely from public sale?


John Carr Munro: Without at all agreeing with the conclusions to which the hon. member has referred, a few days ago I indicated I will be making a statement on this matter. I shall do so.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
I would like to tell him that during the cross-country trip of the Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, it was noticed that at many airports-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask a question. He cannot make a statement to the House, nor to the Prime Minister.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he could issue instructions to his colleagues of the various departments to put up bilingual plates on the federal buildings across the country-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question of the Prime Minister in the form of a suggestion. He must assume that it will be taken into consideration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Following the presentation of the Canadian Labour Congress this morning, does the minister propose to recommend to the government any additional measures to stimulate employment and the economy? I ask this question in view of the charge made by the CLC that, on the basis of present policies, unemployment may continue for years.


Edgar John Benson: If there are any changes in government policy they will be announced in the House.

March 1, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before Your Honour puts the amendment, I wish Your Honour's advice. There is an error in the English text at page 25 of the bill. This clause was amended in committee. Standing Order 75(7) provides that an amendment in form may be made by a minister of the Crown to a government bill. I am wondering whether something should be done by a minister of the Crown with respect to line 11 becoming line 10 of this government bill, or can the error be corrected some other way?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member this is essentially a clerical error which can be easily corrected. We will take the hon. member's suggestion into account and the correction will be made accordingly.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That Bill C-2. to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be. amended by inserting the following in Clause 2 immediately after line 18 at page 1:
"(d) "discharge" includes, but not so as to limit its meaning, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, sifting or dumping."
and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is very simple, and I do not intend to speak on it at great length. This amendment merely defines the word "discharge".
The side note to clause 7 of the bill, as reprinted and reported from the committee, simply reads "Discharges of Pollutants". The word "discharge" appears five times in that clause. I move this amendment because the word "discharge" is not defined in the definition section or anywhere else in the bill. I intended to move this amendment in committee because several people were interested in this definition. We know what happened. The bill went through clause by clause on a day when I was not present in committee.
As I mentioned, the word "discharge" is not defined in section 736, the definition section of the Act. I realize that the oil pollution prevention regulations in Canada define the word "discharge", but it is not a very accurate definition for our purposes. In the oil pollution prevention regulations, the word "discharge" is defined as:
"discharge" in relation to a pollutant means any discharge or escape howsoever caused or occurring.
My amendment follows the wording of the United States water quality improvement act passed April 3, 1970. According to the act, "discharge" includes but is not limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping. This definition is better than
Canada Shipping Act
the one proposed in our oil pollution prevention regulations. On that basis, with some alterations, I move this amendment. Although this is a very minor amendment, the word "discharge" should be clearly defined so that we will know exactly what is meant. If the government does not like my definition, or prefers its own definition of the word "discharge', I submit an amendment should be brought in so Canadian ship owners or cargo owners may know exactly what is meant. Many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed the desire that a definition be included in the bill. I am glad to see the minister here this afternoon. The bulk of the department's evidence before the committee was given by Mr. Macgillivray, Director of Marine Regulations Branch. For a while he was unwilling to accept many changes in the minister's absence; this was probably the reason the definition for which I am asking has not been included.
I realize the measure has to be a strong one. The minister has indicated time and time again that the department is taking a tough line. In these circumstances, it is only fair we should let the companies know exactly what is in store for them. The bill is of great concern to international interests as well as to purely Canadian concerns. Certain countries, particularly Scandinavian countries and Britain, have, I understand, expressed some concern about the terms of the bill. It is important, therefore, that the standards set must be clearly set out before the legislation becomes operative.
I am sure that had I been present on the day the committee discussed this particular clause the government would have accepted the amendment I have put forward. I trust the government will do so now, or, if not, at least insert some definition of the word "discharge".


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: have no quarrel with the case put forward by the hon. member. Indeed, even his definition is quite acceptable as far as I can see, with the possible exception of the word "sifting". We found it difficult to know how one could identify this action in terms of a shipping operation; perhaps the word "throwing" might be more appropriate. Apart from that, the amendment is acceptable.
I am not sure how we should proceed. If the hon. member is willing to substitute "throwing" for "sifting" there is no objection to the amendment on my part.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I am so amazed, I will accept anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment should be put in the terms suggested by the hon. member for Southwestern Nova (Mr. Comeau)?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, Mr. Speaker, it should be changed to conform with the wishes of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who has objected to one word in it and suggested another. This change is acceptable to us. I presume my hon. friend will now ask for unanimous consent to amend his amendment. It could then be put in the altered form.

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would indicate whether this is correct, and in which way he suggests amending the motion proposed by the hon. member.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is merely a matter of substituting the word "throwing" for the word "sifting".


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to amending the hon. member's motion as suggested by the Minister of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will be put to the House as amended.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Since the minister has been so ready to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southwestern Nova (Mr. Co-meau), I shall not belabour the point. I had read the proposed amendment carefully. I thought it was a good proposal and one which would likely have been agreed to had it been put forward during the committee stage. I am happy the hon. member for Southwestern Nova has put it forward. We can all agree to incorporate it into the bill.
Motion (Mr. Comeau) agreed to.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 2 standing in my name for a reason which I intend to give. It is quite simple. The motion was put down a week or so ago when I believed there would be a minister of the environment. Up to this point, there is no minister of the environment. There is, however, consideration being given to an amendment affecting the reorganization bill which would change the title of the minister of the environment to "Minister of Fisheries and the Environment". If this amendment were accepted, this motion in my name would be redundant, and I should therefore like to ask that it be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may withdraw his amendment with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I say at once that I had intended to propose an amendment to the proposed amendment. Frankly, I consider the argument which the hon. member has advanced in favour of withdrawing his amendment to be ill-founded. Because I think there is some element of value in what I assume to be the idea behind the hon. member's amendment, and since I do wish to propose a subamendment, I feel I should not give unanimous consent at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a seconder for his motion? Seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose).


Mark Willson Rose: It is what you might call a bi-partisan amendment.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I move:
That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be amended by inserting the following in Clause 2 immediately after line 20 at page 2:
"(g) "Minister", notwithstanding anything in any other Part, means the Minister of the Environment;" and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
As stated by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), this is a bi-partisan amendment. I suggest we consider the amendment in light of what took place in the committee of the whole the other day during the debate on the clean air bill. In response to a point of order raised at that time, Your Honour ruled that we were not prevented from including the expression "minister of the environment" in that bill by what had happened during debate on the government organization bill. I assume that the government is going ahead with its proposal, and if this amendment is accepted as well as the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East to the government organization bill, then I suspect a new amendment can be brought in at a later date.
We have been saying for some time that all matters relating to pollution control should be brought under the one roof. The minister who will be responsible for antipollution measures is the minister of the environment, whoever he may be. This amendment simply gives the new minister of the environment control over all legislation-excepting the Arctic waters bill-dealing with pollution control.
In this respect, it is consistent with what we have been arguing for some time. For over a year now we have been arguing that this be done. We made the point when we debated the Canada Water Act last year; we repeated it this year when studying various anti-pollution measures. However, the government, in the actions it has taken this year, has reversed its stand from the position it took when we discussed the Canada Water Act.
We do not dislike the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson); let me say that at the outset. We like the minister and think he will do a good job. On the other hand, we do think it essential that one minister be made responsible for all anti-pollution measures. At the present time there is a multiplicity of jurisdictions with regard to pollution control, and for this reason one minister should look after the interests of the environment.
The new minister should be responsible for controlling oil pollution, which is one of the greatest threats at the present time to the environment, especially the fishery. Since the new minister of the environment will have jurisdiction over the fishery and will be relieving the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of its jurisdiction over certain sections of water, it seems to me the prevention of oil pollution should also be made the responsibility of the minister of the environment. This is the reason for the amendment I have now proposed.
The new regulations pursuant to this new Canada Shipping Act will be made to apply to any fishing zones in Canada prescribed pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. This underlines my contention that the pollution control to which I referred should be

March 1, 1971

brought under one roof. Many of the departmental officials who will apply the legislation will be from the Department of Transport, but at the same time over-all jurisdiction over oil pollution in this context should, it seems to me, be within the department of the minister who protects the environment, and particularly the fisheries. Of greatest interests in this regard is the fishery. This bill makes provision respecting both the Atlantic and west coast fisheries, which are our greatest fishing resources, though it also applies to the Great Lakes as well. Since there must be very close liaison between the department of fisheries and the administrators of this new act, it seems to me that the minister of the environment should be responsible for both aspects.
Last year's throne speech was heralded with great fanfare as the anti-pollution throne speech because the government was proposing to set up a new department to protect the environment. For once, the government was going to start to tackle the pollution problem and to place responsibility upon one minister. I should like to know why the government does not wish the new minister of the environment to have complete control of all anti-pollution measures. I do not understand why the government excepts the Arctic waters anti-pollution bill that Parliament passed last year, because that measure also relates to pollution control. Although the government may have some explanation, it does seem to me that responsibility for controlling pollution should be with this new department. The interests of the fisheries are very much at stake here. The movement of oil, as well as the movement of other pollutants, must be very much in the mind of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). If the movement of pollutants, other than oil, is to be authorized this has to be a matter of concern. Last year the movement of phosphorus through Canadian waters was of great concern to the minister.
To be consistent with what our party has been trying to do, and what the government has been trying to do, it seems to me that all parties in the House should accept this amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the argument advanced by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) in support of his amendment was very much along the lines I expected. I find myself basically in agreement with the argument he has presented. I am sure Your Honour has heard my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), pursue the same theme in his speeches. The amendment I intend to propose will add additional words to the motion presented by the hon. member. Inasmuch as the amendment ends with the word "environment" I find myself very much tempted to add the words "and fisheries". This would be in line with what the hon. member had in mind when he suggested withdrawing his amendment. However, I thought I might be anticipating another debate, so should refrain from inserting these words at this point.
As the hon. member has suggested, the consequential changes arising from this proposed change of name might be dealt with at a later date. I do not intend to
Canada Shipping Act
repeat the arguments which have been advanced in support of this basic idea, but I do want to say at once that I am concerned with some of the implications of this amendment. If one examines the terms of the bill, which sets out the responsibilities of the new ministry of environment, he will agree that this amendment is a step in the direction some of us have been advocating. The minister of environment should have general jurisdiction or supervision over activities of the government which directly affect the environment, that is the taking of appropriate steps to prevent further pollution of that environment.
In most respects, the bill we have before us is primarily concerned with the matter of shipping and the construction of ships. It is concerned with the type of navigational equipment they will carry and the rules under which they will operate. For this reason, it does seem to me that any addition to the Canada Shipping Act most appropriately rests in the hands of our Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who generally has responsibility for administering this act. The fact that the thrust and purport of this bill is directed toward the prevention of pollution indicates the minister of environment should also have some authority at least to designate what levels of pollution will be acceptable for the purposes of this act and how pollutants will be defined. There are certain clauses of the bill which relate specifically to this aspect of the matter. They have to do with the carrying of oil and other pollutants in bulk cargoes.
It seems to me there is a happy point of compromise between the position set out in the bill, which would put the new part of the shipping act entirely under the minister's jurisdiction, and the position outlined by the member for South Western Nova in his amendment. If one were to follow through with the hon. member's argument, he would revert to the days when we had a department of marine and fisheries. In those days what is now the Department of Transport looked after shipping as well as fisheries. Surely, the hon. member does not want to revert to that situation. In this day and age I would not advocate this move, and I doubt very much if the minister, in view of his responsibilities regarding air transport, railways and a few other minor things like that, would welcome the idea of again having within his jurisdiction the department of fisheries.
I have sought to come up with something which separates the basically sound idea of the hon. member for South Western Nova and what to me seems to be the logic of having the Minister of Transport responsible for those things referred to in the bill. Therefore, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the semicolon following the word "Environment", and by inserting the words,
"for the purposes of Section 737, subsection (1) and Section 739, subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (m), and the Minister shall recommend to the Governor in Council any regulations proposed to be made pursuant thereto;"

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act The amendment would then read:
That Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be amended by inserting the following in Clause 2 immediately after line 20 at page 2:
"(g) 'Minister', notwithstanding anything in any other Part, means the Minister of the Environment for purposes of Section 737, subsection (1) and Section 739, subsection (1), paragraphs
(a)	and (m), and the Minister shall recommend to the Governor in Council any regulations proposed to be made pursuant thereto;" and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Let me take a moment to draw attention to the particular subsections I have in mind. Proposed section 737 is headed "Discharges of Pollutants". Proposed subsection (1) reads:
The Governor in Council may make regulations prohibiting the discharge from ships of any one or more pollutants specified in the regulations, except as thereby authorized, in any waters to which this Part applies and with respect to which those regulations are made applicable.
Proposed section 739(1) is fairly lengthy. It sets out the authorization for a number of regulations, most of which have entirely to do with the question of regulating of ships, that is the type of navigational equipment and so on they are required to carry. But paragraph (a) of subsection 1 provides that regulations may be made prescribing substances and classes of substances that are, for the purposes of this part, pollutants. It would seem to me that this part deals very specifically with an area of the responsibility of the proposed department of the environment. In practice under my proposal as I see it, if regulations are to be drafted the minister of the environment would have to say, before the draft is presented to the governor in council for enactment, that the regulations are in conformity with the general type of regulations we are developing to control pollutants. This department will have to decide what are pollutants under the terms of other acts whether the Fisheries Act, the Water Act or any of perhaps a number of other acts.
When we come to paragraph (m) of subsection (1), we find it provides that regulations are to be made for regulating and preventing the pollution of air by ships. Here, it would seem to me we are moving directly into an area of responsibility that is within the ambit of the proposed clean air bill. If the minister of the environment, as is proposed, is to be the responsible minister in respect of the administration of the clean air act, then here again is an area of responsibility which this legislation should properly allocate to the minister of the environment so that he will have a voice at some point prior to any administrative responsibility being turned over to the Minister of Transport.
It would seem to me that the proposal I have put forward represents a logical step in the legislative process to ensure that the will of Parliament, which has been referred to in many speeches made in this House, is emphasized at the present time. I believe there has been general support so far for the basic concept of the clean air bill, and indeed for the establishment of a department
of the environment no matter what the particular name might be. Therefore, I believe these proposals would be consistent with the wish expressed generally in Parliament as to the approach we should be taking and the concept which, in principle, now is obviously accepted by both sides of the House. It seems to me we should start tying in very specifically the responsibility of the minister of the environment, as it has been outlined in the proposals for the department, with the various acts which are to be under his administration. One of those acts should be this one which, while generally speaking is within the ambit of the administration of ships and the rules of navigation, ties in closely with the general question of helping to preserve an environment which is fit for us to live in.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as a point of academic interest which may come up later, I am wondering about the extent to which it is possible to amend a motion made at the report stage which involves the importation of what might be a completely new and foreign-and I use the word "foreign" advisedly-area of discussion. The motion moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) was designed to name the minister of the environment as the minister who would have jurisdiction under this particular part of the amended act. However, the amendment would extend this principle to provide that the minister of the environment, rather than the governor in council, may set regulations. I know we are in a very limited area in respect of which some time ago Your Honour did rule that the right to make an amendment to a motion at the report stage was there, but I believe it had to be exercised in such a way as to bring the amendment squarely within the four corners of the original motion. I raise this point because I think it might be of some interest in the future. I do not know whether Your Honour proposes to deal with it, but I thought I would bring my views to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member, of course, is of interest. As he said, some time ago, after the new rules were accepted by the House, a point was raised as to whether it was possible to amend a motion at the report stage. At that time, the Chair ruled it was possible to make such an amendment, but that amendments at this stage are subject to the same rules and limitations as amendments at other stages. I am not sure I can interpret the amendment proposed now by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) in the same way the hon. member does. My interpretation of the motion proposed by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) is that the minister, for the purposes of the Canada Shipping Act, would be the minister of the environment. The hon. member suggested this applied only to part IX. There could be an interesting legal question concerning what the minister of the environment, or whatever he may be called, should have jurisdiction over under the Canada Shipping Act.
It seems to me the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), from a procedural stand-
[Mr. Barnett.)
March 1, 1971

point, is very helpful because it indicates exactly what was in the motion presented by the hon. member for South Western Nova. I would think the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), as he says, perhaps is academic to some extent. There will always be some difficulty in determining what is acceptable by way of a proposed amendment to a motion moved at the report stage. It will never be easy to make such a decision. My colleagues at the table and I, during the months in which this rule has been in force, have tried to be as lenient as possible in respect of amendments proposed at the report stage. I believe we have accepted, debated and voted on some which were, I would think, even much more removed from the principle of the motion than this one would be.
I recognize the importance of the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River, but I do not think the matter should be pressed further. I have the impression that if the motion proposed by the hon. member for South Western Nova is in order, the one now proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is also in order. By way of academic consideration, it might be argued perhaps that the hon. member for South Western Nova was trying to go behind the bill and seeking to amend the original statute itself by modifying a clause which was not before us in this particular bill. But the amendment was accepted and procedurally was put to the House. I do not think at this stage the Chair should use this argument to throw out the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I think procedurally the amendment is properly before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would allow me to say just a word on the point that has just been under discussion. I realize I am a bit irregular in doing so because in fact the Chair has ruled, but I wonder if I could point out in defence of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) that the amendment he sought to make was to the new section 736 which is in a group of sections under part XIX, pollution, and that the interpretation section which he is seeking to amend applies only to part XIX. I think, in all fairness to the hon. member, that his attempt to define the minister was only for the purpose of part XIX, not for the purpose of the whole act. However, Your Honour has accepted this as in order, so we might go on to what my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) wishes to do, that is to narrow it still more, to make the minister of the environment the minister with respect only to certain sections that are in part XIX. But at any rate we all seem to be agreed that both amendments are in order, and I am sure that it is fortunate that the amendment of the hon. member for South Western Nova was put before the House so that we could have this valuable subamendment to it.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I say, for purposes of clarification, that I did not intend to suggest that the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had the effect of substituting the minister of the environment for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in the act. What I was
Canada Shipping Act
trying to point out was that I, personally, would like to see this motion widened. However, I wanted to have a ruling from Your Honour along those lines because the effect of the amendment now is to provide that the minister of the environment rather than the Governor in Council may make regulations. That is the point I wanted to make clear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It
has been a most interesting discussion and a very enlightening one in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Since we have spent so much time arguing about the legality or propriety of both the motion and the amendment, now that the matter has been resolved it pains me somewhat to say that, personally, I cannot accept either one of them. I understand fully and sympathize with the principle that has been espoused by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), that is the concept of having all pollution matters within some form of centralized control. I take it that the other hon. member who moved the amendment to the motion had something of the same nature in mind. However, it does seem to me that we do not do any offence to the basic concept of a centralized form of control if in a sense we separate it into two parts, that is those parts of the control which are exercised through legislative authority such as is contained in the various environmental bills, and second, the kind of co-ordinating authority which undoubtedly will be present in so far as this measure is concerned, as well as a great many more.
The proposal as put forward by the hon. member for South Western Nova is one we examined in great detail, that is the department under which this part of the act would be most appropriate. I can assure the hon. member

and indeed this was discussed at some length in committee-that the judgment we made was not one which reflected any proprietary interest on my part or any feeling that once having acquired some form of responsibility it would be sinful to dispose of it in any other way. It was a very practical judgment and one that I think is entirely defensible. This is a small but important part of the total responsibility for the administration and control of shipping, both in Canadian waters and as it applies to the hundreds of aspects of the Canada Shipping Act. It is perfectly clear that in terms of the sections with regard to pollution matters and the like, the expertise and the capability repose in the Department of Transport. It is also evident, I think, from events of the past year or so that we have quite the best capability that exists at the present time for dealing with pollution incidents of this kind. I would not want to argue that our capability is by any means 100 per cent, far from it. I have indicated on several occasions that there is a great deal more to be learned about this subject. Nevertheless, it is my judgment, supported I believe by the evidence, that this measure and the responsibility for carrying it out, rests best at this moment within the Department of Transport.
One or two other illustrations may help to reinforce my contention. For example, it is clear that the coastguard will have to play a major role in terms of carrying out these responsibilities. If there were to be divided

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
jurisdiction in the manner which the hon. member suggests, then it is conceivable that valuable time would be lost in the event of a pollution spill or something of that nature with which we had to cope.
I think the essential argument is that, comparatively speaking, this is a small part of the total Canada Shipping Act. This is not by any means a precedent, and indeed hon. members on all sides of the House agreed with proposals which I put forward some months ago and which were supported unanimously with regard, for example, to the emission of exhaust fumes from automobiles. The judgment of hon. members at that time was that even though this had major pollution overtones, nevertheless, because the Department of Transport was the principal agency with regard to the inspection of newly manufactured automobiles and the like, it was most appropriate that this particular provision with regard to the emission levels of exhaust from automobiles should remain within the Department of Transport. This was done, I repeat, with the unanimous agreement of members of the House who saw the logic of that situation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Would the hon. member wait until I have concluded? I will be happy to answer any questions he has at that time.
It seems to me there is a parallel within the present proposal. The new minister of the environment and I have consulted extensively already with regard to his role when it comes to the controlling of pollution as envisaged in this bill, and we have no doubt that it would be far more advisable to keep it within a single ministry, to make a single minister responsible in terms of the legal responsibilities as opposed to the co-ordinating role. That refers to the original motion.
As for the amendment to the motion, it is my sincere conviction that at this point in time it would complicate matters unduly. I am not altogether certain what would be achieved by it. I would assume that before any identification of pollution substances and the like is made, there would be consultation. In fact, I am quite sure that this would be so, but it would be just as reasonable to suggest that before the proposed minister of the environment, or whatever name hon. members wish to apply to that department, did anything, it should be a requirement that he consult with me. Of course, I think that this would be done in any event. I do not believe that the confining strictures which would be applied through this amendment would serve the purpose any better, and indeed would not serve it as well as the arrangement that we have in this bill.
So on this count, as well as many others that I could evoke, I fear that I have to reject both of the proposals. I will be glad to answer the question of the hon. member if he wishes to put it now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will not seek to debate my amendment again with the minister, although his last remarks were pertinent to it. What I would like to ask the minister is
whether he could check his memory, as I have checked mine, with reference to the question of emissions from motor vehicles to which he referred when we enacted that legislation. Is it not correct that when the House gave unanimous consent, as he said, to the idea enunciated there, we did not know we were going to have a proposal from the government for the establishment of a department of the environment with general responsibility in the pollution area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the hon. member means, did the House know the form of the measure, I suppose he is correct. But of course, it has been indicated for some considerable time that such a measure was coming forward in some form. But even if this were not so, my argument was not that, given those circumstances, there would have been a proposal that it go to the department of the environment. My point and contention are that the weight of the evidence presented at that time made it thoroughly logical that in terms of that particular measure, the responsibility more properly resided in the Department of Transport. I say that, regardless of whether there was a department of the environment in existence at that time or not, my point is that if, in fact, we have inspectors who are examining an automobile-to use a nautical expression more appropriate to this bill- from stem to stern, it makes a good deal of sense for the examination of the exhaust system to rest within a single department. I maintain the same is true in the present case.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the motion. All those in favour of the proposed amendment to the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I move:
That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be amended in Clause 2 thereof by deleting lines 15 to 31 inclusive at page 3 and substituting therefor:
"(2) Except where otherwise provided in this Part or in any regulation made thereunder, this Part and any regulations made thereunder apply
(a)	to all Canadian waters south of the sixtieth parallel of
north latitude;
(b)	to any fishing zones of Canada prescribed pursuant to
the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act;

March 1, 1971

(c)	to such additional waters south of the sixtieth parallel of north latitude and adjacent to the sea coasts of Canada as lie within a distance of one hundred nautical miles measured seaward from baselines or the outer limits of fishing zones prescribed pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, or from the nearest Canadian land where no such baselines or fishing zones have been prescribed, provided that this paragraph shall not apply where the Governor in Council has issued a list of co-ordinates pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act; and
(d)	to all ships in waters described in paragraphs (a) to (c)
This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is designed to deal with a very basic inadequacy in what generally speaking is a very good bill. It proposes that instead of administering the provisions of the bill for a distance 12 miles seaward from our coastlines, the jurisdiction of the administration be extended 100 miles seaward from our coastlines in all of the waters lying south of the sixtieth parallel. In other words, this measure would apply to those waters adjacent to the coasts of Canada that do not lie within the ambit of the Arctic Waters Pollution Control bill which we dealt with in the last session of Parliament.
I said generally speaking this is a very good bill. I think its passage through the standing committee would bear out my contention because there were quite a number of amendments that were generally agreed to in the committee and which were brought forward to this House at the report stage. This proposal of mine did not receive the endorsation of the majority of the committee members and, therefore, I bring it forward for the consideration of the House today.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Victoria Colonist of August 9, 1970 which has reference to the aftermath of a situation which developed in Active Pass. This is on the shipping route generally used by many of the vessels travelling between the port of Victoria, our capital city in British Columbia, and the Vancouver area. There was a collision in Active Pass between a Russian freighter and a vessel of the B.C. Ferry service, which resulted in very severe damage to the ferry. The ferry was out of service for quite some time for major repairs, and there was also loss of life. It was a serious accident, although I might say not as serious in the context of the bill which we have before us as it would have been if either one or both of the ships had been tankers carrying oil. The U.S.S.R. vessel was a general cargo one, and so no major question of pollution was involved.
I mention this clipping because it reports Federal Transport Minister Don Jamieson as saying that changes in navigation law would have to come before alterations in coastal routes and Vancouver Harbour approaches could be determined.
"We can't instruct a ship or tell a ship where to go under the present law", he said.
The lack in the law referred to by the minister at that time, in my view is the basic gap that the bill with which we are dealing is designed to close. While this bill is one of the more complicated bills that I have studied in committee, I think the essence of it is sound and the general principle is one which the House should support.
Canada Shipping Act
So, the area of debate raised by my amendment does not deal with the basic principle of the bill but with the question of the area of its jurisdiction.
I would suggest that in view of a couple of events, this proposal of mine is rather appropriately being discussed today. One is that this is about the time that our proclaimed fishing zones become operative. At least, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) issued a statement a little while ago that they would become operative as of the end of February. So, we are starting in somewhat of a new era so far as the area over which Canadian jurisdiction for pollution purposes, among other things, applies.


James Aloysius McGrath: It does not apply to the south coast of Newfoundland.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will leave it up to the hon. member to discuss that aspect of the matter, which he does very capably and about which he knows a great deal more than I do.
The second event which I suggest makes this discussion appropriate is that this is D-day in the province of British Columbia for the launching of a petition which it is hoped will secure one million signatures from residents of British Columbia and of the State of Washington in the U.S., protesting the proposed establishment of an oil tanker route from the State of Alaska through the Strait of Juan de Fuca to an oil refinery on the mainland of the continental U.S. This event, Mr. Speaker, fits in very well with the suggestion that has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that Canadians should speak out and express their concern about proposals of this kind. I suggest that I am providing the House with an opportunity to speak out on this sort of thing through the amendment that I am proposing.
Much has happened in this fast moving world of ours since the previous session of this House when we passed certain bills that impinge upon some areas of our concern respecting the future of the environment of the country. In the previous session we passed the first Arctic Waters Pollution Control bill and a bill amending the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act which extended our territorial sea to 12 miles from three miles and made possible the application of the fishing zones now in effect on our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Some of the things which have happened have highlighted the need for the kind of bill with which we are dealing. I am referring to certain events on the Atlantic coast at Chedabucto Bay. Much of the time of the committee was devoted to considering the implications arising from that disaster involving an oil tanker.
More recently there was a double tanker collision in the entrance to San Francisco Harbour under the Golden Gate. Large quantities of oil were poured into the waters of that particular part of the west coast. Even more recently, Mr. Speaker, and closer to home, there was an occurrence in my constituency. At the end of last week a large body of heavy oil was moving inshore at the edge of Long Beach, adjacent to where we have just established our new west coast national marine park. Anyone

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
who wants an idea of how Long Beach appears need only look at the picture on the cover of this year's British Columbia telephone directory. Although that is the most extensive individual beach in the area, there are many other beautiful beaches that could be affected by this oil. So, we have had fair warning. I hope that the minister, who was not here for the question period, can give us some more detailed information of the size of this body of oil, where it has come from, and any other information of that kind on this point. As I say, we have had fair warning of what may be impending for the Pacific Coast, at least if this route for large tankers carrying oil from the north slope of Alaska down the west coast of Canada is inaugurated.
If anticipated pollution as a result of shipping developing in the Arctic warranted Canada taking action last year to place the 100-mile pollution and territorial seas zone around the Arctic islands, then I suggest the very real and pressing dangers on our Atlantic and Pacific coasts that have been so dramatically demonstrated since the time we passed the Arctic Waters bill warrant and justify, for the sake of our own national survival and safety as a people, the same kind of control with regard to the same kind of use of our waters out to 100 miles. My amendment proposes that. As somebody has said, there is no magic in that particular figure.
I should like to suggest that it ought to be considered a minimum more than a maximum. Anyone who thinks that we are trying to take over control of the oceans of the world should look, I suggest, at a map of the Pacific Ocean and see what a small portion of the Pacific Ocean is encompassed by that area extending 100 miles from our coastline. One can realize this is a very modest suggestion, indeed.
I know that arguments will be advanced that we are going beyond accepted international law, and perhaps we are. Perhaps we are developing what is sometimes called the customary law of states. Yet I suggest to the House that if, in keeping with Canada's place in the world, we proclaimed that 100-mile zone around our Arctic islands, it would be even more in keeping with our place in the world if we were to seek to develop the international law by saying that the same principle applies to our Pacific and to our Atlantic coasts.
We are not completely without grounds in taking this sort of action. Speaking on the second reading of the bill to amend the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, as reported at page 6013 of Hansard for April 17, 1970:
We cannot, however, accept the notion that a coastal state's fisheries conservation and protection jurisdiction must cease at 12 miles from shore.
The developments since 1960 have proved that there is no magic in the 12-mile limit. Unlike the deer and bears in national parks, who become aware after a period that they are safe when they enter the sanctuary of the park, the fish do not seem to know that they are safe-except of course from Canadian fishermen-when they enter the 12-mile limit.
A little later in the same paragraph, the minister said:
Once again, Canada, after long and serious deliberations, has decided to go it alone.
The suggestion, if my amendment means that we are to go it alone, is not without precedent, even if one were to consider actions proposed and taken by the present administration. It is becoming more and more apparent to me every day that, in some respects, we cannot wait for international treaties to come into being.
A good deal of discussion has arisen about the Brussels Conference of late 1969. It was referred to in a statement by professors of international law at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society of International Law meeting in New York City on April 24, 1970. The heading of this document is "The Canadian Initiative to Establish a Maritime Zone for Environmental Protection: its Significance for Multilateral Development of International Law". Page 3 of the document, as I have it in typewritten manuscript form, reads:
At the Brussels Conference late in 1969 IMCO drafted a more far-reaching convention.
This is more far-reaching than the original convention on the matter of pollution of the sea by oil.
Even if it is ratified by most of the shipping and coastal nations concerned, it contains the same basic defect of not providing for meaningful preventive regulation. The Canadian delegation at that conference argued in vain for the adoption of an effective regime of environmental protection.
As I understand it, this is what the proposed amendment to the Canada Shipping Act is all about. It is a matter of trying to create an effective regime of environmental protection and meaningful preventive regulation.
I was happy when the committee accepted my suggestion that the reference to pollution control officers in the bill be changed to "pollution prevention officers". As far as I am concerned, the essence of the bill is to seek to develop preventive regulations against the dangers of possible massive oil spills. No matter how effective the measures may be that we may develop in the future under the coastguard, or what kind of materials we stockpile, in some respects they are going to be ineffective once the oil is in the water and moving toward our shore line. I was glad to see the minister make a reference to the emphasis that should be placed upon the coastguard in this role. My constituents on the west coast are getting a sample of the heavy, massive goo that can come ashore on some of the most beautiful sand beaches in the world. What destruction will occur on a large scale if we do not take measures to create effective preventive regulations?
The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties is limited in its effect to action that is taken after the event, rather than before. Article I reads:
Parties to the present Convention may take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastline or related interests from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil,-
Then, comes the real crux of it:
-following upon a maritime casualty or acts related to such a casualty,-

March 1, 1971

A maritime casualty is defined as meaning a collision, running aground on a reef or other events of that character. The related interests which are included are interesting and relevant. The definition section of Article II reads:
"Related interests" means the interests of a coastal State directly affected or threatened by the maritime casualty, such as:
{a) maritime coastal, port or estuarine activities, including fisheries activities, constituting an essential means of livelihood of the persons concerned;
(b)	tourist attractions of the area concerned;
(c)	the health of the coastal population and the well-being of the area concerned, including conservation of living marine resources and of wildlife;
This is what we are really concerned with in this bill. Basically, we are trying to take steps to prevent the danger of any oil spill on the water, rather than merely dealing with it as a right on the high seas after a marine casualty has occurred. This is an obvious gap in the international agreements. This matter is becoming so pressing that we are at least compelled to make an attempt to take preventive action a reasonable distance from our shores. This point is being driven home to thousands of people on the Pacific coast now that there is a discussion about tankers travelling down our coastline from the state of Alaska.
No one can logically argue that 100 miles is an unreasonable distance from our shores to seek to take preventive action. We are not being unfair with regard to the activities of other nations if we simply say that if they come within a short distance of our shores,-their ships must meet certain standards and have certain navigational aids, obey certain navigational rules and in specific areas follow traffic regulations.
When I spoke on second reading of the bill, I said that 12 miles off our shore was nothing more than spitting distance. I shrink inside when I think of the possibility of the glorious stretch of ocean shore in our new national park, Long Beach, being contaminated in the same way as some areas on the Atlantic coast of Canada were affected by the spill of the Arrow. Those who know about these things have told me that when considering the kind of tanker proposed for service down the coast from Alaska, we must bear in mind that after their engines have been put full speed astern they travel five miles before coming to a stop. In that context, how effective is a 12-mile zone off our coasts? It is obviously not realistic that the jurisdiction of this bill should be limited to such a short distance off our coasts.
The principle of this amendment is exactly the same as the one proposed last year to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). It was turned down in the committee, as a matter of fact, and ruled out of order in the House. However, it is certainly within the ambit of the bill before us today.
During the debate on the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act last year I proposed an amendment which Would have extended our fishing zones. During that dis-
Canada Shipping Act
cussion, as may be found in Hansard of June 4, 1970, at page 7747, I set out the action which had been taken unilaterally by the United States under President Truman in 1945. I have here a copy of the Presidential Proclamation number 2668 of September 28, 1945 with respect to coastal fisheries in certain parts of the high seas. This reflects President Truman's conviction that there was need for action to preserve fishing resources. In this case, the need was so great that the United States had to make this move on its own initiative in the absence of existing international law or agreement. In other words, the United States was making new law. It was subsequent to this declaration that certain of the South American countries took steps to extend their own fishing zones.


An hon. Member:: Like Peru.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Peru, Ecuador, Chile and now, I understand, Brazil. So, there is an important section of the coastline of South America in respect of which jurisdiction extending 200 miles is claimed and where steps are taken to enforce this jurisdiction. At any rate, since a declaration such as this has been made by our friendly neighbour to the south, on its own initiative, I submit that should this amendment be agreed to the United States could not, with any logic, take objection in these circumstances. They might, of course, say: we can do it because we are big, but you cannot do it, because you are little. I do not believe they are prepared to take such a position; I do not believe the United States is prepared to develop a thesis of that kind, justifying its own actions while condemning ours. I have more faith in the people of the United States than that.
As I have mentioned, the action proposed in the amendment does not conflict with accepted international practice in certain circumstances, that is what some of our constitutional experts have described in the committee as a development of the customary law of states, something which we, according to certain of these experts, did last year in relation to the Arctic. I suggest we ought to do a little more of it this year with respect to the Atlantic and the Pacific. If the concern felt by the United States in 1945 about the conservation of the fisheries and the protection of marine life was real enough to require unilateral action to be taken, how much more pressing is the need today?
My amendment is a fairly long one and I shall not go into all its details. I should like to point out, though, that it has been carefully drafted in order that its provisions should not conflict with the rights of other nations whose waters adjoin our own. This is dealt with in that part of the amendment which refers to the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act which gives the Governor in Council the right to issue the list of geographic co-ordinates in areas where the territorial sea or fishing zones of another country come close to our coasts. In other words, we are not seeking to assert any wider jurisdiction over waters which properly and normally belong to other nations.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, in answer to questions in the House in recent days concerning the

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
proposed establishment of a tanker route from Alaska, has on one or two occasions referred to the value of speaking out. On February 18 he said:
I think it is most important that during the period while hearings are being held, Canadians and Americans should realize the potential risks involved and speak out, and speak out clearly.
Again, on February 22, he said:
I do believe it is important that all of those concerned, particularly the people affected in the State of Washington and in the Province of British Columbia, should make their views about this question known so that at least this decision is made in the full knowledge of the very serious danger of pollution which exists. I have no hesitation in saying on behalf of the Canadian government that we believe there are serious dangers *ot pollution.
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it would not be appropriate for the Canadian government to appear officially before a board holding hearings in the United States. Nevertheless, the danger of pollution is real and serious and I suggest the time has come not only for the Canadian people as private citizens to speak out, but for this Parliament to take some positive action to recognize the danger which the Secretary of State mentioned in his reply to the questions about the proposed tanker route on the Pacific coast. It is all very well for us to make pious exhortations to citizens; when it comes right down to it, we who sit in this chamber are the only ones who can make the voice of the people effective. It is time to make that voice effective at least to the extent of the amendment I propose, one which would add to the protective jurisdiction of the bill before us.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I spoke on Bill C-2 when it was introduced on October 26 of last year.
The bill before us deals, in my view, with one of the most important problems facing Canadians, namely, the pollution of our environment. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is a lengthy one and I shall not burden the House by reading it. I shall refer only to parts of it. Part III deals with fishing zones. I question the value of using the fishing zones in Canada, as the basis of this amendment. I question the value of the wording of this particular amendment, which provides that regulations shall apply to any fishing zones of Canada described pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, because in some cases fishing zones as defined are inoperative.
As the House is well aware, the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was passed unilaterally with great fanfare in 1964. If the terms of that legislation had been implemented and enforced in that year, or even in 1965, then our fishermen, especially those on the east coast, would not today be facing a serious decline in their fisheries resources due to over-fishing by other countries. However, the legislation was not enforced in 1964, nor in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 or 1970. As a result of the
government's procrastinating attitude haddock have become almost extinct, our herring resources are diminishing, while stocks of redfish, flounder and cod have declined to dangerous levels. The legislation is not enforced to this day on the south coast of Newfoundland.
This amendment is based on fishing zones that are not truly operative, which of course poses the question for the members of this party whether we can support an amendment of this type. Recently the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) made an announcement outside the House with regard to fishing zones, but these, as I said a moment ago, do not apply to the south coast of Newfoundland. Neither do they apply to the area surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon. As a matter of fact, the minister's announcement only accentuated the problem of defining territorial seas and fishing zones in the area of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment provides the interesting proposition that the regulations would apply to waters adjacent to the sea coasts of Canada as measured up to 100 miles from the base lines. We believe that this particular Bill should come under the authority of the Minister of Transport, and we express that view because he, in the final analysis, has the right to determine the types of ships that are constructed at the present time. It is for the Minister of Transport to define what should be the strength of oil tanks and water tanks, or the thickness of wood or steel used in the construction of ships in Canada. It is for the minister to make certain that his officials are aware that all ships employ proper navigational aids as required by law.
This is why we believe the Minister of Transport should have jurisdiction over the regulation of pollution control on the high seas. While we agree that steps must be taken not only to see that pollution is controlled up to 100 miles off our coasts, but throughout the entire environment, it seems to me that all nations and all peoples must be alerted to the danger of polluting our environment. In other words, while pollution abatement some 100 miles out to sea may be desirable, the truth is that such a law is unenforceable. To be effective, all nations must be alerted to the need to minimize the waste that they put into the sea. This can only be accomplished by holding an international conference in which all shipping nations participate.
This fact was pointed out by the minister himself when he was asked about the ability of the government to enforce this particular legislation. In response to a question from the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) about enforcing the legislation as it relates to the St. Pierre and Miquelon area, the minister replied that in the case of St. Pierre and Miquelon there is undoubtedly a problem because we would not be able to enforce Canadian law against a foreign owned vessel going to a foreign port. That was one of the unfortunate accidents of geography. The minister went on to say that he hoped that perhaps we could make some kind of practical arrangements with the authorities of St. Pierre and Miquelon because he was sure they did not want to have a major oil spill off their coastline any more than

March 1, 1971

we did. In fact, said the minister, in the one case where this did come up one year we did co-operate with them effectively and in a practical way. In other words, we would be able to enforce the legislation on ships on the high seas destined for a Canadian port, but we could not enforce it on a ship docking at St. Pierre or Miquelon. If that be the case, and I presume the minister had all the facts at this command when he made that statement, it is obvious that the provisions of an amendment of this type giving control over pollution to the Canadian government up to some 100 miles off our shores would be unenforceable.
May I come back to my original suggestion, which is that I believe all nations must be made aware of their responsibilities with regard to pollution. It is for an international conference to alert each and every nation that has ships on the high seas to their responsibility to make certain they do not pollute the high seas.
In closing, and since I see it is almost five o'clock, may I put on the record the facts as stated in a Time magazine article on December 28, 1970 which gives an indication of the sense of responsibility that is now evident among the nations of the world:
In Rome last week, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization tackled the problem-
That is, the problem of pollution.
-by inviting 400 scientists from 40 maritime nations to discuss man s abuse of the seas. The biggest and most important such conference to date produced more than 140 papers describing the danger. For example, two French scientists, Georges Bellan and Jean-Marie Peres, expressed alarm about the Mediterranean. Not only is human waste soiling beaches from Tel Aviv to Trieste, they said, but the "self-cleansing" power of the sea itself can no longer cope with the volume of untreated excrement and industrial waste now pouring into it. As a result, the scientists told their colleagues, "The Mediterranean is rushing toward complete pollution."
Bruce McDuffie, a bearded chemist of the State University of New York at Binghamton, is the man who recently discovered mercury in U.S. canned tuna. In Rome, he reported also finding high mercury levels in commercial swordfish. Reason: according to an American paper presented at the Rome conference, industry is now dumping 5,000 tons of mercury into the oceans each year. Because fish hold mercury in their systems for as long as 500 days, the contamination can travel over vast areas.
Dr. Max Blumer of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution told the conference that "major catastrophes in production and at sea, unburned fuel, spent lubricants, and a significant hydrocarbon contribution from the land (Municipal wastes) contribute about 10 million tons of oil to the world's oceans each year''. According to Blumer, the immediate effects of oil spills-dead fish and birds- are followed by long-term damage to marine ecology. "Compared to the size of the accidents," he said grimly, "the present countermeasures against oil in the oceans are inadequate.''
The scientists underlined Blumer's hard-hitting report, and scores of others, by recommending an immediate international survey to measure the extent and degree of marine pollution. They also urged establishment of a global monitoring system.
Such a system would involve a fleet of ships and a chain of automatic sensing buoys, plus aerial photography and satellite observation. The system would be used to spot the source of pollutants like oil, mercury and lead. It would also monitor oxygen levels in the seas and "red tides", the abnormal growth of phytoplankton that can choke out other forms of marine life.
Regional Development Incentives Act
Obviously, such a system would need the political support of nations that now exploit and degrade the seas.
That is the best indication I can give that other nations are aware of the problem and are doing something about it. I hope the Canadian government will pursue this matter at the international level, because I believe that only at the international level can we hope to clean up pollution on the high seas. For these reasons, we cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Finance-bankruptcy-measures to forestall further business failures; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs- requirement that war veterans allowance recipients apply for guaranteed income supplement; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Fisheries

convening of international conference on conservation of marine resources.
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, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately amend paragraph (q) of the Schedule to Regional Development Incentives Designated Region Order, 1969-1 to provide that the area comprised by the federal electoral districts of Battle River and Vegreville be designated as a designated region for the purposes of the Regional Development Incentives Act.
He said: In moving this motion to designate the areas of Battle River and Vegreville under the federal regional economic expansion program I am expressing a pressing necessity and, in a formal way, I hope to bring to the minister's attention the deep and urgent need for incentives and supportive industry in these rural areas. Every weekend I go home I find the situation has further deteriorated. Hundreds of farmers and businessmen have already been forced into bankruptcy. Many people who were formerly considered to be well established farmers

March 1, 1971
Regional Development Incentives Act and businessmen now come to me and say it will be only a matter of time until they will be out of business. They can only live on depreciation and credit for so long because the day of reckoning comes. That day is fast approaching for the majority, and a percentage have already gone under.
Last October I made an informal visit to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to discuss this whole matter. I was informed that there would positively be no redesignation until sometime in 1972. Since that time, however, we have seen an area in southeastern Ontario, and from Montreal to Hull, designated. I am wondering if their situation is really worse than that of certain regions in western Canada. I doubt that this is so. We should always remember that, as agriculture goes, so goes the nation. This has been proven throughout history. There is nothing in our present economic situation which would indicate that this situation will not repeat itself.
Last week some 2,700 employees of Massey-Ferguson were laid off, or there was an indication that they will be laid off. Many thousands more have been laid off in other industries in Canada's industrial heartland. There is nothing we can do for the industrial heartland of Canada which will improve the situation of the employees of Massey-Ferguson. However, if the agricultural industry were functioning as it should be, this situation would not occur. We must give top priority to the agricultural industry and other industries which support it if we are going to get the economy of this country on its feet.
My area of Battle River lies in the heart of the rape-seed area. A crushing and refining plant here, besides employing many people, would enable many more farm families to stay on the farm. Further diversification in respect of a readily saleable crop might be the key, because Canada was a net importer of oil seeds during the past year. If these rural people cannot get the degree of help which might be afforded them by being included as federally designated areas, they cannot help themselves. They are too far run down economically to generate the type of cash which would make it possible to establish plants of this size and description.
We have two designated areas in Alberta. One area exists in the riding of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the Medicine Hat area. This area, as most Prairie rural areas, should be designated. But I must ask myself why it was chosen over other areas. I have some comparisons of various centres in Alberta. I should like to present them to show the situation which exists in respect of the designated area of Medicine Hat and some of the towns in my riding including Camrose, Stettler, Wainwright, and another area which is not designated, Red Deer. Let us look at the population growth in these areas of my riding. At the outset I must say that they are dwindling. The 1968 figures are the latest I have for five centres including the designated area of Medicine Hat. These figures relate to the capital debt. Medicine Hat had a capital debt of $154 per person. Red Deer had a capital debt of $330 per person, almost double. The town of Wainwright in 1968 had a per capita debt of $195, with Stettler at $172. The latest figures I have for Camrose are for 1970. These figures indicate a capital debt of $270.
Certainly, these figures would substantiate the necessity for designating these areas, particularly if there is justification for designating the Medicine Hat area.
Let us look at the taxable assessment per capita of these areas. In Lethbridge this assessment was, as of 1968, $2,115; in Medicine Hat it was $2,169. These are both designated areas. The taxable assessment in Red Deer for the same period was $1,811; in Wainwright it was $1,471 and in Camrose it was $2,044. For the same period of time the assessment in Stettler was $1,650. There is very little in these statistics which would indicate that these areas should not be designated as well as the area of Medicine Hat which, by the way, is also in my province.
I might refer to the number of building permits issued in order to give a further example of how this area is depressed, in the city of Camrose, in 1967 approximately $4J million worth of building permits were issued and in 1970 the figure was just a shade over $1 million. In the past two years the amount of tax arrears in the county of Camrose has increased by approximately $120,000 to $546,603 as of December 31, 1970. This gives some indication of the number of people who are behind in their taxes. I suggest that unless something is done this property eventually will be taken over by the local governments.
Perhaps we might review the situation by provinces in respect of industrial incentives offered and accepted to illustrate the situation I have just outlined which exists in this western region. I will compare the situations in Alberta and Quebec because I believe this would be as good a comparison as any. Five per cent of the offers under the regional incentives program were accepted for Alberta and 36.5 per cent were accepted for the Province of Quebec. In the time period covered by this graph, 764 new jobs were created in the Province of Alberta and about 7,000 new jobs were created in the Province of Quebec. In respect of the Province of Alberta, 4 per cent of the offers under the regional incentives program were accepted and in respect of the Province of Quebec 35.4 per cent were accepted. If this is truly one nation and all sections are to be dealt with equitably, I fail to see the equity in this situation.
When we consider incentives, we must also consider the matter of freight rates. I mentioned the rapeseed plant and what it would do for our area. Such a plant, however, would be under a handicap from the start. There would be something like a 75 cent a hundred weight handicap on produce coming from this plant, and yet the people of the west pay the full shot of the freight on products produced in the east. I say we must have a review of the freight rate structure in this country if it is truly to be called one nation.
I had occasion to speak to a kindergarten teacher in the city of Camrose who reported that a survey of 25 students in her class shows that 19 of the families were on welfare. There is a terrific reduction of railway employees in this area because of branch line abandonments, stations taken out of operation and consolidation
(Mr. Downey 1
March 1, 1971

of railway facilities. Coal mines for the most part are gone. There has also been a consolidation of the oil production which had developed in some of these smaller areas. Fifteen years ago in the city of Camrose I believe 350 families were engaged in the oil industry, whereas today the number of families is something in the order of ten. This is another indication of what is happening here. People are leaving the area. Where do they go? They merely go on the welfare rolls of the city. If the minister would consider increasing the regional incentives it might be possible for us to attract industry. After all, decentralization is something we must aim for in the future if we are to overcome the pollution problem.
There are predictions that in the cities of the future a third of the population will be engaged in eliminating pollution and looking after the services. I suggest that instead of designating areas which are already industrialized, such as the Montreal area, we would do well to take a look at these rural areas which probably are more in need than many of the areas from which there is a hue and cry. Sometimes it is possible in the agriculture business to hang on a little longer because of government credit programs and so on, but this does not cure the problem.
I draw these things to the attention of the minister. I appeal to the humanity in his soul and ask him to consider these people. Surely, he does not really want to depopulate these areas and have a nation of unemployed people and welfare recipients wandering aimlessly in our urban centres.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to make a few comments on this resolution that would be more interesting than the actual resolution. I sympathize greatly with the hon. member's reasons for presenting this motion. I wish I could support him completely, but it strikes me that the core of the criteria laid down in the act with regard to giving aid to areas would make it unlikely that the areas of Battle River and Vegreville referred to by the hon. member could be considered as designated areas especially in respect of Bill C-205. Even Bill C-205 probably is a little out of order. However, I do understand that designated areas have, by law, to be reviewed before June 30, 1972 which is only 16 months away.


An hon. Member:: Let them starve for another 16 months.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I believe we should address ourselves to the question of whether we should be expanding the patchwork quilt of designated areas without taking another look at things.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why not designate the whole country?


Edmund Boyd Osler: If you would listen a little you might get a gleam of an idea. One of the gentlemen who intervened is a member from the east coast. I would think that he and I would be in complete agreement on the way to attack this problem. It would seem to me that he, the hon. member who introduced the motion, myself and many other hon. members from areas that are not in the
Regional Development Incentives Act
very centre of the country have a great deal in common. If we are going to shout across the House at each other, we will never get anywhere. But if we sit down and try to discuss our points of view and how we might approach the problem, it may be possible that several of us together may get an idea that is good enough so that we can sell it to whatever government happens to be in power.
My point is that originally there were two provinces which got a great national idea about 100 years ago. They carried forward that idea, and out of it came Canada. But we have not had a great national idea since. The present government is pledged to the idea of regional equality of opportunity, and I think that what they are doing is great but it is not great enough. It will not give us regional equality of opportunity so long as the criteria on which we work are tied to unemployment figures. The hon. member who introduced this bill knows that the prime problem in both our areas is not unemployment but the movement of people. They move because there are better opportunities elsewhere. Certainly, there are the unemployed and I am not saying there are not, but there are not unemployed in the same sense that there are in other places. The problem on the east coast may again be a different thing. There is chronic unemployment there as well as in some parts of Quebec. We cannot use an omnibus bill based on the criterion of unemployment to solve these different problems. Supposedly, we are all pledged to giving people regional equality of opportunity. I resent the fact that in our province there has to be an exodus of people every year in order for them to have opportunities of employment. It is crazy that they should have to go to Toronto or British Columbia in order to get a job under ordinary circumstances. I am not talking about the time when there is more unemployment everywhere, but under ordinary circumstances this has to be and this does not help federalism.
We are supposed to have regional equality of opportunity. So, I hope that between now and the time when this review takes place we will all address ourselves to the idea of redefining our national dream and how we will achieve a regional equality of opportunity. We cannot come up with an answer indicating that Walter Gordon was right. I do not believe he was right. His idea was to close everything down and move everyone to Ontario because that is where the action is and not to waste our time with the Maritimes, the Prairies and other outlying regions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Who will pay their way back?


Edmund Boyd Osler: They might get back to these regions for a holiday. The answer must lie in a rededication to the national dream of our country for regional equality of opportunity. The CPR would never have been built if Sir John A. Macdonald had used his criterion for solving unemployment in the Prairies. There was no unemployment in the Prairies for the simple reason that nobody lived there, or only 15,000 people. If we do not reverse

March 1, 1971
Regional Development Incentives Act
the present trend, we will be back to the same position in the next few years.
People leave the Prairies because there is no equality of opportunity. The idea would be to close down the railway as well as all other transportation, and thus save money so that those who live in the centre can enjoy themselves better and be burdened with less taxes. I still say that if we are to have a federal country we must have federal policies which will allow these areas to grow. So, the hon. member who introduced this motion is dead on the mark. I disagree with him because I do not think his motion can work within the criteria of the legislation that exists. I say that we had better change those criteria. If the criteria rests on unemployment alone, every time there is unemployment there will be more unemployment at the centre than at the fringes because more people live there. So, more money will be put in there, and bigger unemployment will follow. I think it is a self-defeating exercise. We have to get the money out into the outlying areas so that the people living there have a fit place in which to live instead of being crowded into the centre and one little valley on the west coast.
This is why I have to admit reluctantly that I cannot support the motion. I think that we should all think of one other aspect, that is that when the time comes for the discussions with the provinces about the revision of this program, which I repeat is only 16 months away, let us do our best to make sure that these talks take place in the open, frankly and freely and that the federal government's policy is made known to everyone. If that takes place, those provinces which are reluctant to make difficult provincial decisions as to where aid is really needed, and where this policy should apply, will not be able to hide any longer behind the excuse that the federal government is reluctant to help them in this or that area. I know of one province-and I am not referring to my own province at present-which said they would just as soon duck the whole business of obtaining any kind of federal aid to improve areas because they did not want to make the difficult political decision as to what areas were or were not to have aid.
I suggest that the federal government should find parameters that are clearly defined so that the next time round the provinces cannot duck these responsibilities and the people will know what we are trying to do. It is up to us as politicians to make sure that the provinces agree with what we are trying to do. I suggest that what we will be trying to do will be to redefine our national purpose and achieve a real equality of opportunity in all areas and regions of Canada.


Mr, Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I welcome the opportunity of seconding the motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) and I welcome the opportunity of participating in the debate. I am sure the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and for that matter his parliamentary secretary (Mr. O'Connell), will not find it surprising that I wholeheartedly support this motion. I believe they are both very much aware of the continued efforts and representations which I have made to them
regarding the very urgent and pressing need for this kind of program in my area of Alberta.
I do not want to go into detail to reiterate the critical need for supplementing the declining agricultural industry. My colleague, the hon. member for Battle River, has touched on that. I only want to say that in the past three years we have seen net farm income dwindle to an all time low, a figure of $1,325 per farmer in the province, a decrease of more than 50 per cent in the past three years. This comes at a time when the cost of living components are at an all time high. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that our economic welfare is seriously impaired to the extent that not only those engaged in agriculture are hurt but those who are engaged in supplying goods and services to the agricultural industry are affected disastrously as well.
It can be said that this government has displayed very capably a lack of dedication and determination to promote and maintain a strong and viable agricultural industry in this country. I submit that it has fallen victim to international pressures, to consumer pressures, and to political pressures, all at the expense of the farmer and of the rural Canadian community. Unless this government rededicates itself to the rural lifestyle based on agriculture, there is very little hope for the survival of many of our smaller, and for that matter larger, rural centres.
Assuming that the government is not determined te look on agriculture as a national asset and hence develop appropriate programs aimed at promoting and maintaining the industry and its people, we are faced with the task of looking for alternatives which must be geared to preserving our rural communities.
Employment opportunities must be provided. A program of diversification is needed. A decentralizing process must take place, and people must be discouraged from flocking to our cities and compounding the problems which exist there. I say that in order to do this we must attract industry to the rural centres and, in Alberta, for example, to centres other than the cities of Calgary and Edmonton. We have a population of over 1J million people in Alberta, over half of them located in those two cities. It is ludicrous to allow this trend to carry on. It is in this tone that I endorse the motion and join in the appeal for serious consideration to be given to the submissions contained in it.
What should be the role of the Department of Rural Economic Expansion in dealing with present developments in rural Canada? Many studies have been made. I refer particularly to the Canadian Council on Rural Development which made some very specific recommendations to deal with the question and put the whole matter of the rural problems of Canada into proper perspective. But we have heard nothing of the minister's reaction to those recommendations, nothing that would lead us to believe that rural development is a priority of the department.

March 1, 1971

I believe that officials of the department have illustrated, both in the past and in the present, that they are dedicated to a program of urban industrialization, without sufficient consideration being given to developing a balanced degree of urban-rural growth. If the department were to consider seriously overcoming the imbalance of rural-urban growth, there is justification for providing industrial incentives to all rural areas of Alberta. I suggest that until the growth and development of rural areas becomes a matter of top priority within the department, the increasing gap between rural and urban dwellers will continue to develop, compounding our social and economic problems. May I simply recall the words of President Nixon when he spoke to Congress early in 1970:
We will carry our concern with the quality of life in America to the farm as well as the suburb, to the village as well as the city.
What rural America most needs is a new kind of assistance. It needs to be dealt with, not as a separate nation, but as part of an over-all growth policy for all America. We must create a new rural environment that will not only stem the migration to urban centres but reverse it.
I think those were well chosen words. They certainly do apply to problems of rural Canada. The purpose of legislation administered under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was adequately spelled out: to assist in the development of Canada, to provide equal opportunity for all Canadians, to overcome slow-growth areas, to provide industrial expansion and to provide jobs.
Time and time again the minister has reiterated the need for a large degree of flexibility to develop the kind of program suited to the specific need. He also stated that common sense and human needs were matters that would be considered as well as statistics and figures when adopting the designated regions; and because he was given large discretionary powers he also stated that he had authority to extend aid to any kind of commercial operation when it was required for the successful development of a special area. It was with this kind of spirit that we as members, and as Canadians, looked forward with anticipation to the implementation of the bill. But what has happened? We have seen the plight of agriculture. The minister has looked upon this as a social problem rather than an industrial problem, suggesting in somewhat evasive terms that a logical solution cannot emanate from the ambit of this act.
The minister cannot understand that agriculture is a basic industry and that when it is adversely affected, correspondingly it affects the welfare and livelihood of practically every citizen living in an area, because their degree of success or failure is commensurate with the success or failure of agriculture. When we consider that every $1 worth of agricultural production has a mulitip-lier effect of $7, it becomes abundantly clear that the vast majority of Albertans are vitally concerned and connected with agriculture. It is with this rationale, I suggest, that the minister should review his position again, particularly in view of the fact that agriculture is not a priority item with the government.
Regional Development Incentives Act
In reply to a letter which I directed to the minister on October 10, 1969, raising objection to the exclusion of the area which I represent, the minister stated that in his opinion a program of incentives to secondary industry would not solve the problems of the rural regions to which I referred. He also said he conceded that there were difficulties facing Prairie agriculture and that appropriate measures would have to be adopted to overcome those difficulties. He said:
This is a matter which we have under discussion with the provincial governments. We are talking about the kind of programs that my department can best employ to ease the necessary adjustment process and cushion its effects on the people of the Prairies.
I am sure I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that these discussions have been going on for more than a year and a half, and we are still waiting for such a program. I quote the minister again:
Naturally, there must be increased industrialization on the Prairies if people leaving the farm are to find alternative employment. However, we must face the fact that incentive programs of this kind, no matter how good, cannot attract new plants to every small community.
I do not believe that anyone in this House expects each small community in rural Canada to attract industry. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my area has the kind of communities that could, without difficulty, absorb secondary industry, such as Lloydminster, Yegreville, Vermilion, St. Paul, Smoky Lake, Vilna, Two Hills, Lamont, Mundare Mannville, Tofield and others. These could to good advantage accommodate industries which presently locate in Calgary or Edmonton. These communities have the basic infrastructure, the necessary service facilities, adequate educational, social and cultural facilities tailor-made for medium sized secondary industry. That is what is desperately needed if these communities are to survive and be able to maintain their schools, their roads, their required facilities, their hospitals and all the other things which are necessary components of an adequate standard of living and quality of life, such as cultural, social and recreational institutions.
To the Prairies, and especially to the rural areas, the program of regional economic incentives has been largely a political tool, with the spokesmen of the government paying mere lip service to the real rural problems. The minister gives the impression that his department is not dedicated to the solution of the problems of Prairie rural Canada. However, on the platform he masterfully turns his department into a very useful political selling tool. Here I refer to a speech that the minister made in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, early in February when he acknowledged the fact that there are serious problems in the west. However, his speech was full of pious platitudes and consisted basically of political jargon. I submit that if the minister is sincere about coping with the problems, he has within the ambit of the act the necessary framework within which to provide adequate programs to compensate for the problems with which we are now faced.
Adding to the present aggravations is the economic climate which has been developed during the past year
3846

March 1, 1971
Regional Development Incentives Act because of a policy of tight money and deliberate recession. This has taken its toll in a number of centres. I would like to deal with one such centre which has been dealt a very severe blow, originally because of the department's disregard for much needed assistance to an industry which was an integral part of the community and currently because of the economic climate and the uncertainties which have developed from it. I refer to the community of Two Hills and the phasing-out of the operations of Chemcell Ltd. which provided employment opportunities for some 100 people. The plant there commenced operations in the early fifties. It grew and developed and became a fully integrated part of the community.
In February, 1970, Chemcell announced cutbacks in its operations because of economic circumstances. Also, because new technological methods were discovered, the company would have had to undertake a huge expansion and modernization project in its chlor-alkali operation involving the expenditure of millions of dollars. Because the plan was located on the south bank of the North Saskatchewan River it was ineligible for assistance under ADA. In assessing the situation the company found it could not undertake this massive expansion without some form of assistance and, as a result, decided to phase out that operation, which resulted in the loss of some 30 jobs.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if at this point of time consideration had been given by the government to the matter, it is conceivable that the operation would not only have survived but would have become larger, because there was potential for the manufacture of two other products which would have had the effect of providing more jobs. This in itself has been a serious blow to the people. We now see one year later, on February 23, 1971, that Chemcell announced its intention to close down the plant completely as well as part of its Edmonton operation, causing the loss of some 300 jobs and leaving all those who had been employed in the Two Hills plant jobless. The reasons for the closure were set out in the Edmonton Journal of February 23, 1971, as follows:
The company placed the blame for Its decline in earnings in 1970 on the federal government's anti-inflation measures, continued intense import competition in the chemical fibre and fabric product line, chemical plant problems, escalating costs, the General Motors strike, the unpegging of the Canadian dollar and higher interest costs.
In addition, we were faced with the closing down of the Highland Produce processing plant last summer which employed some 40 native people. That added further to the economic plight of the community. The Highland Produce processing plant was forced to close for economic reasons which were largely prompted by the actions of a vertically integrated co-operative conglomerate. The impact on this community was widespread. The result was some 140 people without jobs in a community of 1,200. If such a rate of unemployment had prevailed in a city like Edmonton, it would have meant that perhaps something like 47,000 people would have been out of work in a community of some 400,000. Surely this is sufficient evidence to establish the need for a positive
course of action to alleviate the hardships of communities such as this. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that under the programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, specifically, of the Regional Incentives Development Act, appropriate measures could be introduced. My hon. friend from Battle River has proposed but one.
I believe that my submissions subscribe to the criteria which the minister said would be paramount in establishing designated regions. These include the human factor, the common sense factor and the statistical factor. I submit that the government ought to take positive action to assist these areas. The present legislation under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has the required flexibility. It has been demonstrated that the program can meet certain needs. My colleague has mentioned the Montreal and Cornwall areas. The hon. member from the Winnipeg area has suggested that if we adopted this measure, it would water the program down too much. Perhaps the program already has been watered down too much. Nevertheless, certain areas of central Canada still need assistance. The government could act if it wanted to and it should: it has the finances; it has the legislative framework. I suppose its only reservation is what political benefit will accrue to the present administration.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of the mover and seconder of this private members' notice of motion because I have been involved in similar concerns within my own riding. My riding contains areas which are quite prosperous by Canadian standards and other areas which are far below that standard. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) and that of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). It seems to me that neither member addressed himself to the fact that in these matters two governments must make a bargain. They should feel fortunate that there is in Alberta a government which seems interested in making a bargain on these matters.
From my observations-I shall deal with this later; and to some extent I fault the department for this-there has been a serious and damaging lack of information concerning the operations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and this concerns particularly my home province of British Columbia. I must say that judging from what I hear being said at home from time to time, I find it extremely hard to understand some spokesmen of the British Columbia provincial govenment who are criticizing the federal government for inaction in the field or special area designation. I am not, of course, referring to the regional incentives program, Mr. Speaker, which was set up for all provinces, British Columbia included. In our case, the Kootenay regions were established by the federal government as designated areas. This has been very, very helpful to these areas from the point of view of unemployment. But I refer to special area designations.
It seems to me that the spokesman of the provincial government ought to know how this legislation applies.

March 1, 1971


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks in response to the mover and seconder of this motion. I think all hon. members, including those like myself who represent major metropolitan centres, have a natural interest in the economic and social development of their areas. It would be very normal to expect many members to seek the inclusion of their constituencies in the designated regions. The mandate laid on the department by Parliament is to look at
23966-32J

March 1, 1971
Regional Development Incentives Act the highest priority areas in a broad national perspective in order to reduce broad regional disparities across Canada.
In the Atlantic provinces over long periods of time personal incomes persistently run 30 per cent or more below the national average. Persisting over long periods of time, there is unemployment running more than 50 percent above the national average. It is necessary to look at these broad regions and put the scarce resources which are available to this government to work in these and other parts of the country where the highest priorities lie.
The criteria for designation relates to regions where existing productive opportunities are exceptionally inadequate. I do not want to be throwing cold water on the areas that the two members represent, but the economy of the province of Alberta is outrunning the national average. In all fairness to other parts of Canada, and under the mandate of this department, we ought to expect provinces in that kind of economic and financial position to do something about regional disparities within their jurisdiction.
Also, without trying to raise invidious comparisons, in the province of Ontario there is a very major regional development program paralleling the efforts that the federal government is making and filling in where the federal government is not active. There is the same kind of provincial activity in the province of Manitoba where there is a development agency. In Ontario, regional governments are emerging to cope with the development problems of slower growth areas within a rapidly growing provincial economy. Thus, some of the areas that need stimulation require provincial as well as federal action.
What is happening in the province of Alberta? I must disagree with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that the department or the government neglects the problems of agriculture. I think we all appreciate the strains on the agricultural economy. Hon. members from urban areas appreciate that a great deal of agricultural legislation is being presented to this House; grain, marketing and dairy legislation, the Farm Credit Corporation Act, the Farm Syndicates Credit Act, and so forth. National efforts are being made to help the agricultural economy to adjust.


Cliff Downey: Will the parliamentary secretary permit a question?


Mr. O'Connell:: Not just now. I will accept the question later. Within the Department of Regional Economic Expansion there is concern for a major rural area in the southern part of Alberta, not just Medicine Hat but the whole band across the southern part of Alberta-Brooks, Drumheller, Medicine Hat and Lethbridge. This is an opportunity to help in rural adjustment and to attract industry to diversify, as suggested by the hon. member for Vegreville, and form growth poles other than Calgary and Edmonton. There is, therefore, a special concept of assistance to those rural towns in Alberta and it has been paying off, not only in Lethbridge but in other centres. Hon. members will recognize the truth of this if
they look at the industrial incentive offers that have been made in Alberta. Many of the industries are based on local resources, meat packing, potato growing and other resources which are of considerable interest to the rural economy.
The hon. member would like to ask a question. I would like to hear it before we close.


Cliff Downey: Is the parliamentary secretary aware that the industrial grants only amount to 10 per cent, whereas there is the possibility of a 50 per cent grant under the federal dual incentives? There is a rundown condition in the rural areas, even though the oil business in Alberta may have stimulated the general economy to some extent. The rural areas are just as depressed as anywhere else. In view of this, does the parliamentary secretary not think there is a pressing necessity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired, and I now leave the Chair.

Those of us who have endured the recent hardships of a long, white winter were quickly turned to dreaming of the joys of spring when charming young ladies presented us earlier with yellow daffodils from Victoria. I was reminded of some lines I had read as a schoolboy; they are by William Wordsworth:
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vale and hill
When all at once 1 saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-

March 1, 1971


Mr. Boulanger:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) is disappearing. Where are all the Socialists this evening?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe we are on Bill C-2.


Mr. Bell:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is entitled "An act to amend the Canada Shipping Act". I also believe that we are at the report stage and considering an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), amendment No. 3 at the back of today's Order Paper.


Prosper Boulanger: You don't say! Tell us something really new.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friends opposite would be a little more helpful with their interjections, it would be appreciated; or if one or two hon. members opposite would volunteer to assist us in asking for a recorded vote on this amendment, then of course my speech could go down the drain. This is a day of much activity in Ottawa and on Parliament Hill. As hon. members are aware, the Canadian Labour Congress is entertaining members of all parties at the Civic Centre, so the ranks are pretty thin on the government side of the House, as well as over here. However, in a few minutes we shall have the required number-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should help the hon. gentleman by interrupting him for a moment to suggest that at this point he might address himself to the bill before the House, and move from the Chateau Lauri-er to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very happy to do that, Mr. Speaker, and if you have any further interjections they will help me out, too. I might say that you are really asking me to move from the Civic Centre to the House of Commons, because it is at the Civic Centre that the CLC reception is taking place.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to extend the area of the waters of our oceans over which Canada will take responsibility for the prevention of pollution. As hon. members are aware, the bill that is before us, in the form it came back from the committee, provides in subclause 2 on page 3 four areas wherein the regulations would apply.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would you read them for us?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I would be
very happy to do that. It provides:
Except where otherwise provided in this part or in any regulation made thereunder, this part and any regulation made thereunder apply
(a) to all Canadian waters south of the sixtieth parallel of
north latitude-
Canada Shipping Act


Prosper Boulanger: Where is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) in his proposed amendment does not change that. Paragraph (a) of subclause 2 would be the same under the proposed amendment as it is under the bill as it stands. Having said that, I should say a little more in order for these remarks to make sense. Paragraph (a) stays as it is and the present paragraph (c), regarding the fishing zones of Canada, becomes paragraph (b). The present paragraph (d) stays as it was. My friend from Comox-Alberni writes in a new paragraph which takes the place of the present paragraph (b), but it becomes (c). It is that paragraph that calls for us to extend our control and concern over the waters surrounding this country to the extent of 100 miles. That is what this amendment is all about.
Obviously, there is much more involved than I could say but it is obvious that at this point it is not necessary for me to do so. I hope the amendment of my hon. friend will receive the support of the House so that this effort of mine will have been worth while.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks in respect of the amendment of my colleague.


An hon. Member:: You are not even prepared.


Mark Willson Rose: I am sorry that I did not hear the comment from across the House. It appears to me that at least one hon. heckler over there is a boy soprano, and the next time I form a choir I will get in touch with him right away.
In any event, I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I referred to this matter during my speech on second reading of this bill back in October of last year. This is particularly pertinent for a number of reasons which my hon. friend covered at great length this afternoon. I am not prepared to repeat his arguments because I feel he covered the subject comprehensively. He dealt with every possible facet of the bill and I think the House will forgive me if tonight I do not repeat all those arguments.
What concerned us last October, and this concerns us now, is the problem of tremendous ecological violation that might be caused by the spillage of oil through negligence or accident because of the increasing concentration of oil tankers off our shores. I think it might be important to remind the House that the probability of oil tanker spillage is not isolated. Let me document the facts. I am quoting from a publication of the Canadian Scientific Society for Pollution and Environmental Control. It was founded in Vancouver but is now moving toward being a national organization. This publication maintains that while the Torrey Canyon grounding off the British coast, and the Arrow off the Nova Scotia coast, represent tremendous pollution problems, they were not the only ones of importance in the last two years. They were disasters to ecology, but there have been many others.
The brief points out that on February 13, the Delian Apollon struck the side of the ship channel approaching

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
St. Petersburg, Florida, gashed its hull and released large quantities of bunker C fuel. That was on February 13. On March 3, the 58,000 ton Liberian tanker Oceanic Grandeur was holed in Torres Strait. The report of this Liberian tanker amazed me somewhat because I was not sure they had a marine navy, or whether this involved another matter of international flags of convenience such as the ship off Chedabucto Bay. On May 5, the oil tanker Poly commander caught fire off the coast of Spain and its cargo of 150,000 tons escaped into the sea. The Spanish motorship Monte Ulia rammed a jetty of Mobil's Coryton refinery in the Thames estuary, fracturing a pipeline and releasing 400,000 kilograms of oil into the sea. On October 23, the tankers Pacific Glory and Allegro collided near the Isle of Wight. The Pacific Glory was left stranded, and burned for two days. Also in October, the tanker Manhattan, which is the tanker that attempted to prove the Northwest Passage was usable by tankers, ran aground with a full cargo of 108,000 tons in the Persian Gulf.
The figures I have mentioned document the severity of this problem. We can envisage now the situation we will face with the development of the transshipment of oil by tankers. Obviously it is increasing. More and more people are becoming concerned about this fact. There is a greater army of environmentalists being mobilized to protect what they regard as our ecological future, future life on this planet. This threat has become of greater concern because of public hearings about the proposed Alaskan pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. If this is authorized by the Department of the Interior, we will have not just one or two tankers coming down the west coast of Canada but a tremendous concentration.
In supporting the motion of my hon. friend, let me say that the motion implies that if we can keep these tankers far enough off our shores we will have some hope of averting a serious ecological disaster on the west coast. I am sure some hon. members on the other side of the House will say that 100 miles is extending the distance too far out in respect of Canadian sovereignty. Let me point out that this is not an isolated recommendation. Many other spokesmen have suggested that this problem should be viewed in consideration of the danger of disaster to the ecology of our Arctic area. I feel it would be of great service to the world if we moved unilaterally in declaring this kind of standard for our whole coastline as we have for the Arctic. I am convinced that a more moderate ecological zone would be no less sensitive in marine disasters than the Arctic.
In supporting this amendment, I think we are implying the knowledge that there will be disasters as long as oil is transshipped through pipelines to tankers and from tankers to oil refineries. Surely we can maintain sufficient safety standards to ensure that the kind of disaster which will ultimately happen is minimized and delayed as long as possible. We can delay this through rigourous safety standards. Certainly we can ensure that any ship whose cargo is bunker oil is equipped with the proper navigational aids and the kind of internal construction that will minimize the risk to our environment involved
in an oil spill occurring not through an act of God but through negligence or accident.
As Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, who was in charge of the Arrow clean-up pointed out, if we can establish corridors for the transportation of our air traffic, certainly it would be easier to establish similar fixed corridors for the transportation of oil. We should ensure that pilots who are familiar with the region are required, as a matter of course, to make certain that any carrier of this potentially serious kind of pollutant does not take shortcuts and thus incur risks.
Dr. McTaggart-Cowan has a very interesting set of figures which he revealed to this House on November 5, 1970, in his report. Of the need for traffic control, Dr. McTaggart-Cowan says:
The world record is appalling. I have firm figures for the last six months of 1969. Six hundred thousand tons of tanker went to the bottom. That is the equivalent of roughly 33 Arrows-
Mr. Speaker, we are really only beginning to transport oil by tanker. There are some tankers now of 50,000 tons and up to 100,000 tons. There are tankers on the drawing boards which will run as high as 500,000 and 600,000 tons. When we consider the possible devastation, it is no wonder my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni suggests we keep these tankers as far as possible off the Canadian west coast. Someone will say that you can keep them 100 miles off the Canadian west coast, but what will you do when they come into international waters around Puget Sound adjacent to the estuaries of important rivers, notably the Fraser, and probably enter what are the only Mediterranean-type climate seas in Canada? My reply is that we would like to ensure the minimal possibility of damage.
If we have stringent enough regulations in respect of the construction of tankers which travel from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point-if that is where the tankers are to be used-at least we can be reasonably certain that when they get into the international waters of Puget Sound, where devastation could be, to coin a phrase, devastating, at least from that point of view we would have done all in our power to maintain the kind of safety standards which I believe are demanded by this growing threat to marine environment.
We know the minister went to Brussels last year. He was rebuked. The companies which dominate IMCO told him they would not agree to the kind of international convention the minister put forward. The minister came home and said in effect, "We will go it alone". The minister has gone it alone at least out to 12 miles. We would like to see the minister at sea more than 12 miles. We have seen the minister at sea a number of times in this House. We would like to see him much further out, for the reasons I have mentioned.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is only you people who can walk on the water.

March 1, 1971


Mark Willson Rose: I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that some of us whom the minister regards as lightweights could walk on the water, but there is no possible chance for the minister to walk on the water. His feet are too small, Mr. Speaker.
We know IMCO is dominated by the shipping companies, and we know IMCO will not voluntarily improve the safety standards of the ships of its members. What we need here is a really tough bill. The lobby will come to the committee, as it did, and tell us that if we do this or that we will not get the number of tankers, in the quantities we need for offshore oil, even coming to Canada.
We know perfectly well that if there is a profit to be made, these ships will be here. They will come into Dartmouth, the Burrard Inlet and anywhere they can make a buck. I am quite sure Canada can take a substantial world lead as it did in respect of Arctic sovereignty and the Arctic pollution bill. It can take a tremendous lead in this respect to improve the kind of safety standards available in order to make shipping all over the world more safe. I am not going into the matter of flags of convenience and people hiding behind the same, preventing us from finding out who owns a ship such as the Arrow. I will say, however, in respect of unlimited liability, that shipping companies and insurance companies will not assume the liability. It will be assumed by the general public. If there should be an oil spill off Vancouver Island, guess who will assume the liability?


An hon. Member:: Canada.


Mark Willson Rose: Certainly. I am glad to hear from the senator on the other side: he has answered my question. Why should the people of Canada assume that liability? There is no reason for it. Not very many people realize that the world's sea life regenerates on the tide flats and river estuaries and these are precisely the areas which are being most threatened now by the Prudhoe Bay deal. We need a good, tough bill and a good, tough minister who will say he agrees that we need to extend our jurisdiction for pollution control purposes beyond the 12-mile spit that was described earlier today to a reasonable distance so that Canadians can rest assured that their minister, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), of whom they are so proud, will take a leading role in this very important problem.
Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has been convinced, because I saw him attempt to rise a moment ago. I am looking forward to his remarks as soon as I sit down.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask some questions of the minister regarding the recent announcement of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) concerning the 12-mile limit. I will not detain the House long. I want to know from the minister exactly what new government policy has been invoked by the announcement of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry last Thursday in the
Canada Shipping Act
House when he said the following in reply to a question. I quote from page 3741 of Hansard:
A ruling has been made that all Canadian trawlers must stay outside 12 miles from shore, and this applies particularly off the west coast of Newfoundland. These rules applying to our own trawlers will automatically apply to all foreign vessels as well.
There is a certain amount of misunderstanding in Newfoundland with respect to this question. I am sure the minister has read the Newfoundland weekend papers, as I have, and he will readily admit that the misunderstanding is there. Perhaps this might be a good opportunity to clear up that misunderstanding, because the 12-mile limit issue is relevant to the amendment now before the House; indeed, it is relevant to the whole act since the operative clauses of the act apply within the areas defined as the 12-mile limit.
The question I would put to the minister is: What arrangement has been made with the French authorities with respect to their jurisdiction over the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon? Can we hope there has been agreement with the government of France in this regard? Perhaps, also, he can define what the agreement is and how we get around the fact that the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are within 12 miles of the coast of Newfoundland at one point, making the drawing of the 12-mile limit following the sinuosity of the coastline almost impossible without some arrangement with the government of France.
There is no question, of course, about the west coast of Newfoundland, and nobody questions it at all; it is a very simple matter. But when you get to the south coast of Newfoundland, taking in most of the minister's own constituency, this is where the problem arises and this is where a great deal of foreign fishing activities take place. This is where the great winter fishery takes place, and this is the area of great difficulty, the one area which poses a real dilemma to the government of Canada with respect to the 1964 statute.
To clear up the misunderstanding that is in my mind at present and which appears to be prevalent in Newfoundland also, perhaps the minister might want to take this opportunity to clarify what seems to be a rather ambiguous situation. My question very simply is: Do we have a 12-mile limit off the south coast of Newfoundland and, if so, what arrangements have been made with the government of France?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the question of the hon. member relates to fisheries lines and to the whole question of the limit relating to fisheries, it would be more appropriate for the hon. member to put the question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who has responsibility in the matter and who is in day to day touch with it. I have a special and direct concern in so far as the pollution issue is concerned. However, I will try to elaborate and to enlighten the hon. member, with the qualification that I hope he will understand that it is purely and simply a layman's interpretation and that I am merely giving him my understanding of the situation. If it happens that the

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
legal position is somewhat different, I am sure he and all hon. members will understand.
As to whether or not there is a 12-mile limit off the south coast of Newfoundland, the short answer is yes, for the majority of the distance from, let us say, Cape Ray or Port aux Basques, generally speaking, along the south coast eastward. There is, of course, as the hon. member knows, the geographic problem that roughly speaking off Placentia Bay there are the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are the property of France. So that in terms of the area between what might be described as the northern coast of St. Pierre, that is, the coast of St. Pierre nearest to Newfoundland and the southern part of the Newfoundland coast-if my hon. friend can visualize what I mean-according to the conventional way of drawing any sort of national lines or fisheries lines, the distance is equidistant between the two territories which in the event belong to different countries, that is, on the inside part.
So if you can still visualize the map, it would mean that as one approached from the west, coming east along the south coast of Newfoundland at the point where St. Pierre occurs from a geographic point of view, the line would be equidistant between St. Pierre and Newfoundland. This leaves a region on the southern part of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and here I would assume-I have to remind hon. members, again, that I am not a legal authority in these matters-that whatever the French government's position is with regard to territorial waters, presumably they would assert that as being their territorial waters in any part of their coastline which did not have a relationship to the coastline of Newfoundland, that is, where the Atlantic Ocean is beyond that. That, as I understand it, is the position, although I do emphasize again that this is purely a laymen's judgment.
On the question of the application of this act in the area relating to St. Pierre, neither I nor, to my knowledge, the government of Canada had any direct negotiations with the government of France with regard to pollution matters. The hon. member may recall that he asked me a somewhat similar question during the second reading of this bill and I replied that we had a more or less ad hoc arrangement with the government of St. Pierre, in the local sense, that we would assist them in the event that there was a pollution problem around their coastline.
I believe basically that is the position as it exists at present. With regard to this measure, I would certainly be prepared, in so far as my own responsibilities extend, to determine whether or not the government of France acting through its representatives on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon would be interested in making some sort of arrangement with us from a pollution standpoint which would have the effect of closing what is at least a theoretical gap in the lines, although in practical terms it is not my opinion that this would be a serious problem for us in the event of an oil spill in that region.
I say this because I believe common sense would prevail over other considerations and that under the normal rules, if none other than those of decency, we would
assist each other in the event of an oil spill or the threat of an oil spill in that area. But in an effort to formalize such an arrangement I would be quite prepared to explore, through the usual channels of the Department of External Affairs and the government of France, the willingness of that government to work with us jointly on this matter.
I regret that I cannot be more explicit in terms of marine law for the benefit of hon. members, but I hope that what I have said clarifies the matter to some extent. To the best of my knowledge, it does constitute the correct situation.
While I am on my feet, I believe, with regard to the amendment that is before the House, that I cannot do better than reflect the views expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), that is, to say that at present a unilateral decision on the part of Canada to extend its jurisdiction below the sixtieth parallel to 100 miles would be totally unacceptable to the international community. It would not in fact be observed, in our opinion. The wisest course, we believe, is to continue on the way we have been going up to now, and that is to attempt to negotiate with the international community some sort of agreement that will in fact solve the problem which has been quite properly defined by the hon. member who proposed this amendment and by those who have supported it.
There is no question about the fact that it would be advisable and useful to have some form of international agreement to cope with the potential situation to which they have referred. I recall that one hon. member said this afternoon that there is no magic in 100 miles. That is quite true. If we were to have a major oil spill 200, 300 or even 500 miles off our coast, it is by no means inconceivable that the oil could end up right on the coast, ours probably being the longest coastline in the world.
Whilst there may be a certain degree of satisfaction in asserting this form a nationalistic point of view, it is my opinion that it would serve no useful purpose at the present time. Indeed, quite the contrary; I suspect it would slow down significantly the sizeable progress made in the last few months on the matter of international agreements.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: By all means.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before the minister concludes his
remarks, would it be possible for him to fill us in as far as possible-I realize that there are impediments to so doing-on what is happening in the international field and the extent to which we in this country might look ahead? We are all vitally interested.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is probably as good a time as any. As the hon. member will know from following the news for the last six months, there has been a marked softening in the attitude of the shipping

March 1, 1971

nations. Some of it was not reflected in the representations made before our committee, but nevertheless I am quite satisfied that the action taken by the House in giving unanimous first and second reading to this bill has been effective.
There was a clear determination in committee that something must be done in this field. As a result, we have seen initiatives taken by the international oil companies in the form of much larger insurance funds than they held previously. In fact, they have increased their contributions to this pool of money quite significantly and are now prepared to do much more than they were when we went to Brussels in the fall of 1969. In addition, there has been greatly increased activity in the United States in regard to anti-pollution measures. Not only the federal government but several individual states have taken action against this type of threat to the ecology and the shorelines.
For obvious reasons I cannot give particulars, but I can assure the House of a definite movement toward more international co-operation. We have indicated our anxiety to go along with this by establishing bases in this bill which will put us on all fours with the Brussels convention. We are remaining within the international community rather than taking unilateral action. I do not suggest that it is possible or even likely that we will get everything we want within a year or two, but I have not the slightest doubt that the weight of public opinion is with us. I may say that our information indicates some commendation among concerned people in the governments of many countries for the actions we have taken.
I might point out to the hon. member who moved the amendment that his party was dubious about the Arctic sovereignty bill and about the extent to which Canada ought to move unilaterally outside the general framework of international law. At that particular moment it was felt that it was suitable and proper to do so. In a situation such as this I can assure the House that there would be no acceptance. Furthermore, we would be asserting something which would be virtually beyond our power to control.
During second reading in this House and before the committee I pointed out that to extend our territorial waters by 100 miles would be to bisect some of the major shipping lines of the world. Thus we would be asserting our authority over what for many centuries have been established sea lanes. I am not suggesting that there should not be this kind of authority; I am suggesting that we must continue to take the lead to get international agreements to police these sea lanes and to identify routes along which ships such as tankers should be permitted to travel. I believe we will have far more success in this way than if we seek to "do it" alone.
Finally, let me point out that historically the greatest threat is within the territorial waters of a country. There is always the danger of collision at sea, of course, but if one looks at the history of the events to which the hon. member referred, all of them occurred within a comparatively short distance of the shore. In the San Francisco incident the two ships were coming into harbour. We believe that the major threat of accident at the present
Canada Shipping Act
time lies within the 12-mile limit, so I do not feel there is any impediment to effective action in establishing what we have in this bill. I believe this to be entirely defensible in the international community, and I think we should move for the kind of safeguards which I feel are essential but which I feel can only be achieved through international co-operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I should like to ask the minister a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can do this only if the minister allows the question, because the minister has the floor.


Mark Willson Rose: I understand from the minister that he agrees to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that we are not in committee. He has the right to ask a question if the minister is prepared to reply to it as part of his speech. The hon. member cannot rise and continue debate in committee style when the Speaker is in the chair.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to deny the hon. member a question, but I suggest that he make it brief so that we can get on with the measure before the House.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the minister suggested that members of this party were dubious about the Arctic sovereignty bill. I should like to ask the minister to look at the record and to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) is making a statement: he would like the minister to look up the record. Obviously, that is not a question and it seems to me that the hon. member is now looking for a way to make a statement. He has already spoken on the subject.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister, if he would allow it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Fine, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest to the hon. member that Your Honour has already indicated that we are not in committee of the whole. The hon. member has had his 40 minutes. However, I will accept the question if he wishes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I ask the minister whether the United States have accepted Canada's jurisdiction so far as the 12-mile limit on the territorial sea is concerned, inasmuch as he said that the actions we are taking under this bill are acceptable to the international community.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: To answer briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a difference between acceptance in the wholly formal sense of the word and agreement in the informal sense of the word. What I said was that there is adequate precedent in terms of the 12-mile limit for us to be quite

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
sure it will not be challenged, and that generally speaking it will be accepted without question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not hear all of the minister's statement. I rise for the purpose of saying that I do not think the people on the Pacific Coast will feel too reassured by the statements which have been made by the minister. It is all very well for him to talk about the possibilities of international agreement and of being able to get some satisfactory arrangements made at a conference of the sea. The fact remains that British Columbia faces a very real prospect of a pollution threat if plans are carried out for building the pipeline from the north shore of Alaska to Valdez and transshipping oil from Valdez to Cherry Point, down the west coast of Vancouver island and through the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
The minister may not be satisfied with the amendment. I would have hoped that the minister would himself have asked Parliament to give him and his department adequate powers to deal with this situation. The situation, to some extent, is on a par with the action which the government took one year ago with respect to the Arctic. I refer to the speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in the House of Commons on October 24, 1969. He said, as reported at page 39 of Hansard:
We do not doubt for a moment that the rest of the world would find us at fault, and hold us liable, should we fail to ensure adequate protection of that environment from pollution or artificial deterioration. Canada will not permit this to happen either in the name of freedom of the seas, or in the interests of economic development. We have viewed with dismay the abuse elsewhere of both these laudable principles and are determined not to bow in the Arctic to the pressures of any state. In saying this, we are aware of the difficulties faced in the past by other countries in controlling water pollution and marine destruction within their own jurisdiction.
If the minister has any doubts about the position that this party took with respect to that legislation, he need only look at the record. Our criticism of the government was that it did not immediately concur in the report of the standing committee that had recommended to the House that the government should declare sovereignty not only over the Arctic Islands but the Arctic waters. That was our criticism. We thought the government should have gone further than merely declaring its jurisdiction with respect to pollution control. There can be no doubt about our support for the action which the government took in going as far as it did. We wished it had gone further. Nevertheless, in so far as the government declared that it reserved the right to take the necessary action to control shipping in so far as that shipping might pollute the waters of the Arctic, we supported the government fully.
We think that the same principle ought to apply here. We are not suggesting that the government should have
the right to interfere with the west coast sea lanes. What we are saying is that if oil tankers are to ply the waters between Alaska and the United States, and if they are to pass through Canadian coastal waters and come close to Canadian territory, then the Canadian government should declare, through regulations passed under the Canada Shipping Act, under what conditions those ships will ply those sea routes and what must be the state and condition of the ships as related to the type of cargo.
Ships ought to be required to file the routes which they propose to take, so that in case of fog other ships could be warned as to their location. All the precautions that are possible and need to be taken should be taken to protect the waters off the Pacific coast. Everyone knows, of course, that notwithstanding all the precautions taken, accidents can still occur. The fact remains, nevertheless, that a great many precautions could be taken. Regulations should be enforced. If there are no regulations in this field, conditions imposed will not have any effect.
I do not need to tell the minister about this matter because he knows from experience what happened in Chedabucto Bay. The grounding or sinking of a large tanker anywhere off the west coast of Vancouver Island or in the Straits of Juan de Fuca would pollute that entire area, could destroy one of the most valuable fishing zones in the world and could pollute some of the finest beaches and recreational centres to be found on the North American continent. Surely, therefore, we do not ask too much when we ask that in this legislation there be the necessary powers by which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) can lay down the terms and conditions under which ships carrying pollutants can operate if they are to come within 100 miles of the Canadian western shoreline or if they are destined for ports close to Canada.
The minister says that we will work this out through international law. Yet the fact remains that there is no clearcut international law in this field. The Americans have a three-mile limit; other countries impose limits running all the way from four miles to 200 miles offshore. A wide variety of areas have been established over which coastal states have jurisdiction. As I pointed out in a speech I made last year on the question of sovereignty over the Arctic area, nations in the past who wished to protect their own interests have faced this problem and acted unilaterally. As a result of their acting unilaterally, other nations have followed suit. Then a Conference of the Sea has taken place and a convention has been established. That has happened again and again.
The United States, which might be one of the countries to complain, has again and again taken unilateral action. I think reference has already been made to the Truman declaration of 1945 in which the United States unilaterally declared exclusive control of resources of the continental shelf, which in such cases as the Bering Sea extends for several hundred miles. This proclamation of course did not prohibit ships from sailing in these waters or fishing in them; but it did reserve the resources of the sea bed for the United States for some 250 miles off the east coast and some 60 miles off the west coast of that

March 1, 1971

country. As a result of this action which the United States took on its own initiative, the continental shelf doctrine was accepted by the other nations of the world.
In the same year, the Truman administration in the United States declared that if the United States of its own initiative decided to exercise the right to regulate and control the fishing industry for purposes of conservation, then it had that right even on certain areas of the high seas where other nationals were fishing. It maintained and exercised that right. As a matter of fact, before the United States became a great oil shipping nation, as far back as 1926 that country proposed at a Conference of the Sea a convention which would prohibit the discharge of oil into the sea. Later, the United States began to ship oil. It objected when other nations wanted to impose this type of prohibition. I point these things out merely to suggest to the minister that if he is going to be timid and wait until there is international agreement, until somebody else takes the initiative and until there is finally a Conference of the Sea, he may wait for a long time.
In the meantime, the people of British Columbia may be the victims of the government's hesitancy. We are appealing to the minister to assume these necessary powers now. We have sufficient confidence in the minister that he will not exercise these powers in an arbitrary manner and upset shipping on the high seas. The minister should seek the necessary authority in Parliament to declare that Canada will impose conditions by regulation to which ships carrying oil or other pollutants coming close to the Canadian coastline must abide. That is all. Surely the minister needs some kind of powers to do that.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Do you consider 100 miles to be close?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I consider that 100 miles is a reasonable area. Possibly the minister thinks that 50 miles is more reasonable and wants to suggest that. Ships will come down from Alaska, go out past the west coast of Vancouver Island and then have to swing in around Canadian territory to get to Cherry Point. The minister ought to have some power to exercise control over those ships.
It is no secret that some oil tankers operated under the flags of various nations are not the most seaworthy vessels. I have seen some come into the harbours in my constituency where it was possible to knock out part of the bulkhead with a hammer because they were so rusty, old and decrepit. How seaworthy are they? How safe are they to be sailing our waters, when if they begin to leak they could pollute the entire coastline and destroy the livelihood of the fishermen on the west coast of British Columbia?
If the minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, I hope he will be prepared to suggest the kind of powers which he thinks he requires in order to keep the danger of polluting the west coast of Canada to a minimum. No one can guarantee we will not have any pollu-
Canada Shipping Act
tion as a result of an accident at sea, but there could be regulations regarding the seaworthiness and condition of ships, navigational aids, filing of the route they are going to follow and a series of provisions that would at least reduce the hazard and thereby lessen the risk.
I think the minister ought to be prepared to at least do that. If he is not going to do it, he must accept the responsibility if in one, two or three years there is a major wreck of an oil tanker or some other catastrophe on the west coast of British Columbia. That is a responsibility which I, personally, would not want to assume. I do not think the minister is going to be burdened by asking Parliament for this authority. He can then sit down with his officials and with those who are knowledgeable on this subject to work out the kind of regulations which would be necessary to keep to the absolute minimum the danger of pollution from a wreck.
I hope the minister will be prepared to reconsider his decision, be bold and take the initiative in declaring Canada's right to exercise jurisdiction and control in so far as controlling pollution is concerned. I am convinced that if the minister takes that bold action, not only Canadians but other coastal states will support him. In time we will have a Convention of the Sea which will endorse the position the minister should be taking. Surely it would be better for the minister to take the initiative than to placidly wait until somebody else manages to persuade the other coastal states to agree to such a measure.
The government had the courage to declare its authority with respect to pollution control in the Arctic. Surely it is equally important, if not more important, that it exercise the same jurisdiction with respect to the much more settled areas of Canada, namely, the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act


Louis-Roland Comeau: That Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be amended in clause 2 by striking out the word "oil" on line 36 at page 23, lines 1, 12, 14, 16, 19, 26, 29, 30, 33 and 38 at page 24, and lines 11, 30 and 33 at page 25 and substituting therefor the word "pollutant".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is quite simple. It merely changes the word "oil" to "pollutant". Hon. members who have not followed the committee's reports will, I am sure, agree that it sounds quite simple. Frankly, it is simple. The amendment I moved this afternoon was accepted by the minister. I hope this amendment receives the same treatment.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that money is required to fight pollution. The amendment deals specifically with the clause which relates to the maritime claims fund. While I was absent from the proceedings in the committee on February 11 the chairman introduced a couple of amendments and described them as a joint effort of myself and another member. This is one of them. It was moved in the committee but the committee chose to accept one which provided that the Governor in Council might make regulations prescribing pollutants other than oil. This is well and good.
* (9:10p.m.)
We have had experience of certain pollutants which are, or could be, detrimental to our waters. Nevertheless, the regulations have not yet been brought forward. At least, this was the situation on February 11. But the whole bill depends upon regulations of some sort, regulations with respect to ship construction, the security of tanks used to transport liquids, and so on. In consequence, we do not yet know what substances the government considers to be pollutants and what it does not.
As I say, money is needed to fight pollution. The government therefore proposes to set up a fund which could be used to clean up whatever mess is caused should there be an accident or incident. Most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed concern about this clause, about the proposed levy and about the claims fund. They feared that if the levy were set too high, the companies concerned would simply pass the costs over to the consumers.
I am surprised that more attention has not been paid to this bill, since it is a measure which affects international interests. It is proposed to place a levy upon oil or other pollutants and, as we know, our imports and exports are carried almost entirely by foreign vessels in the absence of what might be called a viable Canadian shipping industry. Sections of the oil industry have expressed their concern about the provisions dealing with the claims fund and it may be the levy will be detrimental to Canadian industry. In these circumstances we should take a close look at the clause before us.
I do not believe the blame for pollution should be laid entirely on the oil industry. In the last year or so there have been cases of pollution by phosphorous, for example. Phosphorous is being transported in Canadian
waters. Insecticides and pesticides are being transported through Canadian waters, not only in the Pacific and the Atlantic but the Great Lakes. Thus, there are other pollutants which should be required to bear a portion of this charge; the levy should not be limited to oil. I refer to an incident on the St. Lawrence close to Montreal last year which caused some alarm.
The argument used in committee against this amendment was a simple one. Hon. members will find it stated on page 1563 of the committee report for February 11. Mr. Macgillivray was answering for the department; he was really the only departmental witness, because the minister only attended once and the parliamentary secretary did not become a witness. When we asked whether pollutants other than oil should not also be the subject of a levy in connection with the fund, Mr. Macgillivray suggested it was not very practicable because the amount of the levy could not exceed 15 cents per ton. The committee eventually accepted a compromise of sorts to the extent that pollutants could be prescribed by regulation.
As the bill is presently written, it seems to me there is no limit to the size of the fund which could be built up, nor do we know how large a sum the government will require. When, if ever, will it cease collecting this levy of 15 cents per ton? Would it be suspended if, for example, it were found that sufficient funds had been accumulated to take care of any spill which might reasonably be expected? I should like to know whether this is being kept in mind, because in these hard times there is no need to tax industry too heavily simply for the sake of doing so, especially if there is to be a detrimental effect upon the Canadian economy.
I find it hard to argue this amendment. If I argue too strongly in favour of it, hon. members will think I am not really interested in protecting the environment but am more interested in protecting the interests of industry. But it seems to me there must be a reasonable balance somewhere; we cannot always kick industry around. In other words, we must take some responsibility.
Let me look at some of the funds presently in existence. Other funds have been set up for the same purpose as the maritime claims fund; for example, there is the CRISTAL fund, and there is also TOVALOP. On January 14, 1971, the Oil Companies Institute for Marine Pollution Compensation Limited issued a press release dealing with this problem. Perhaps Your Honour will permit me to read a couple of paragraphs so that the House knows what these funds involve:
A number of leading oil companies of the world signed a voluntary agreement in New York today-
That was on January 14, one month ago.
-as a further step by the industry to help fight pollution of the oceans from oil spills from tankers and at the same time announced formation of an institute to administer it. The agreement supplements ship owners' liability by providing for com-

March 1, 1971

pensation up to $30 million per incident involving participating companies and is expected to become effective April 1st.
The newly formed Oil Companies Institute for Marine Pollution Compensation Limited would administer the funds contributed by participating oil companies. These funds would be used to compensate claimants for oil pollution damage beyond the liability of tanker owners, including reimbursement of the cost of cleaning up such oil spills.
Today's agreement, known as CRISTAL (Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution), supplements a previous anti-pollution insurance program in which tanker owners participate. The earlier agreement, known as TOVALOP (Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement Concerning Liability for Oil Pollution), was signed in 1969 and imposed responsibility upon participating tanker owners for reimbursing governments to a maximum of $10 million per incident for cleaning up of oil spills. TOVALOP covers over 80 per cent of the world's tanker tonnage.
Thus, in the case of an oil spill from a TOVALOP tanker, CRISTAL will supplement the tanker owner's responsibility to an over-all total of $30 million provided the cargo belongs to a participating company.
So there are funds in existence at the moment and most oil companies participate in them. The problem is that the compensation comes from one source only; you cannot claim compensation from several sources. The CRISTAL agreement to which I referred a moment ago provides that where national funds are established-for example, the maritime claims fund-compensation is available only to the extent that the national fund is unable to cover the cost.
Thus, if the proposed maritime pollution claims fund were established in Canada, financed by Canadian oil companies and hence indirectly by Canadian consumers, Canada would be denying herself the full benefits of the other funds, CRISTAL and TOVALOP, the financing of which will be contributed to on a worldwide basis, not only by Canadian industry. Therefore, it seems to me that under these circumstances it becomes highly questionable whether the establishment of this fund is in Canada's best interests. I am not saying that a fund should not be set up; I am just pointing out some of the matters, that give me concern, without taxing industry to the extent that it cannot cope. There was some evidence in the committee that industry cannot cope. I know one company in New England has been talking about levying a charge of 3 per cent, whereas others have thought of levying a charge of 15 cents per ton of oil carried. If a Canadian company is called upon to pay 15 cents a ton as well as three cents at a U.S. port, then quite frankly I do not know how the industry will manage.
The word "pollutant" as a general term is well defined in the definition clause of this bill. I suggest that if the amendment were accepted we would be able to increase the fund. However, after it reaches a certain limit I would hope contributions would cease or, failing that, at least the levy would be reduced to ease the burden on industry. I realize that this fund needs to be built up quickly in case a spill occurs next year, for example. As far as the famous Arrow incident on the east coast is concerned, the minister has mentioned that Canada was billed for something like $2 million to $3 million and I presume we are going to be taxed for that bill. I wonder
Canada Shipping Act
why this is necessary since TOVALOP was in existence at that time and now there is CRISTAL. Why did the government not ask the company involved, which I am sure belongs to this fund, to pay for the cost of cleaning up this oil spill, rather than asking Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill?
The argument that we will not be tagged again with this type of bill does not stand alone; the great majority of oil companies belong to one of the two funds to which I have referred. I hope that the minister will consider this amendment and accept it. Failing that, I trust he will assure the House that the consumers of this country will not again have to bear such an expense. If the cost of cleaning up a spill is too high, this is what will happen.
As I mentioned, the amendment would have the effect of increasing the fund at an accelerated rate. This fund should be reviewed, as suggested before the committee by Mr. Macgillivray, after a certain length of time. Once the fund reaches a certain limit I would hope that the levies would be suspended or at least reduced. If there is no accident for 20 years and we keep collecting this money, the government will put it into the consolidated revenue fund and it will be used for something else. We have seen this happen too often in respect of other funds and pension schemes. The government has used such money for other purposes.
In this case we should not allow the government to use this fund for any reason other than that for which it was designed. I hope the government will look favourably on this amendment in view of the fact that it touches upon the whole topic of maritime trends. Once this measure becomes effective and the fund begins to grow, I hope the government will realize that there are pollutants other than oil which may be as dangerous to our environment. We all know what happened last year in respect of phosphorous. There was a big fuss in this House a year and a half ago about the danger of this pollutant. It seems to me that cargoes of this kind of pollutant should be taxed in the same way in which we propose to tax oil cargoes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the arguments he has advanced have the virtue of making at least one point clear. After this bill is passed and becomes operative, members of the House will have a continuing responsibility to observe and examine the administration of the regulations this government enacts, in order to satisfy themselves that they are being applied in such a way as to avoid seriously and unnecessarily interfering with the operation of trade and commerce in Canada while at the same time preventing pollution.
This is particularly true because of the authority placed in the Governor in Council to adopt regulations as it sees fit. The hon. member has related his amendment to the question of revenues and has suggested that in some way his amemdment would make the operation and maintenance of the fund relevant to an appropriate level.

March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
Quite frankly, I fail to follow his argument in this connection.
There were suggestions made by members of the committee, including myself, that provision should be made in the bill for the inclusion of substances other than oil to be classed as pollutants and considered liable for charges and payment to the fund. It seems to me that the basic point of the hon. member's amendment is covered by the amendment of the committee now before the House. This amendment to proposed section 758 is to be found at page 25 of the bill returned from the committee. It seems to me that the hon. member's amendment is unnecessary and irrelevant, and for that reason I would argue against it. If his amendment were to pass, it would mean there might be a levy of 15 cents per ton, or some lesser rate if the government saw fit to set it at a lesser level, in resepct of every kind and class of substance that might be declared to be a pollutant.
This matter was discussed in the committee and it was suggested that under certain circumstances this would be quite inappropriate. After listening to the evidence presented to the committee, I was convinced that there may be some pollutants declared under the legislation in respect of which the appropriate charge to the fund could well amount to $15 per ton rather than 15 cents. I have in mind highly toxic substances, much more pollutant than oil, which may be carried in smaller quantities at a higher level of taxation. They might be taxed at a higher level in order to cover the greater risk to our ecological resources.
The member suggests that the regulations are not enacted as yet and we do not know what they will be. I should like to have seen the regulations before we considered this bill. We often run into this old argument which is akin to the chicken and the egg dispute. We request details of regulations before we give approval to a bill. Had there not been an agreement in the committee in respect of provisions to levy charges on the transportation of other pollutants, I could see some point in the hon. members' amendment or some modification of it. As the matter stands, it seems that this amendment is unnecessary and would only confuse the issue. Therefore, I feel I cannot support it. I suggest to the House that it should not accept the amendment.
The hon. member has suggested that as a result of the assessment of charges under this measure there would be an accumulation of a great deal of funds. As far as I was able to ascertain, no one with knowledge of these matters, either from the department or other experts, was able to suggest what should in fact be the maximum. I am satisfied, under the circumstances, to allow a certain amount of accumulation and let experience be the guide as to the permissible level of this fund, before any reduction in the levy is considered. I do not think the hon. member's argument in respect of this proposed section is relevant to the practical situation. If his amendment were adopted, I do not think it would contribute to making the administration of the legislation easier than it will be as the bill stands.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 4, moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Louis-Roland Comeau: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Comeau) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now revert to a deferred division on motion No. 2, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on motion No. 2, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: 
Donald Campbell Jamieson: that Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 1, 1971
Canada Shipping Act
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, since a number of labour representatives are in town, I think we would be setting
a bad example if we were to work overtime tonight since we do not get overtime pay. Therefore, I move we forgo the adjournment debate, if that should be agreeable to the House.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am usually the most agreeable of people, but I hope my party's whip will no longer insist on taking it out of private members' time. Tonight, though, I shall be agreeable to the course he has suggested.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 2, 1971