1971-01-27

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I indicated I would give consideration to the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for unanimous consent to refer the report of the Public Service Commission to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. What the government desires is a full examination of its policy on bilingualism in the Public Service by a committee. Hon. members are likely to find the reference by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre unsatisfactory for such a review. However, when the estimates are referred to the standing committees in about three weeks' time, we will undertake to facilitate an examination of this important question through the appearance of the responsible minister and other key witnesses, some of whom, I may add, may not find it possible to testify at a hearing immediately.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, does that mean the minister is denying unanimous consent to the motion I made yesterday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances I have outlined I thought the hon. member would co-operate by withdrawing his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that there is not unanimous consent and therefore the motion cannot be put.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous consent to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the public's right to know about a matter of public concern and the denial of that right by a branch of government. Since January 21 Canada Manpower has arrogated to itself the right to refuse to release new statistical data respecting the number of persons who have applied for jobs at various Canada Manpower centres. Today such information is refused to members of this House, members of the press
and all other persons whom Canada Manpower wishes to keep in ignorance. With unanimous consent, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) I move:
That this House asserts that it is the undoubted right of Members of Parliament, members of the press and all other members of the public to receive upon request current statistical facts respecting the number of persons who are registered with Canada Manpower Centres as seeking employment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has proposed a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. This motion, to be put from the Chair, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether we should give consideration to eliminating from the rules Standing Order 43 because of its obvious ineffectiveness and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a point of order. If hon. members are dissatisfied with the operation of any rule a suggestion can always be made that it be reconsidered by the Committee on Procedure and Organization. It might be worth our while to look at this rule. As hon. members know, the application of Standing Order 43 in the House during the last year or so has been rather novel. Standing Order 43 has not normally been used as it has been used during the past year or so. Actually the new method of proposing matters of urgency has supplanted to some extent the former usage under Standing Order 26. It may be that we are putting ourselves into a difficulty in relation to the use of Standing Order 43. I would think that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is a worth while one and perhaps those members of the House who represent the different parties on the committee in question might like to put this matter on the agenda of the committee when they next meet.


Mr. Lang:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to the attention of yourself and members of the House that the procedure by which the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate raised the question yesterday, then spoke on television and again raised the matter today can mislead not only the House but members of the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 27, 1971
Recruitment of Francophones


An hon. Member:: That is just an argument.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker-


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member by a brief check with my office could in fact have found-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would agree that the Chair should listen to what the question of privilege is about. It is difficult for the Chair to determine whether there is a real question of privilege until there has been at least a brief statement to indicate what it is about. I suspect the point the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands wishes to make is that there is no question of privilege. This may well be, but I think I should at least briefly hear the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Ricard:: What is the question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the minister on a question of privilege. I will see the hon. member on his point of order in a moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may ask a question if the minister who has the floor will allow a question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am asking Your Honour if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands might indicate whether he wishes to ask a question of the member who has the floor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; I
wanted to ask Your Honour if notice had been given to Your Honour of the question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: I may say that no notice has been given to the Chair, but the Standing Order provides that when the question of privilege is one which arises out of debate in the House then no notice is required. It well may be that the question relates to the statement which has just been made, but I cannot judge that until I have heard the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that we proceed in an orderly fashion. The hon. member has raised a point of order. I think I have answered to the best of my
ability the point raised by the hon. member. It seems to me we would make some progress in this matter if I were allowed to hear briefly what the minister has in mind. I may then be able to determine whether the minister should be allowed to continue.


Mr. Hees:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness to the minister I think he should be allowed to state his question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member seeks the floor on a question of privilege I must then point out to him that there cannot be two questions of privilege at the same time. There is now one before the House. The minister has the floor.


Otto Emil Lang: I may say in passing that this sort of thing makes it obvious that it is necessary to examine Standing Order 43.
Some hon. Members : Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down, professor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor to state his question of privilege.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has raised again a matter to which he referred in public last night, having already raised it in the House. In doing so he has reported hearsay when with the slightest bit of checking he could have found there was no such directive and that the situation simply is that information which is to be given by manpower managers is to be given in an orderly fashion under a directive which has existed since 1968.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the minister. Obviously he does not have a question of privilege. The minister has outlined his proposition. I have been as lenient as possible in allowing the minister to refer to what the question of privilege might be. Hon. members know what a question of privilege is. I have reminded the House very often of what in my view constitutes a question of privilege. I would not think that the hon. member personally or members generally have been affected in their right to discharge the business of the nation. I would think that the point raised by the hon. member is not akin to a question of privilege. I do think the matter should not be pursued.


Otto Emil Lang: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was coming to my question of privilege which was the basis upon which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must rule, having heard the minister, that the point he seeks to raise relates to a statement which allegedly was made last night. It is necessary for me to rule that according to our Standing Orders the usual one-hour notice should have been given to the Chair. No such notice was given. If the minister will file notice, perhaps he will be given an opportunity to explain further what the question of privilege might be.

January 27, 1971



ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAM TO COMBAT NON-MEDICAL USE-INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to hon. members that the Department of National Health and Welfare is inaugurating today a comprehensive national program to combat the non-medical use of drugs which will include extensive research, information, treatment and drug analysis programs.
This co-ordinated approach to the drug abuse problem arises out of continuing departmental studies and careful consideration of the recommendations of the interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs which was tabled in the House on June 19, 1970.
The over-all program will be co-ordinated by Dr. Aurele Beaulnes of the department.
Research on the non-medical use of drugs will be conducted jointly by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Medical Research Council. Participation will be open to all Canadian scientists wishing to expand their research or initiate new projects on the bio-medical, sociological, educational, or other aspects of drug abuse.
The requirement for research was determined by the serious lack of knowledge concerning the effects of psychotropic drugs, especially over the long term. Priorities for research have been established and will be made known to scientists, along with an invitation for them to apply for research support in the various priority areas. All applications received from scientists will be assessed on the basis of merit and relevance to the drug abuse question.
Research will also be encouraged in the fields of epidemiology and sociology in order to further knowledge on the factors that lead individuals to drug abuse.
The recommendation of the Le Dain Commission that the federal government investigate the establishment of regional drug analytical laboratories across Canada has also been approved and amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act have been passed in order to get these laboratories operational.
The new regulations will permit a physician to receive a sample of a controlled, restricted or narcotic drug from an individual under his professional care and to transmit it for analysis to a scientist authorized to possess the drug for this purpose. This service is of extreme importance to physicians treating drug abuse sufferers, as proper analysis will assist the practitioner to determine the most appropriate treatment for his patient.
The information program will provide Canadians with up to date factual information on drug abuse. The program will be developed in consultation with provincial health and welfare departments and other agencies dealing with the problems of drug abuse. Assistance will also
Research into Non-Medical Drug Use be provided to provincial programs and, where necessary, to initiate new programs.
The information program will consist of four components: data retrieval, data analysis, information processing and communications.
The department will support a greater number of innovative services designed to meet drug-related social problems. Demonstration grants and other short-term assistance will be provided for experimental programs undertaken by existing or new organizations, some of which will be operated by the young people themselves. These innovative services will include such projects as crisis intervention, rehabilitative and preventative service, detached street work, indigenous counselling, information and referral services, as well as residential treatment centres, work activity programs, employment services and other community development services related to the problems of drug abuse.
Through such innovative programs particular effort will be made to strengthen the ability of families and communities to understand and deal with social conditions that generate youth alienation, drug abuse and other allied problems.
For fiscal year 1970-71, the Department of National Health and Welfare has budgeted a total of more than $400,000 to finance these initiatives. The total amount forecast in the next fiscal year for the over-all program is $4.5 million.
In addition, I should point out that under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government is sharing in the cost of a wide range of welfare and rehabilitative services, many of which are directly related to the prevention and treatment of social problems associated with the misuse of drugs. It is my hope that the provinces will make greater use of the sharing provisions of the plan. I will discuss this matter with the provincial ministers of welfare this week.
Further details regarding application for grants for research under this program and for further information will be brought to the attention of interested researchers.
As hon. members are aware, a plenipotentiary conference on psychotropic substances is currently under way in Vienna, Austria. Sixty-two nations and a number of international agencies are participating in the deliberations.
The conference has been called on recommendation of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs which drafted a protocol on psychotropic substances at its meeting last year. This protocol envisages international and national controls on psychotropic substances which are liable to abuse, such as LSD, amphetamines, barbiturates and certain tranquilizers.
Canada has taken the position that the international instrument which will result from the conference should provide maximum flexibility in order to take into account present Canadian policy in this area, as well as changes or developments which may occur in the future.
I have received a report from the Canadian delegation and I am pleased to say that many countries share the Canadian view and have emphasized the need to prepare

January 27, 1971
Research into Non-Medical Drug Use a protocol which would be acceptable to a large number of states. It is our view that national governments are in the best position to determine the proper procedure to follow under the particular set of circumstances existing within their territories relating to the abuse of specific drugs.
The Canadian delegation is headed by Dr. Maurice LeClair, Deputy Minister of National Health. Canada's alternate delegates are Dr. R. A. Chapman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Food and Drugs; Dr. Aurele Beaulnes, Coordinator of the Federal Programs on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs; Mr. J. D. McCarthy, Director, Legal Services of my department and Miss Pauline Sprague, Department of Justice. Officials from the Departments of Secretary of State, External Affairs and National Health and Welfare are, as required, acting as advisers to the delegation.
The delegation has not been empowered to sign the protocol. As I have indicated previously, this House will have a full opportunity to review the agreement before consideration is given to its ratification.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that I am pleased to learn that no commitment of an international nature will be made without prior consultation with the House. Consequently, apparently no commitment of an international nature will be made which will limit the kind of program and the kind of laws that we may wish to adopt in this country without prior consultation with parliament.
There is no question, Sir, about the urgent need for research, information, treatment and drug analysis programs. If one questioned in one's mind the urgency of this matter before, surely after reading the interim report of the Le Dain Commission one could hardly entertain such doubts.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand why we had to wait for such a long time for an announcement of such a general nature as the minister made today. In fact, it seems to have been prepared at the last minute because, without meaning to give offence, I got my copy as I was entering the House.


John Carr Munro: I thought the hon. member would like to see it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am grateful for the minister's consideration. Although I have had only a few minutes to consider what the minister has said, it is quite apparent that the program announced by the minister ought to mean a good deal and should be designed with a great sense of urgency in mind. It may mean a good deal or it may mean very little. It is very difficult to judge from the minister's statement. For example, the minister said that some $4.5 million will be spent in the next fiscal year. Yet there is no indication as to how this amount is to be broken down and how much is to go for any particular purpose. We only know that $400,000 has been assigned to finance certain innovative programs.


John Carr Munro: That is for this year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I beg your pardon, that is for this year. Nevertheless there is absolutely no indication as to how the $4.5 million is to be broken down next year and how much of that amount is to go toward research, toward developing information, toward communication and toward financing innovative programs. Therefore it is a little difficult to understand why it has taken the minister so long to present even this kind of general statement to the House.
In speaking about an information program, the minister is still in the position of having to say that this program will be developed in consultation with provincial health and welfare authorities. Although it is many months since the Le Dain Commission brought down its interim report and many years since the urgency of the problem became apparent, there is no indication that any such program has been developed. I say again that the need is urgent in all these areas.
It is not possible to judge the effectiveness of the minister's proposals on the basis of the information he has given us. I simply say that I hope this announcement represents a determined effort on the part of the government to move ahead in the field of research, information, treatment and drug analysis programs. If it does, I assure the minister that he will receive the full co-operation of myself and my associates as we wish to encourage the government to move forward in a determined way to face this problem in our society which has reached such grave proportions.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the morning newspapers carried a story that the minister would be making a statement today. It is unfortunate that the minister did not make copies of his statement available before the House met so that those who are expected to comment could have given serious study to the matters with which the minister has dealt.
The announcement in the statement is a beginning and we welcome it. However, we are more concerned about what is not in the statement than what is. We are concerned about whether the minister has discussed with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) the changing of those sections of the Criminal Code that deal with drugs. We are also concerned about whether the minister has discussed with the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP have been carrying on intensive undercover investigations. They have not only encouraged people to use drugs but have encouraged people to give drugs to undercover agents so that these people can be prosecuted for trafficking, not just possession. The RCMP have been acting as agents provocateurs. These matters should have been commented on by the minister but he has not dealt with them.
We are pleased with some parts of the minister's statement. Research into the medical and social effects of the very wide use of drugs is long overdue in this country. If

January 27, 1971

the government is going to encourage serious research into this matter, we welcome it. We welcome the proposal that doctors will be permitted, encouraged and given the opportunity to submit drugs which they obtain from patients to a research institute which will be able to give information to the doctor with regard to the constitution of a particular drug. I hope the minister has discussed with his colleagues in the cabinet the possibility that the police might be able to go to the doctor concerned and insist on obtaining the name of the person who supplied the drug. If the police can do that, the whole program will immediately fall flat on its face.
An information program based on facts which have been ascertained by experts in the field will be invaluable. I hope it will be an educational program based on facts rather than the kind of exaggerated scare programs and propaganda so prevalent in the past which young people in particular have completely rejected with the result that to a large extent young people no longer listen to anyone who is not in their age group.
It is encouraging to note that the government will sponsor experimental, innovative programs such as drop-in centres where troubled people may go for help. I wish the minister had said that the officials of his department had discussed the problem with the medical profession and the hospitals. Certainly for the first year or two that this program is in effect a large majority of those who have adverse reactions to the use of drugs will go to hospitals as they have done until now. I wish the minister had stated that a program had been worked out with the doctors and hospitals so that it will not be necessary for them to make reports to the police, thereby initiating prosecutions of people who have come to them for assistance. This has happened too often in the past

I know that the minister is aware of this fact-and it ought to have ceased long ago.
We are happy that the representatives of the minister at the international conference on the use of psychotropic substances have made and will make it clear that Canada intends to maintain freedom of action regardless of the decisions or recommendations made at that conference. We are happy that the Canadian government believes that all countries should be free to follow experimental and flexible programs which may lead to new methods of dealing with this problem, because the repressive, regulatory methods used up to now have completely failed.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the minister sent us the French version of the statement he was to make to the House, and I thank him for it. That may explain the delay in delivering a copy to the spokesmen of the various political parties.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think we must applaud idea of launching a comprehensive program in the fight against the non-medical use of drugs.
This measure will also entail extensive research, information, treatment and drug analysis. The word "extensive" worries me a bit; having had personal experience with research, we know extensive research is a lengthy
Research into Non-Medical Drug Use
process. The government recognizes that information is sadly lacking in that field.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that so much has been said to date on the use of drugs, especially among the young, that there is no reason why the government should lack knowledge or information on that matter. We arrived much too late to undertake a fight against the use of drugs, and the minister says that the program will encourage research in the fields of epidemiology and sociology in order to further knowledge on the factors that lead individuals to drug abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government took time to think about it. We know that today many young people are drug users. Why? Because they have nothing to do; they are out of work. It has been thought at one point that the use of drugs helped them forget the bad administration of which they were victims, but it is not so. We found out the use of drugs encouraged them to revolt against government measures that did nothing to help them.
Mr. Speaker, the information program will consist of four components: data retrieval, data analysis, information processing and communications. I feel that there is nothing to say against these points of the program. However, I would blame the government for neglecting to fight the underworld which gains enormously from the sale of drugs in high schools to young people of 12, 13 or 14 years of age. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the R.C.M.P. would go to the trouble of investigating this matter, it would be easy enough to expose those who are selling drugs to youngsters. Up to now, it seems that nothing has been done and no useful recommendation to that effect is included in the program.
In his press release, the Minister states that, through such innovative programs particular effort will be made to strengthen the ability of families and communities to understand and deal with social conditions that generate youth alienation. The first thing is to prevent them from obtaining drugs illegally, as is the case at the present time.
The minister also expresses the hope that the provinces will take advantage of these shared-costs programs. I know that some provinces will cry shame because they may not have the means required to initiate other fights against such things.
The federal government introduces programs that require the co-operation of the provinces, without prior consultation. I suggest that the views of the provinces should have been asked for before this program was announced.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the minister that, in a related field, that of alcoholism, for example, the government collects each year millions of dollars in excise taxes and spends only $14,000 annually to fight this scourge. If the fight against drug abuse is carried out in similar fashion to that against the abuse of alcohol, we can expect a colossal failure.

January 27, 1971
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2 How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per	month	(b)	$30.00	to	$39.99	per	month	(c)	$40.00	to$49.99 per	month	(d)	$50.00	to	$59.99	per	month	(e)	$60.00	to$69.99 per	month	(f)	$70.00	to	$79.99	per	month	(g)	$80.00	to$89.99 per	month	(h)	$90.00	to	$99.99	per	month	(i)	$100.00	to
$124.99 per month (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $299.99 per month (m) $300.00 per month or over?


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The information shown being as of December 31, 1969. 1. Number of pensioners receiving less than $25 a month, 465.
2.	Number of pensioners receiving $25 a month, $2,092.
3.	Number of pensioners in receipt of pensions of: (a) $25.01 to $29.99 a month, 538; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 a month, 1,079; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 a month, 878; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 a month, $838; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 a month, 749; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 a month, 802; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 a month, 841; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 a month, 964; (i) $100.00 to $124.99 a month, 2,361; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 a month, 2,190; (k) $150.00 to $199.99 a month, 3,664; (1) $200.00 to $299.99 a month, 5,022; (m) $300.00 and over, 3,167.
In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the CNR to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions of under $25 from the CNR, there are sixty-seven former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of CNR service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic ($25)
Year ended 31 December 1968 Year ended 31 December 1969 Year ended 31 December 1970
5.	The amount added to these funds as regular or current contributions by Canadian National Railways was: Year ended 31 December 1968, $41,304,672; year ended
pensions, and employees who had very short service and small contributions.


CNR-PENSION FUNDS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money on the books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at (a) December 31, 1968 (b) December 31, 1969 (c) December 31, 1970?
2.	What rate of interest was earned on these funds during (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (e) 1970?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to these funds during the years ending (a) December 31, 1968 (b) December 31, 1969 (c) December 31, 1970?
4.	What amount of money was added to these funds from employee contributions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1968 (b) December 31, 1969 (c) December 31, 1970?
5.	What amount of money was added to these funds as regular or current contributions by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1968 (b) December 31, 1969 (c) December 31, 1970?
6.	What amount of money was added to these funds in any other way by the Canadian National Railways during the years
ending (a) December 31, 1968 (b) December 31, 1969 (c) December 31, 1970?
7.	Is money owed to the above funds by the Canadian National Railways and, if so, how much and what arrangements are being made to meet such debt?
8.	What was the total amount paid out of the above funds in pensions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1968 (b) December 31, 1969 (c) December 31, 1970?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The total amounts of the investments, cash and other current assets in the hooks of the Pension Trust Funds were: As at 31 December 1968, $743,321,106; as at 31 December 1969, $789,349,551; as at 31 December 1970, not yet available.
2.	To calculate the yield we have used the Dominion Bureau of Statistics formula and the information requested in questions (1) and (3). Under this formula, the investment is deemed to be: Opening Investments etc. plus Closing Investments, etc. less Earnings. On this basis, the yield is: 1968, 5.65 per cent; 1969, 5.61 per cent; 1970, not yet available.
3.	Net earnings on investments of the Pension Trust Funds were: Year ended 31 December 1968, $39,214,027; year ended 31 December 1969, $41,835,484; year ended 31 December 1970, not yet available.
4.	The amount of money added to these funds from employees' contributions were:
Employees'
Contributions	Refunds
$26,666,570	$5,629,055
27,663,135	4,759,081
not yet available
31 December 1969, $31,297,991; year ended 31 December 1970, not yet available.
Net

IMr. Laprise.]
January 27, 1971

6.	Payments by Canadian National Railways against the initial Unfunded Liability in accordance with the Pension Benefits Standards Act: Year ended 31 December 1968, $3,576,750; year ended 31 December 1969, $326,422; year ended 31 December 1970, not yet available.
7.	As at 31 December 1969 Canadian National Railways owed the funds $1,518,430. This represents the normal monthly clearance paid off in January 1970 arising from Company and employee contributions less pensions paid and refunds.
8.	Total amounts of the pensions paid out of the Pension Trust Fund were: Year ended 31 December 1968, $46,065,616; year ended 31 December 1969, $50,335,506; year ended 31 December 1970, not yet available.


NATIONAL AIRPORTS PLAN
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What steps has the Department of Transport taken with regard to the development of a National Airports Plan?
2.	When is such a plan likely to be completed?


Gérard Duquet: 1. A team has been formed and is presently working on this project.
2.	The team's first report on this subject is scheduled for completion next Spring. It will provide a preliminary Plan as well as the basis for the on-going development and updating of a viable National Airport Plan.


SALE OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER BY QUEBEC TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Has the Government of Quebec under Premier Robert Bourassa undertaken any discussions with the Government of Canada regarding the sale of hydroelectric power from Quebec to the United States and, if so (a) what has been the nature of the discussions (b) has there been any reference to a hydroelectric project on James Bay?
2 What has been the decision of the Canadian Government regarding the sale of this hydroelectric power?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of External Affairs as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


DISCONTINUANCE OF WAR CLAIMS COMMISSION
Mr. Hales: 1.	Has the government recently given or is it now giving consideration to discontinuing the War Claims Commission?
2.	When was the War Claims Commission established?
3.	Who is the Chairman of the War Claims Commission and what is his salary?
4.	Who are the other members of the War Claims Commission and what is the salary of each?
5.	Are any of the members of the War Claims Commission in receipt of government pensions?
Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The Commission completed its assignment in December 1959 and ceased its active operations at that time.
2.	October 23, 1952.
3.	The Hon. Thane A. Campbell, Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island was appointed Chief War Claims Commissioner. He was paid actual travelling and living expenses while absent from his place of residence, but no salary.
4.	The Hon. Mr. Justice James Hyndman, the Hon. Mr. Justice Henry I. Bird, the Hon. Mr. Justice Fernand Choquette, His Honour Judge C. St. Clair Trainor, His Honour Judge Camille W. A. Marion, and Mr. James Francis, Q.C., served from time to time as Deputy Commissioners. Mr. Justice Hyndman was paid at the rate of $40 a day, not to exceed $8,000 in the first year or $8,400 in subsequent years. Mr. Francis was paid $3,000 per annum. The others were reimbursed for their expenses only.
5.	N/A.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO FRONTIER COLLEGE AND CYC
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	(a) How much financial assistance has the federal government provided annually to Frontier College each year since I960 (b) which department or departments provide the grant?
2.	What has been the annual grant to the Company of Young Canadians since its inception?
3.	To foster the outstanding work of the Frontier College program, is the government considering increasing the annual grant?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have had some conversations with the hon. member who posed this question, and since the reply is rather lengthy he has agreed that the reply be tabled but recorded in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's information is correct. Inasmuch as I have been waiting for this reply since November 17, I would insist that it be printed in Hansard.
[Editor's Note: The text of the answer follows]


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and Secretary of State as follows:
1.	(a) and (b) Department of Labour: $10,000 each year from 1960 to 1968, inclusive. $5,000 each year from 1969 and 1970. Department of Manpower and Immigration: In the fiscal year 1970-71, $20,000.
2.	Payments to the Company of Young Canadians since its inception have been as follows: 1966-1967, $893,908; 1967-1968, $2.4 million; 1968-1969, $1.9 million; 19691970, $1.9 million.
3.	Beginning with the fiscal year 1971-72, the Department of Manpower and Immigration will assume sole responsibility within the federal jurisdiction for federal

January 27, 1971
Questions
grants to Frontier College. Some financial support of an indirect nature can also be given in the form of purchases, by the department, of training and research services under the Adult Occupational Training Act. In this connection, the department has had many discussions with the provinces and with Frontier College in an attempt to increase such purchases, which under the law require provincial concurrence. Purchases have been relatively small, mainly for the reason that provinces consider that they can supply the training required through provincially operated institutions.


CUSO-MESSRS. RICHARD WILLIAMS AND HUGH WINSOR
Mr. Robinson: Are Messrs. Richard Williams and Hugh Winsor presently employed by the government as members of CUSO and, if so (a) for how long have they been so employed (b) where have they been employed (c) what are their duties (d) how much have they been paid (e) do they in any way represent government policy?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned the answer is: Messrs. Richard Williams and Hugh Winsor are not employed by CUSO, nor are they by this Agency.


NEWFOUNDLAND-AIRPORT FACILITIES
Mr. Carter: Does the Department of Transport have plans to reactivate airport and landing facilities at Argentia, Newfoundland as an alternate airport for Newfoundland's East Coast and, if not, for what reason?


Gérard Duquet: No. The Department of Transport operates and maintains the airports at St. John's (Torbay) and Gander which are available for the air carriers operating in this area. Carriers engaged in regular scheduled domestic flights to Newfoundland and those engaged in Trans-Atlantic operations have not stated an operational requirement for Argentia as an alternate airport. In addition, Argentia is not equipped with the necessary instrument landing aids both non-visual and visual, terminal facilities or facilitation services such as customs, health, immigration etc. The number of aircraft using facilities and services which would be required for alternate airport purposes could not justify the high costs involved.


POLLUTION-EXHAUST EMISSIONS
Mr. Mather: In efforts being made or studied towards reducing motor vehicle exhaust pollutants, is consideration being given to converting carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide by the use of manganese dioxide?


Gérard Duquet: The Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides authority to establish standards limiting the levels of various pollutants emitted from motor vehicle exhausts. Consequently, Department officials, in cooperation with experts of the Department of National Health and

Welfare and other Federal Government laboratories concerned with fuels and engine design, are monitoring all developments which may make possible reductions in emission levels. The Department is aware that manganese dioxide is being used as a fuel oil additive to reduce smoke. In addition, manganese dioxide is one of a large number of available oxidation catalysts which may be considered for use in reducing emissions from motor vehicle engine exhausts.


REMOVAL OF PAGES FROM SPECIAL &quot;FOREIGN TRADE&quot; SUPPLEMENT
Mr. Crouse: For what reasons were pages I and 2 removed from the Special "Foreign Trade" Supplement between Canada and China, as issued by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in October, 1970, when the issue was forwarded to Members of Parliament?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Pages 1 and 2 of the special "Foreign Trade" supplement published following the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and the People's Republic of China were removed when it was discovered that information they contained might have been misleading unless supplemented with additional material which, if added, would have required reprinting. Rather than destroy the issue in favour of reprinting, thereby retarding distribution of important trading information to the Canadian business community and incurring additional costs, it was decided to delete the pages from all copies.


EMPLOYMENT OF DOUGLAS ANGLIN BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Robinson: Has Mr. Douglas Anglin of Carleton University ever been employed or engaged, in any capacity, by or on behalf of the federal government and, if so (a) how (b) for how long (c) what remuneration, if any, was paid to him for services rendered?


James Alexander Jerome: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.


EFFECTS OF BRITAIN'S ENTRY INTO EEC ON CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
Mr. Mazankowski: Has a study been made by the government concerning the effects of Great Britain's entry into the EEC on Canadian agricultural exports and, if so, are projected details available?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Government has under continuing review the possible effects of Britain's entry into the EEC on all Canadian exports, including agricultural products. Any projections that are made at this time are necessarily tentative, as the final terms of access for Canadian agricultural exports to Britain and the EEC depend both on the outcome of the current negotiations and on the evolution of the common
January 27, 1971

agricultural policy of the community. The net results for our trade of these concurrent developments, the extent and timing of which are not yet known, cannot of course be measured in detail at this stage. In his recent statement to the House, however, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce reported on the general implications for Canadian exports of United Kingdom entry into the EEC including particular reference to the situation confronting our agricultural exports and gave a detailed outline of possible changes in terms of access for Canadian products.
Questions


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO QUEBEC MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During each year since 1968, did any departments or government agencies make loans to Quebec municipalities and, if so (a) which ones (b) for what purpose were the loans made (c) to what municipalities (d) what were the amounts (e) what was the rate of interest (f) for what period of time?


James Alexander Jerome: Yes, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(f)The St. Lawrence	To finance municipal	Longueuil	1968-$1,061,601	5i%	40 yearsSeaway Authority	acquisition of surplus land.	
*		Ville Brossard	1969-$ 226,667	8J%	7 years


CLEANUP OPERATIONS OF OIL SPILL FROM &quot;ESSO KOBE&quot; IN GASPE
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What chemicals were used during the cleanup of the oil spill from the Esso Kobe during October, 1970, in the Gaspe?
2.	Was the use of such chemicals approved of by the Department of Transport officials prior to their use?
volume of output using the previous equipment. It is worth noting that the much greater volume of output by the computer was not economically feasible using the previous equipment. Prior to fiscal year 1969/70 all savings, and for the last two fiscal years about 90 per cent of the savings are attributable to the Canadian Government Travel Bureau.


Gérard Duquet: 1. The chemical Corexit 8666 was used by Imperial Oil during the cleanup of the oil spill caused by the Esso Kobe in October, 1970, in the Gaspe. Nine hundred gallons of this dispersant were sprayed onto the surface of the oil spill only, and covered with peat moss. The resultant emulsion was absorbed and recovered successfully from the water surface.
2. Prior approval for the use of dispersants was not granted by the Department of Transport in this case. The Department policy is that dispersants may be used with due care, when a threat of fire exists and there is a possible hazard to existing amenities.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-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 Industry, Trade and Commerce during each year since computers have been used?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce estimates man-hour saving as follows: 1965/66, 62,260 man-hours; 1966/67, 244,300 man-hours; 1967/68, 296,162 man-hours; 1968/69, 304,555 man-hours; 1969/70, 342,962 man-hours; 1970/71, 349,916 man-hours. Savings are based on actual computer output plus the computer output scheduled for the remainder of fiscal year 1970/71, compared with the same


INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS-AIR CONDITIONING
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	What levels of temperature and humidity, over what duration or occurring at what frequency, are required before air conditioning can be installed at international airports for (a) the users of such terminals (b) the working staff of Department of Transport or airlines' employees?
2.	Have such studies been carried out at the Halifax International Airport and, if so, will the government Table as an "Order for Return" the details of such temperature and/or humidity studies?
3.	With respect to airports, is it the responsibility of the Department or the user to pay the capital cost of air conditioning?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The Ministry's policy limits the provision of mechanical cooling of buildings to those geographical areas where the exterior humidity index exceeds 75 for a period of 3 per cent of the time during the summer season (June, July, August and September). It also permits the provision of mechanical cooling for those areas within buildings where equipment operation is affected by environmental conditions (computers, electronic equipment) or where a temperature build up can result from equipment or other means to the extent that forced ventilation cannot maintain a maximum effective interior temperature of 75 "F (as defined in the revised ASHRAE comfort chart) for a period of 3 per cent of the time during the summer months. This policy is applied equally, regardless of the occupancy of specific areas.
2. The Halifax Terminal is located in an area where the humidity index does not reach 75 for a period of 3

January 27, 1971
Questions
per cent of the time during the summer months. Areas in the Terminal Building where equipment protection or where serious heat build up (e.g. Control Tower Cab) would be a problem, have been cooled. There has not been a study of other areas. Indoor temperature and humidity data is collected only when problems are identified. The Ministry is not aware of any request for such studies at Halifax. This data is therefore not available.
3. The policy with respect to terminal building rental rates is to recover the cost (capital and maintenance) for exclusive use space from tenants in the rental rate. Where air conditioning is provided, the tenants have their portion of the cost of air conditioning in the rent for the space.


NUMBER OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS GRANTED IMMIGRANT STATUS SINCE SEPTEMBER, 1968
Mr. Chappell: 1.	How many Americans between the ages of 18 and 30 have been allowed landed immigrant status in Canada each month since September, 1968?
2.	Does the government have any data on how many Canadians of the same age have been allowed landed immigrant status in the United States during the same period and, if so, how many?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. United States citizens between the ages of 18 and 30 granted landed immigrant status on arrival:


SEPTEMBER 1968 TO SEPTEMBER 1970
[Stage Direction]
1968	1969	1970Male Female Total	Male Female Total	Male Female Total215	259	474	352	387	739-	-	193	236	429	291	329	620-	222	256	478	283	298	581April	
May	196	258	454	380	357	737235	265	500	292	318	610300	371	671	455	387	842July	
August	
September	336	384	720	456	444	900-	405	457	862	531	509	1,040
403	415	818	482	547	1,029	603	647	1,250October	
480	552	1,032	558	647	1,205	-	November	
301	362	663	418	466	884	-	-	December	
305	363	668	344	426	770	
2. No.

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has there been a recent change in policy with respect to the parking of individual light aircraft at Department of Transport airports in Canada and, if so, what is the new policy?
2.	What is the Department of Transport policy with respect to light aircraft owners entering into parking agreements with the Department with respect to parking on departmental land?
3 Is outdoor parking available and permitted for individual light aircraft at Montreal International Airport, St. Hubert Airport, Toronto International Airport, Halifax International Airport, Winnipeg International Airport, Calgary International Airport and Vancouver International Airport?
4.	What is the current policy with respect to directions to visiting light aircraft at our larger airports with respect to short period parking, overnight parking and for periods up to one week?


Gérard Duquet: 1. There has been no change in policy with respect to aircraft parking at ministry airports.
2.	At an airport where land commercial planning and utilization permits, land can be leased on a short term basis for parking of an aircraft.
3.	Outdoor parking is available and permitted as follows: A private aircraft weighing 5,000 pounds or less may park free of charge for a 24-hour period at the in-
[Mr. Duquet.l
ternational airports listed, but at the St. Hubert Airport such an aircraft may park free of charge beyond the 24-hour period when the aircraft is parked in an area set aside and marked by the officer in charge of the airport as a free parking area. Any aircraft weighing more than 5,000 pounds parked in excess of six hours at any of the airports listed is assessed a parking fee as follows: For each 10 square foot unit of area or portion thereof (a) per day, $ .01; (b) per week, $ .06; (c) per month $ .20; (d) per year $1.20. Minimum parking charge per day or any part thereof in excess of six hours, $1.00. Occasionally due to heavy aircraft traffic it may be necessary to direct aircraft to a fixed base operator for parking accommodation.
4.	At airports with control towers aircraft are directed to designated parking areas by the tower staff. Arrangements for long term parking are subsequently made with the airport operations staff. At airports without control towers aircraft taxi to the terminal area and if necessary are then directed to designated parking areas.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES 1968-1969
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1. What was the amount of money spent by the government through the United Nations during the years 1968 and 1969 as contributions of assistance to underdeveloped countries?
January 27, 1971

2. What proportion of such assistance was given under the heading agriculture or agricultural products?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer, in so far as CIDA is concerned, is: 1968-69	1969-70
1.	$23,635,000	$34,585,0002.	48.5 per cent	55.7 per cent


INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS-REPRESENTATIONS BY MR. CRANFORD PRATT
Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise if the representations made by Mr. Cranford Pratt before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence have influenced its policy towards Rhodesia or any other African nation?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government receives representations from many individuals or organizations who are interested in international affairs. It is not possible to identify the specific influence which any particular individual or group may have on Government policy.


INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS-REPRESENTATIONS BY MR. CLYDE SANGER
Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise if the representations made by Mr. Clyde Sanger before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence have influenced government policy towards Rhodesia or any other African nation?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government receives representations from many individuals or organizations who are interested in international affairs. It is not possible to identify the specific influence which any particular individual or group may have on Government policy.


RHODESIA-THREAT TO WORLD PEACE-CANADIAN POSITION ON MEMBERSHIP IN UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Robinson: Does the government consider Rhodesia as a threat to world peace and (a) if so, in what way (b) if not, will the government consider supporting a Rhodesian application for entry into the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: In 1968 the Security Council, of which Canada was then a member, passed unanimously a resolution which contained a reaffirmation of the Security Council's determination that the situation in Southern Rhodesia constituted a threat to international peace and security. The basis for the Canadian support of this resolution was the Government's appreciation of the situation following upon the unilateral declaration of independence by the minority regime in Rhodesia. Since Canada does not recognize Rhodesia as an independent state, the Government would not support a Rhodesian application for membership in the United Nations.
Questions


RECOGNITION OF RHODESIA AS INDEPENDENT STATE
Mr. Robinson: Does the government recognize Rhodesia as an independent state and, if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canada does not recognize Rhodesia as an independent state. The Government regards the unilateral declaration of independence by the minority regime as illegal.


AIRPORTS-OTTAWA AND REGINA
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	(a) Have any plans been initiated for the providing of enclosed passenger ramps at the Ottawa International Airport (b) is such a proposal being given active consideration?
2.	Are plans being made to provide for a cocktail lounge at the Airport in Regina, and (a) if so, when will construction start (b) if not, is it being considered for the immediate future?


Gérard Duquet: 1. (a) No. (b) proposal is currently under review.
2. No plans are being made specifically for a cocktail lounge at this time, (b) Terminal building expansion is tentatively considered for fiscal year 1973-74, at which time the matter of the cocktail lounge will be given due consideration.


SUPPORT OF REQUEST BY RHODESIA TO BE HEARD BEFORE SECURITY COUNCIL
Mr. Robinson: Will the government support a request by Rhodesia to be heard before the Security Council of the United Nations during the present session and, if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is the prerogative of the Security Council to decide who may appear before it. Canada is not at present a member of the Council. Presumably any hearing for Rhodesians would be in conformity with Rule 39 of the Security Council Rules of Procedure which stipulates that the Council may invite persons considered competent to supply it with information or to give other assistance and that they would only be heard as individuals, not as representatives of a state which no member of the United Nations recognizes.


PUBLIC DEBT AND INTEREST PAID DURING FISCAL YEAR 1969-70
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What was the public debt at the end of the fiscal year 1969-70?
2.	What was the Interest paid on the public debt during the fiscal year 1969-70?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. Gross unmatured public debt amounted to $22,637,140,229.
2. Interest on the public debt amounted to $1,675,910,611.

January 27, 1971
Orders for Returns


SKAGIT VALLEY
Mrs. Maclnnis: How many letters, telegrams, briefs, representations or other communications have been received concerning the Skagit Valley in the period from June 30 to December 31, 1970?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Economic Expansion):: A copy of an explanatory report, prepared by F. F. Slaney and Company Limited, was received by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Broadbent: For the fiscal year 1969-70, what were the estimated federal government expenditures for (a) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Industrial Research and Development Incentive Act Program (b) Defence Research Board Defence Industrial Research Program (c) the National Research Council Industrial Research Program (d) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (e) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Defence Development Sharing Program and Defence Capital Export Modernization Program?
Return tabled.


OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY IN CANADA
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total capital investment in the oil and gas industry in Canada, by province or other areas, for the years 1963 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What percentage of our total Canadian oil industry is (a) foreign-controlled, (b) Canadian-controlled, as of the latest available date?
Return tabled.


HALIFAX INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	How much space is there in the main building at the Halifax International Airport?
2.	How much space is used by the Department of Transport?
3.	How much space is used by Air Canada?
4.	How much space is used by other departments or agencies of government?
5.	What other space is being used and by what interests?
6.	Under each rental arrangement, what is the annual, or
otherwise, rental in dollars?	.
7.	What, with respect to Part 6 is the square area annually or otherwise?
8.	How many people are employed by government departments or agencies at the Halifax International Airport?
9.	What rental revenues are derived from the operation of the public parking lot?
10.	What other revenues are derived from the overall operation of the Airport with respect to rentals?
11.	What has been the total income from landing fees in each of the past 3 years?
12.	What has been the income from the airport tax on aviation fuel sales?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members. At the present time there are 20 questions standing in my name on the Order Paper. One of them, starred question No. 12, was also on the order paper of the last session of parliament. Your Honour made mention earlier of Standing Order 43. I think we are rapidly reaching the point where, if Your Honour is going to be credible in the House, when we have questions about matters that are not national in importance or urgent which have to be placed on the order paper, there must be some method of ensuring that members who make written inquiries of the government secure the information in question within a reasonable period of time. Starred question No. 12 is specific in detail and may require some investigation, but certainly it does not require an investigation that takes over one year in order to provide an answer. I suggest this makes a mockery of the written question system we have in this House.
I dislike having to get up and talk about this matter from time to time, Mr. Speaker, but if I am going to be able to secure information that I consider urgent and necessary for me to perform properly my duties as a Member of Parliament, surely I have some right to expect the government to furnish a written reply within a reasonable period of time. This is not happening and it has not been happening for some time. I believe this matter has to be referred to some committee in order to make a determination of the time period available to the government within which to provide an answer, whether or not either the government or the member asking the question considers the answer to be all the information. It is absolutely ridiculous for a question to sit on the order paper for two sessions and still be unanswered.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, apropos the hon. member's point I will, of course, make a note of starred question 12 to which he referred.


George Harris Hees: That is good of you.


James Alexander Jerome: But I think it is appropriate to point out that during the last week 75 replies have been taken care of.


George Harris Hees: What about the big backlog?


James Alexander Jerome: If the hon. member would listen-


George Harris Hees: If you will say something we will be glad to listen.


James Alexander Jerome: This brings our rate of reply up to the present moment, including some questions which have been answered only recently, to slightly better than 67 per cent of the questions posed.
I can also report to the House that during the past week I have personally contacted each minister and pointed out to him the questions that remain unanswered at the present time which fall within the remaining 30 per cent. They have undertaken to do everything possible to reply at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, Mr. January 27, 1971

Speaker, I think we are doing everything possible to handle the matter reasonably at the present time.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary that I have had a question on the order paper since October 21 dealing with the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services.


James Alexander Jerome: That information will be noted as well, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, question No. 79 in my name was put on the order paper this session on October 8. It was also on the order paper last session. It asks for information about consultants and companies doing studies for the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister has a large staff and I really do not see why it should take this long to answer the question.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29 last, I put on the order paper notice of motion for production of papers No. 145, regarding the construction of a federal building in Victoriaville, a project which has been pending since 1955. I have been waiting, like my hon. fellow citizens of Lotbiniere, for an answer to this question which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is an urgent matter, and I must insist that the government answer it as soon as possible.


James Alexander Jerome: I have taken note of that number as well, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair should mention that I have noted the point of order raised by the hon. member. He has suggested that the Standing Order dealing with written questions on the order paper and notices of motions for the production of papers be reviewed. As the hon. member knows, the Speaker is not a member of that illustrious committee, the Committee on Procedure and Organization, though I always make it a point to bring to the attention of the committee points of order that are raised in the House in relation to the proper functioning of our Standing Orders. I will certainly do as I have done in the past in the case of the point raised by the hon. member. It will be brought to the attention of the chairman of the committee.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar question of privilege in relation to question No. 688 which has been on the order paper since the middle of January. I understand the relevant information was given to the press the day after I posed the question, and I cannot understand why we in the House of Commons could not have had that information before that time.


John Carr Munro: Read the newspapers.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is not the proper way to get the information.
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. 99 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 99 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ABITIBI CONSTITUENCY-BUILDING AND REPAIRS TO FEDERAL BUILDINGS, ETC., 1969-70

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Laprise:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, briefs, telegrams and other documents between Les Entreprlses d'Abitibi Limitee and the Department of Public Works pertaining to the building or repair of wharfs, launching ramps, federal buildings in the constituency of Abitibi during 1969-1970.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 17, 18, 29, 54, 65, 86, 87, 135 and 159?



RESTRAINT GUIDELINES-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Salisman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Prices and Incomes Commission and the Government of Canada in which the Commission suggested guidelines for restraint that the federal government might follow referred to by the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard of November 25, 1969 at page 1201.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, consultations between the government of Canada and the Prices and Incomes Commission are on a confidential basis and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pardon my inelegance, Mr. Speaker, but my answer is "nuts".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I presume I should interpret that as meaning that the motion is dropped?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, put the
question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

January 27, 1971
Motions for Papers



COPPER EXPORT PERMITS-JANUARY TO SEPTEMBER, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all export permits granted for copper exports for the period January 1, 1969 to September 30, 1969.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will recall in response to his earlier motion, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce cannot comply with this request since details on applications for export permits are treated as confidential and are communicated only to persons legally entitled to such information. If it is helpful, I could add that the total number of permits for copper exports in that period is 1,581-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that according to our rules he is not entitled to give that information at this stage of our proceedings and that he can only indicate whether he is prepared to answer the motion.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion in view of the comments I have made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comment that it is only those who are legally entitled to this information who may receive it, I would suggest that surely Parliament is legally entitled to do so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



DRUGS-DRYING UP OF EUROPEAN SOURCES OF SUPPLY BY INTERNATIONAL FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evidence collected by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs showing that some of the international drug Arms are trying to dry up the sources of supply in European countries, as treated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in an address to the International Organization of Consumer Unions on June 29, 1970.
['Agreed.']
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the information referred to in this motion was received on a confidential basis and its disclosure would seriously prejudice the sources of information on our lower cost drug program. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had said that on the basis of the information the government was going to take some legal action to stop this practice I would have agreed, but since he did not I cannot agree.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of a list of all Canadian firms exporting products to the United States, under the Canada-U.S. Defence Production Sharing Agreement from its inception in 1959 to November 30, 1969, listing the specific materials, components, etc., exported and the dollar aggregates involved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has reviewed the hon. member's second request and is unable to comply since the information is commercially confidential affecting the competitive position of participating companies. However, the minister would be prepared to table estimates of the dollar aggregates and a list of names of companies interested in participating in the production sharing program, if this would be acceptable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I accept that, Mr. Speaker, subject to the hon. member's right to put another motion on the Order Paper if he is not satisfied.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Motion 54 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the effects of increase in freight rates on regional economic expansion as mentioned by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5184.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the department studies the impact of various federal programs as part of a continuing appraisal of slow growth regions. However, this is designed to assist in drafting policies and programs rather than to produce formal reports. Therefore, since there is no report which could be tabled I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, even though there is no report, in view of the freight rate increase of six per cent I think some information should be given to the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
January 27, 1971


CONSULTANT STUDY ON COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF CHEMICAL PLANTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Chemical Construction Corporation on comparative construction costs of chemical plants undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce cannot accept this motion since the study is part of the chemical industry study which was based largely on information received in confidence from Canadian industry and, moreover, there is an agreement between the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association and the department not to disclose this information. In view of this, I would ask that the hon. member to reconsider and withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I will reconsider it and may resubmit it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
CONSULTANT STUDY ON INDIAN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Motion No. 87-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study on Indian social development undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st session of this Parliament.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, no final report has yet been received in connection with this study and I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would kindly withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I would appreciate it if the motion were allowed to stand on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
STUDIES RELATING TO CHEMICAL INDUSTRY Motion No. 135-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports and studies related to the chemical industry as reported in the Annual Report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, April 1, 1967-March 31, 1968, on page 51.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that in response to his previous motions the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was not able to provide the study as it is based largely upon information supplied in confidence to the department from Canadian industry. In view of this I would ask the hon. member if he would kindly withdraw this motion.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, it is time this information was made public and I would ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


INFORMATION ON EXTENSIVE LAY-OFFS OF WORKERS IN FOREIGN CONTROLLED FIRMS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 159-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report undertaken in either the Department of Finance, or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, showing information on the extensive lay-offs of workers that have recently taken place in foreign controlled firms in Canada.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that no report was undertaken in either the Department of Finance or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce showing information on the extensive lay-offs of workers that have recently taken place in foreign-controlled firms in Canada. In view of this perhaps the hon. member would like to withdraw the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member has no option; but it might be a good idea if the government did undertake such a survey.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions for Papers stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour with reference to the letter he received from Mr. Cournoyer, the Quebec Minister of Labour, objecting to the white paper on unemployment insurance. Has the government of Canada rejected those objections made on behalf of the government of Quebec, and does it intend to proceed with the implementation of the white paper regardless of those objections?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, a careful analysis of the letter of November 13 which appeared this morning in Le Devoir does not lead to the conclusion that the province of Quebec has rejected the contemplated legislation I propose to bring forward

January 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
in the House shortly. Since the receipt of that letter there have been several meetings between myself and my counterpart in Quebec which I think have led to a satisfactory explanation of most of the major issues which the province of Quebec raised in that letter of November 13.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling the House that the government of Quebec is satisfied to have the minister proceed with the white paper and has withdrawn its objections in this regard? Has the minister replied in writing to Mr. Cournoyer and, if so, would he table the correspondence between himself and Mr. Cournoyer in the House?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not say this in a sarcastic vein, but there are a lot of questions in this regard and if I do not answer them all I hope later in the day the hon. gentleman will ask the few questions that I do not answer at this time. I think neither I nor the hon. gentleman would be able to infer from the letter that the province of Quebec does not intend to participate in the proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. The role of the province of Quebec is that of employer and there are provisions in the white paper which would allow any province that does not wish to participate in the plan to remain outside as an employer.
Many of the objections, not all, that the province of Quebec raised in their analysis of the white paper in their letter of November 14 have, I believe, been met satisfactorily not only as a result of the exchange of correspondence but also as a result of several meetings which I have held with various ministers of the province of Quebec. As to whether or not there is a reply to that letter, I may say there is, but whether or not I intend to table it will depend on my opinion of the circumstances under which that letter appeared in the Montreal Le Devoir. I would be very surprised if the letter which appeared in the newspaper appeared with the written or verbal consent of the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister seek the approval of Mr. Cournoyer and the government of Quebec of the tabling of any such correspondence, and did he mean to indicate to the House that Mr. Cournoyer and the province of Quebec were dropping their assertion that unemployment insurance and manpower programs ought to be administered by the province of Quebec rather than by the parliament of Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, what I am really trying to say is that when there are differences of opinion between the federal Minister of Labour and his provincial counterpart, a difference of opinion which is real or imaginary, I prefer to settle those differences by direct negotiation rather than by an exchange of correspondence in newspapers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a direct question relating to seeking the permission of the Quebec minister and the government of Quebec for the

tabling of this correspondence in the House. Since the letter from the Quebec minister has been published, will the Minister of Labour seek permission from the government of Quebec or from its appropriate minister to table the correspondence in this House?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly discuss with the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec how this confidential letter appeared in a public newspaper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe wish to ask a supplementary question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the House whether it is official that in his letter Mr. Cournoyer tells the federal Minister of Labour that this letter might be published?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in that letter Mr. Cournoyer drew my attention to this possibility, but I am not sure that this was written with his approval.



ALLEGED REFUSAL BY QUEBEC TO CONTRIBUTE TO FUND

Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Abitibi want to ask a supplementary question?


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Labour told us earlier that since receiving this letter from the Quebec Minister of Labour he has had discussions with the latter about the white paper on unemployment insurance. Can he tell us whether the Quebec Minister of Labour has agreed or refused to contribute for workers, Public Service employees and employees of the Quebec government?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfair for me to speak on behalf of the province of Quebec, particularly since they have not seen the proposed legislation. I would not want to be in contempt of parliament by showing the proposed legislation to the province before members of the House of Commons have had an opportunity to study the bill after first reading.



IMMEDIATE CHANGES TO ASSIST HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYED

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As it now appears certain that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will not become effective for quite some time, and since the hard core of the unemployed

those who have been unemployed for over three months-is double the normal rate for this time last year, would the minister give consideration to introducing some interim measure now so that the families of these hard-core unemployed do not suffer unduly during the winter months?
January 27, 1971


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure the representation the hon. member has made on behalf of the unemployed, who suffer severely as a result of less than satisfactory benefits, will be drawn to the attention of the provinces as well since they have an important role to play in respect of the approval of this particular legislation. Nothing has changed my position as expressed in the House several days ago that the proposed new legislation will be before the House of Commons by the date I specified, namely, July 1, 1971.



OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT OF NEW LEGISLATION

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that he has mentioned the opportunity for the province of Quebec to opt out of certain aspects of the plan, and since there will be a tremendous cost to provincial governments and local school boards if teachers are brought under the new unemployment insurance legislation, does this mean they will also have an opportunity to opt out?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I want to apologize to members of the House if I left the inference that a province could opt out per se. I said there would be provision for any province to opt out as an employer. With regard to the added cost to the province in respect of the universality feature by the inclusion of additional costs to school boards, this is more than offset by the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will no longer remain on the welfare rolls and thus be a direct burden on the province and the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan. Because of the increased benefits, people will at least be able to survive or live on the unemployment insurance benefit alone and not need supplementation by welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a supplementary, but then I think we should go to a new item and recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Then, perhaps we could return to the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate after we have completed a round of original questions.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since the minister only emphasized the preface to my question in that he referred to the co-operation of the provincial governments along with the local school boards, may I ask whether the provinces will have the opportunity to opt out of this particular category of the UIC legislation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No. Universality means obviously what it says.


Malcolm MacInnis: What does universality mean?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You have asked the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



DESTROYER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM-ADDITIONAL COST

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board regarding the DDH-280 class destroyer escort construction program. I should like to ask the minister whether a decision has been taken in recent days to scrap this program or is any such decision now under consideration by the government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, no such decision has been taken. In so far as I can speak for the government, consideration is not being given at this time to scrapping the program.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Can he tell the House whether there have been some 13 major design changes at a cost of some $100 million in this construction program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in a construction program of this magnitude, extending over a number of years, there are bound to be design changes to avoid technological obsolescence during construction. I think probably a more adequate explanation of this will be given by the Minister of National Defence when his estimates are under discussion in committee in the relatively near future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that this program was originally to cost $170 million and expenditures are now estimated at some $227.7 million, may I ask the minister if either he or the Minister of National Defence will make a statement to the House fairly soon as to what the additional estimated cost is to complete this program, and is it the government's intention to complete it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I said, the Minister of National Defence, I think, has already indicated his intention to review this construction program with the parliamentary committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, next month.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax East):: Could the President of the Treasury Board further advise the House whether or not the question of employment in those two river yards is a major factor in any consideration at present being given by the treasury benches with regard to the DDH-280 program? I ask that because a tremendous number of people would be thrown out of work if there were a negative decision.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The question presumes that we are proceeding to what the hon. member refers to as a negative decision. This is not the case.

January 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Is it his intention to follow the lead of the Movement in favour of abolition of advertising directed at children (MAPDE) and also to submit recommendations to the CBC in order to avoid future flagrant abuses of advertising directed at children, for instance for toys, clothing and cereals?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that is more a responsibility involving the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. However, any suggestion emanating from that department would be promptly forwarded to the CBC.
He	:Js



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I also have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning unemployment insurance. First, I should like to refer him to Hansard of January 25, page 2713, where I am recorded as having asked the minister the following question:
In view of the urgency of the unemployment crisis, can the minister tell us whether he has yet received answers from all the provinces? Is it still the minister's intention to bring this legislation in by July, 1971, or is he updating his timetable in an attempt to deal with the very harsh unemployment situation?
The minister's answer was:
We are now running ahead of schedule in connection with the timetable outlined for the preparation of the draft bill, and I see no particular reason why we should not meet the target date of July 1, 1971.
I find it a little difficult to understand the minister's position at this time, and I question his credibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question. Perhaps he might come to that point now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will do so, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer today regarding the province of Quebec, can he assure the House that there are no other hidden letters from the provinces voicing their objections to any particular matter in the white paper on unemployment insurance? In other words, can we be assured that there are no objections from any other provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the minister to assure the House that there are no hidden letters. I wonder whether a question in those terms is in order. I gather that if the hon. member would put the question in another form the minister might answer it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will remove the word "hidden", but the minister understands my position.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What I do not understand is why the hon. gentleman, who is one of the more likeable members of the House, would want to question my credibility. In the nine years I have been in the House I have never questioned the credibility of any Member of Parliament. I do not think it is the tradition in this House to question the credibility of any member of the House.
The hon. member's question the other day was whether I felt I would be able to meet the timetable that I had mentioned previously on several occasions in the House, namely, July 1, 1971. I repeated that date today in answer to a very reasonable question from the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat now that I see no particular reason why the legislation should not be ready by July 1, 1971. I will have to wait for the official reaction of the provinces to the proposed legislation after they see the draft of the bill which will be available to members of the House at the same time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say with all due respect that I appreciate the lecture the minister has given me, but may I draw his attention to the fact that he has not answered my question. I want to know whether he has received any correspondence from any other provinces similar in nature to that received by him from the province of Quebec. It is a simple question calling for a simple answer.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member must know, as a member of the appropriate committee, that in July letters were sent to all the provinces inviting them to appear before the committee, to which the hon. gentleman made a very valuable contribution. I could check with the appropriate chairman, but I doubt very much that any official opposition to the concept was raised before that hearing by any of the provinces. Certainly, there have been questions from various provinces and in order to answer these we have been in constant communication, including visits to each and every capital of the provinces.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would he say whether a request has been received from the government of Manitoba urging that the dating of packaged food for consumption purposes be made mandatory and included in the federal packaging and labelling legislation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I received a very helpful letter from Mr. Hanuschak of Manitoba. I discussed it with him over the telephone. It is my position, which I will enunciate further in the committee because the bill is before the committee, that the question of date stamping or an indication of age of products can be provided for under the existing wording of the bill. I provided for that in the drafting of the bill. But if a clarifying amendment would

January 27, 1971______________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________2817
be helpful, I would be quite happy to look at some form of amendment to make sure there is no doubt about the matter.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Although short-term interest rates have dropped because of the relatively rapid expansion of the money supply, there is still no indication of increasing activity in the private business sector. What further plans does the government have to stimulate expansion of the private sector of our economy?


Mr. Speaker:: I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the question is very wide in scope. He is inviting the minister to make a general statement which I suggest to the House cannot be made at this time.



MANPOWER


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What was the reason for the directive, memorandum, instruction, circular, whatever he prefers to call it, of January 21 to the Canada Manpower offices which has resulted in impeding the flow of statistical data from these offices to the Canadian people?


Otto Emil Lang: A memorandum of that specific date has not been brought to my attention. On a date in January, Manpower centres were reminded of a policy statement or directive that is three years old which had indicated to Manpower managers that information which was released should be released with the necessary information about its validity and about its exact nature so that no one would be misled by erroneous figures.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow a supplementary question from the hon. member in a moment, but first I wish to seek the co-operation of the House. There are 20 or so hon. members who are seeking a chance to ask questions and there are perhaps not much more than 10 or 15 minutes before the end of the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will do my best to co-operate with Your Honour, and knowing there are several members who wish to ask supplementary questions I will content myself with asking this final supplementary question.
Could the minister indicate why, as a Member of Parliament I was advised yesterday by a Canada Manpower office that in order to receive current data from Manpower I would have to apply in writing to the manager of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
office, explaining the reasons for seeking such data, that the local office would then have to get clearance from the regional office, that a final decision would be made somewhere along the fine, and that the tightening of security was precipitated by a memorandum issued on January 21, 1971?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: May I say in answer to the hon. member that I cannot explain to him how he received that answer except that, knowing how he asks his questions, I am not surprised he received a strange answer.



RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT-AUTHORIZATION AND WORDING OF DIRECTIVE

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can ask this question in a way that even the minister will understand. Did he order the sending of a directive or instruction on January 21 that information was not to be provided unless it was cleared by various managers, upper managers, top managers and the like? Did he also have inserted in the statement the words, "managers are advised to spell out the favourable features of the manpower program-"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: This is the rest of the quotation-"at this time of high unemployment"?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that was a long question but the answer is a short and unequivocal no.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I ask the minister to table that directive in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in answer to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, no directive of that date has come to my attention, but since the hon. member has something he would like to present I am sure he could make it public.


John George Diefenbaker: Facetiousness is no substitute for information which the minister should give.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the right hon. gentleman ask his supplementary?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, surely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, one has always to preface a question in order to meet the irrelevancies of these ministers. May I ask the minister whether he has no knowledge that, through his own Manpower offices in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver, any such information was sent out? Will he look it up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will see the hon. member for St. John's East for one supplementary on this subject, and if there is time I will return to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. I apologize to the hon. member.

January 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



SUGGESTED LIFTING OF RESTRICTIONS ON SUPPLYING OF INFORMATION BY OFFICES

['Mr. Speaker, we have no objection whatever to trading with the German Democratic Republic. I do not believe it would be in the interest of the promotion of progress toward a detente in Europe if any action were taken that would create the impression that we were about to recognize the German Democratic Republic officially.\n* Sjs He']
Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the seriousness of the unemployment situation, will he take immediate steps to lift any and all restrictions on the free flow of information from Canada Manpower offices across the country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, this department co-operates with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in providing the most reliable information we have on unemployment figures. In many other ways we do provide a tremendous amount of information, and I will be glad to send hon. members the most recent data we have.



Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to one of the two presidents across the way, either the President of the Privy Council or the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement made earlier today to the effect that the government prefers to postpone for several weeks any discussion of certain public service recruitment programs, can an assurance be given that the program referred to in the memorandum tabled yesterday will not be put into effect before the committee has an opportunity to discuss this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should reiterate that there is no such program. I did give an assurance yesterday that a program of this character would not be put into operation out of the contingency fund without being disclosed first in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer just given by the minister, can he tell us whether the meeting that was called, according to the memorandum tabled yesterday, "to help speed up the implementation of the program" was held on Tuesday, January 12, and what were the results of that meeting?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the meeting ever took place.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They don't tell you any more than they tell us.


REDUCTIONS IN ISOLATED POST ALLOWANCES-REQUEST FOR DELAY UNTIL REVIEWED BY COMMITTEE
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the great concern expressed over the Treasury Board's announcement of cuts in isolated post allowances

for federal government employees in certain isolated and remote communities in Canada, would the minister be prepared to delay implementation of these changes until an appropriate committee of the House has had an opportunity to review the entire question of isolated post allowances and report on this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the scheme of providing allowances in isolated posts has been one under discussion for some time with the Public Service Alliance and other appropriate employees' staff associations in the National Joint Council. Some time ago agreement was reached in the National Joint Council to implement a program which would be indexed to the differential in the cost of living. That program has been in operation and recently, quite automatically, with effect from February 1 some allowances will go up and some will come down. I think it would be unwise to interrupt this normal process. However, if a committee of the House wants to look at the whole program I have no objection to that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether these reductions, which are pretty substantial, were in fact discussed with the representatives of the employees concerned before they were implemented or whether they were implemented unilaterally by the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the agreement, indeed with the proposals of the employees' representatives, changes both up and down are automatically related to the cost of living index differential.


ABITIBI-ALLEGED REFUSAL OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS TO COMMUNICATE IN FRENCH
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
When his officials have dealings with my constituents, they always do it in English and refuse to speak French. Could the minister tell us if this is due to lack of good will on the part of his officials or to the inadequate number of French-speaking officials?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member although interesting and important is more a representation made to the department and the hon. member must assume that it will be taken into consideration.


MANPOWER
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the second surreptitious resurrection of memoranda this week, can the minister
January 27, 1971

say whether the manpower managers have been commissioned, either by his office or by Information Canada, to act under direction as propaganda agents for the government, and have they been specifically instructed to point out the multiple manpower programs to balance public opinion in this period of high unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance tell the House whether we can expect an early decision with regard to repegging the Canadian dollar because of the increasing number of major Canadian concerns engaged in the export program which are reporting losses and having to lay off hundreds of people as the result of loss of contracts caused by the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar on the international market?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that I could not give any indication of this in the House at the present time.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I may have misled the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Another?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hillsborough.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister rises on a question of privilege. Before I recognize the minister, perhaps he noticed that I recognized another hon. member when he suggested that he should take advantage of the fact he had the floor to answer another question. We have tried to get away from that practice in the past. It might be better if we returned to the minister in due course to allow him to answer the question, but for the moment I gather he has a question of privilege and the Chair will hear him.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to avoid raising a special question of privilege, but I would like to point out that there were several questions asked this week about the Canada Development Corporation by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the minister indicate what the question of privilege is?


George Harris Hees: There is no question of privilege.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to say, in answer to one of those questions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that that is precisely what he cannot do at this moment. I appreciate that the minister may want to reply to the question, and he should be given that opportunity, but it is better for the orderly conduct of the question period that the minister should reply later to the question asked previously, as he has indicated he wishes to do. He will be recognized in due course.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister which concerns the taping by an official representing the language commissioner of conversations with Air Canada clerks without the knowledge of the said clerks. Can the minister assure us that henceforth no employees or officials of the government of Canada, public commissions or corporations will perpetrate upon the people of Canada such sneaky, snoopy Orwellian intrusions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is in a form which is very difficult for the Chair to accept. The Chair will recognize the Minister of Finance.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if I had had an opportunity to answer the question earlier not so much time would have been taken. I simply want to say that in answering the question raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands I said that if it were decided to turn over certain Crown corporations to the Canadian Development Corporation the government would have to come to the House and ask for permission to do so. Actually, section 39 of the CDC bill, which has had first reading, takes care of that matter. If parliament approved that section, the government would have the right to negotiate the sale of these enterprises to the CDC. I thought that was an important point that should be corrected.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the progress made at yesterday's meeting of the three Mari-times premiers, in view of their intention to form a Maritimes council of premiers and establish a secretariat, and in view of the additional costs that these projects

January 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
would entail for the provinces, has the federal government indicated that it is prepared to participate in this matter in some meaningful way?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The matter has not been raised yet with the federal government, to my knowledge.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Since there is a considerable measure of detente in central Europe, and since the Federal Republic of Germany has itself entered into more direct relationships with the German Democratic Republic, has the Canadian government given consideration to entering into closer relationships, particularly trading relationships, with the latter government, the East German government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is, not any official recognition. We are prepared, of course, to trade with the people of the GDR, but I do not believe, and I think this view is shared by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, that official recognition would forward the detente that we all seek.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has the government given any consideration to establishing a different basis for trade relationships with East Germany?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection whatever to trading with the German Democratic Republic. I do not believe it would be in the interest of the promotion of progress toward a detente in Europe if any action were taken that would create the impression that we were about to recognize the German Democratic Republic officially.
* Sjs He



INDUSTRY


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the recent statement by the president of the Canadian Construction Association in which he expressed concern about the 1971 prospects for the industry. Since activity in that industry has fallen far short of the government's predictions, would the minister be prepared to consider eliminating the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials as a first step toward boosting the construction industry?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the outlook for the construction industry in 1971 is pretty good.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l



WELFARE


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the minister is meeting with his provincial counterparts this week, will he discuss the possibility of setting up machinery so that information regarding the whereabouts of deserting husbands and fathers can be furnished to provincial courts in order to assist them in forcing these men to support their wives and families?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that this appears to be an important matter. I suggest that if there is urgency it can perhaps be discussed at the time of adjournment. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order at this time.



POLLUTION


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the minister's concern expressed in the House on January 12 with regard to the inadequacy of pollution controls at the Churchill Forest Industries project, may I ask what action the hon. gentleman has taken to deal with this matter?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting next week with the responsible provincial minister.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. May I ask him whether he has received representations from Canadian publishers of original Canadian books requesting government assistance? If so, has the government given consideration to those requests? Also, when may we expect a statement in the House on government policy concerning this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the latter part of the hon. member's question is in order in the sense that he asks whether a statement will be made on motions. A reply may be made to that part of the question.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there is no present intention to make any statement on motions. As the minister responsible for federal government publishing, as well as for certain programs of encouragement of national identity and solidarity, I have been interested in meeting with Canadian book and periodical publishers in order to explore their problems. But in dealing with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the statement should be made now; it should be made on motions.
January 27, 1971



INQUIRY AS TO TAKING OF OPINION POLLS FOR CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State perhaps also for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. In view of statements made on the CBC program "Weekend" last Sunday regarding the public attitude toward unemployment, in this case blaming labour for all our unemployment and whitewashing the government, can the minister assure the House that Information Canada has not been taking opinion polls for the CBC?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question asked recently by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, but it is a rather detailed answer and I am afraid the House would adjourn before I came to an end. May I table that answer and may it be taken as read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, tEnglish]
[Editor's note: the answer follows:]
The transfer of administrative activities from Calgary to Edmonton is an organizational move wherein the overall responsibility for the management and administration of postal services in the province of Alberta will be concentrated in one district office located in Edmonton.
As part of the general reorganization now under way, the department is adhering to a general policy of boundaries of district offices conforming to provincial boundaries. Where the workload justifies more than one district may be established. Districts are divided into areas and area managers appointed who are responsible for the administration of postal services in these areas.
Adherence to provincial boundaries has resulted in the transfer of responsibility for 50 per cent of the offices formerly coming under the jurisdiction of the Calgary district office to the provincial district offices located in British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
With the transfer of these offices the need of two district offices in Alberta no longer exists as the administration of the postal services in Alberta can be consolidated and effectively managed under the jurisdiction of the district office located in Edmonton. Area managers as an adjunct of the district office in Edmonton will continue to be located in Calgary responsible for the administration of postal services in the southern part of the province.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



RAILWAY FREIGHT RATE INCREASE-DISCUSSION BY MINISTER WITH CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION

['I was given to understand, Mr. Speaker, that this statement made by the Quebec minister had been misinterpreted or inaccurately reproduced by the newspapers. In any case, it would not be in accordance with the facts had it been done as mentioned in the newspapers. The delegation which attended the Lome Conference did a good job, the results of which will be shown as most fruitful.']
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns the request of Canadian railways for a 6 per cent increase in freight rates which, if granted, could very well aggravate the already critical unemployment situation. Has the minister discussed this request with the Canadian Transport Commission? If so, what have been the results of such discussions?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed this with the CTC. As I have said on many occasions, this is a decision entirely within the competence of the railways concerned. They, I understand, filed notice of this intention before the CTC, but I am neither obligated nor, indeed, do I have the right to consult with the CTC on a matter of this kind.



Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Secretary of State with respect to the statement made by the Hon. Jean-Paul L'Allier, the Quebec representative at the Conference of French-speaking countries, concerning the composition of the Canadian delegation, to the effect that the composition of the said delegation was ridiculous and prejudicial to the effective operation of those conferences.
Does the Secretary of State intend to change the composition of these delegations and if so, along what lines?


Gérard Pelletier: I was given to understand, Mr. Speaker, that this statement made by the Quebec minister had been misinterpreted or inaccurately reproduced by the newspapers. In any case, it would not be in accordance with the facts had it been done as mentioned in the newspapers. The delegation which attended the Lome Conference did a good job, the results of which will be shown as most fruitful.



TRANSPORT


John Leroy Skoberg: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister say whether this department or the combines investigation branch is investigating the apparent togetherness of the Railway Association of Canada, which represents 22 railways, as indicated by their announcement of a 6 per cent increase in freight rates? If not, will he give consideration to introducing a provision in the Combines Investigation Act to take care of this situation?
23786-37J

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, such arrangements are already provided in the National Transportation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GLUE SNIFFING-REPRESENTATIONS TO MANUFACTURERS OF PRODUCTS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope Your Honour will allow me this extremely important point of order. It concerns the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is in the chamber at present and will be attending the ministerial conference. I have a statement signed by 11,500 people in Hamilton, including young people and adults, who are concerned about glue sniffing. I hope the minister will raise this matter at the conference. With a view to having his colleagues approach the manufacturers in order to ensure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously making a very important and interesting report to the minister. Perhaps he might consider the advisibility of continuing the submission with the minister as he leaves the chamber. It is not a point of order. I assume the hon. member wanted the opportunity to make that representation, and I assume he is satisfied that he has done so. I cannot accept it as a point of order. Orders of the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a further point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will not be long. I appreciate Your Honour's indulgence. Since the minister is going to become involved with drop-in centres and crisis centres throughout the country, will he give this matter prime consideration because of the interest shown by these 11,500 people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. In my opinion, this bill illustrates more adequately than words can say the bureaucratic manner of doing things. This type of legislation can only create chaos and confusion in the minds of many Canadians.
This bill is somewhat like a sausage. It is composed of many things with no one, not even the government, knowing all that it contains. The House of Commons is being asked to accept one package which establishes a department of the environment, creates ministries of state, increases the number of parliamentary secretaries, gives the Postmaster General a new status, establishes new retirement regulations for public servants and special pension privileges for deputy heads. Is it any wonder that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) raised a question about the validity of this bin?
There are some parts of this bill with which I can agree in principle, such as Part I which proposes the creation of the department of the environment. However, in my opinion, this method of presenting important legislative measures deters consideration in depth of the impact of these proposals on the Canadian nation. My principle concern is for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. It is being swallowed up by this new giant, the department of the environment, which, according to the press, will have an annual budget of approximately $200 million and a staff estimated to be between 11,000 and 13,000 persons.
As I said a moment ago, I welcome the establishment of the department of the environment. However, I believe its terms of reference should be confined to antipollution measures. Environmental concerns are no longer the private preserve of the bird watchers. The same bell tolls for all.
The manner in which the abuse of water affects our Canadian fisheries resources, both inland and on both sea coasts, is and must be of primary concern to the federal Department of Fisheries and Forestry. In many ways, fish may be our first line of defence as pollution effects on fish have time and again warned of and dramatized the extent to which we are poisoning our environment. According to recent reports, mercury is still finding its way into our fishing areas. It is affecting Japanese canned tuna. Mercury in fish is not new. Researchers at the New York state department of environmental conservation have found levels of mercury in preserved fish caught 40 years ago that are more than twice as high as levels that would now bar those fish from the market.
It is my understanding that a recent landing of 15,500 pounds of swordfish by a Nova Scotia swordfisherman was examined. It was found to contain mercury in excess of the amount fit for human consumption. This poses very serious questions. What are these swordfishermen to do? There are at least 48 boats of varying length operating in the swordfishing industry between Sambro and Yarmouth, to say nothing of the ships operating out of
[Mr. Skoberg.)
January 27, 1971

other areas. Will these fishermen be required to go on relief? What other type of fishing can they pursue? Who is to pay the enormous cost of new equipment for some other type of fishing which may be found to be suitable? These are serious questions. It is interesting to note that tests made at the Scriffs Institution of Oceanography in California indicate that some of the lead pollutant from automobile exhausts were found in liver tissue of sea bass caught off the coast near smog-plagued Los Angeles. Obviously, we are moving in the right direction in setting up legislation to purify our air and water in co-operation with the provinces.
If hon. members refer to Schedule A of this bill, they will note that pollution is only one facet of the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davies). It became evident sometime ago that control of pollution in Canada should receive number one priority from the government. However, its policies to date have seriously fragmented our pollution control authority thereby leaving our industries, provincial and municipal governments in a state of chaos and uncertainty regarding our pollution laws. At present our pollution control laws are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of National Health and Welfare, (Mr. Munro), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. MacDonald) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing). These ministers under whom responsibilities fall for control of pollution do not have a coordinated plan of attack in order to deal with this vital problem. Therefore, our programs are bogged down in waters muddier than our policies were supposed to cure.
As we say in Atlantic Canada, our pollution program was all sails and no rudder. It was going everywhere, but nowhere, as no leadership was provided. Hopefully, this leadership will be provided under the new department of the environment. However, it is disturbing that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry will be lost in the shuffle. Under the British North America Act, legislative jurisdiction over fisheries is vested in the federal government. Over the years, the federal government has delegated its powers over fresh-water fisheries to the provinces. Non-tidal fisheries are administered by the provinces and the tidal-fishery or saltwater fishery is administered by the federal government. Recently the fresh water fish marketing corporation was established in co-operation with the provinces. Generally speaking, regulations proposed by the provinces are approved by the federal government. This makes legislative jurisdiction over fisheries matters national in scope.
Upon checking the records, I find that Canada's federal fisheries service began with confederation but it functioned as a branch of other departments, such as marine and fisheries, until 1930 when the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King established a separate department of
Government Organization Act, 1970 fisheries. In explaining his action for creating a separate ministry, Mr. King read the list of acts for the administration of which the minister would be responsible, and then stated:
These are matters of considerable importance. The hope is that this all important resource and the industry to which it gives rise will be developed to a much greater degree than has been the case in the past. If the minister devotes his time and attention to that end, he will find plenty to do.
These are not my words; they are the words of a former Liberal Prime Minister, but in my opinion that admonition could be given today, in 1971. Since I was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1957, I have not been able to avoid the feeling that in some parts of Canada the fishing industry is looked upon as being of no importance. This, of course, is unfortunate, and I hope the present government will not become a party to furthering this type of attitude throughout the nation. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the party I represent, the commercial fishing industry is vitally important, not only to the economy of the Atlantic provinces but to Canada as a whole.
To give you some idea of the importance of this industry, I point out that the total catch by some 68,000 Canadian fishermen during 1969 amounted to 2.7 billion pounds, with a landed value of $182 million. In its 23rd annual report dated June 1970, the Fisheries Prices Support Board estimates that the value of fishery products derived from the 1969 catch-of which 70 per cent was exported-will amount to approximately $370 million. The United States continues to be our main export market and the figures I have mentioned are most important when you consider that these earnings for the most part are distributed over vast areas of Canada. In some cases fisheries income represents the only earnings in regions of economic disparity.
The government of Canada cannot help but become involved in many problems of an international nature if we are to obtain the greatest advantages for our fishermen engaged in the principal Canadian fisheries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Without question, the conservation of stocks of fish, which are in danger of extinction from causes other than pollution, is of vital importance at the present time. One of the most critical areas is in the north Atlantic, where Danish fishermen have virtually depleted the stocks of Atlantic salmon. Many of the salmon caught by the Danes are from Canadian salmon hatcheries, though this is only one of our problems.
Another serious situation on the east coast relates to the diminishing stocks of haddock, cod, redfish and flatfish. It is now generally agreed that stocks of haddock and redfish are virtually extinct on the Grand Banks, and flounder stocks are being depleted. Furthermore, it is now abundantly clear that inshore cod stocks are less and less dependable because of continuing excessive fishing efforts by foreign fleets. In fact, our Canadian inshore and offshore fishermen are appalled and alarmed at the accelerated pace of events and the relentless pressure on our fishing resources by huge foreign trawlers. This over-

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 fishing sets up a chain reaction for the depletion of one species through uncontrolled fishing efforts brings increasing pressure on other species, and the situation has now reached the stage where, if the present trend continues, the incomes of large numbers of inshore and deep sea fishermen, as well as the jobs of thousands of shore workers, will be seriously threatened. I believe that unless positive and firm action is taken to manage our fishing resources on the continental shelf off Canada's east coast we can expect disastrous effects on our over-all industry in the not too distant future.
These are all matters of great concern to us in the Atlantic provinces and they should be the subject of strong representation by Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Forestry when he attends the next law of the sea conference, which unfortunately will not be held until 1972. A lot of fish will come over the rails of foreign fleets by that time, and since we will no longer have a minister of fisheries, a minister known by that name, my concern and my fear is that the international law of the sea conference will become bogged down in discussions about seabed mineral exploration and pollution with the real and thorny question of fisheries conservation pushed far, far into the background.
I sincerely hope this will not be the case, but if we do not hold the fishing industry in high esteem as a nation by retaining a fisheries minister, how can we expect other nations seriously to consider our claims to the fisheries resources off our coasts? With the abolition of the Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry, we will also lose a certain amount of advertising value which accrued to the fishing industry as a result of having a fisheries minister. It was always nice to visit an exhibition and to see a display put on by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. This was helpful in the over-all marketing of fish right across Canada as well as in other parts of the world.
In my opinion, we must utilize every opportunity to impress upon other nations, especially those nations depleting our fisheries resources, the importance of this industry to Canada. I do not know the present plans of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but I would suggest and urge that he include over-fishing in the north Atlantic as an agenda item for discussion when he visits Moscow in the spring. Important as pollution is, there are many aspects of the fishing industry which require study in depth and which must not be overshadowed or overlooked.
One of the essential tasks of the minister of the department of environment will be to solicit the co-operation of provincial governments in maintaining uniform standards for clean water and air. He will have the new and massive Canada Water Act in his legal arsenal and not the least of his problems will be to prepare some sort of priority list for action. In my view, it is doubtful whether this nation can afford all the pollution controls that it should have in the next several years. Therefore, a distinction will have to be made between what is absolutely essential and what is merely desirable.
I cannot help but wonder, for example, which hat the minister will wear if he pursues his proposal that Georgia Strait be reserved as an underwater national park. This would mean that pulp mills and fishing towns currently using the strait would have to clean up their operations considerably, something the provincial government has been unable to make them do. Obviously the new minister of environment is going to be a very busy man.
Turning from the west coast to the east coast, I cannot help but wonder, since technical surveys of energy, including energy developed from water, now come under the department of environment, what stand the minister will take on developing Fundy tidal power in Minas Basin for the benefit of all Atlantic Canada. Under clause 11 the minister may co-operate with provincial governments or agencies on programs enhancing environmental quality, and I know of no program in Canada that would do more to improve the environment of Atlantic Canada than the development of Fundy tidal power.
This development would provide energy without depleting a non-renewable resource; and if it were built from a point on Cape Split across Minas Basin to Cape Sharp near Parrsboro, would provide a valuable revenue-producing, shorter transportation link between the south shore of Nova Scotia, the Annapolis Valley and the markets of central Canada. It would provide power without polluting the air for as long as the tides rise and fall- and that will be a long time, Mr. Speaker-while providing much needed employment and industrial expansion in Atlantic Canada, where it is sorely needed at the present time. Obviously, the question to be decided in the very near future is not whether tidal power can compete economically, but whether any alternative to tidal power can be developed to compete with its freedom from any form of environmental pollution. I believe this project should be given top priority. I believe it deserves to be Canada's number one development project at this point in time. However, I wonder what stand the minister of environment will take on this matter, for this is only one of the many new problems he faces which must be resolved.
In my opinion, the minister designate takes his duties seriously but it had been presumed, up to this point, that the portfolio of Fisheries and Forestry was a full time job. Now, if this is so I can only conclude that the minister designate for this new conglomerate will be bogged down and overburdened, so something is going to suffer. Will it be pollution control or fisheries and forestry?
Let us face facts. With a department of such magnitude ministerial responsibility is no longer possible, because of the sheer amount of work. In addition to accounting for the activities of the department, the minister must act as parliamentary spokesman for the numerous boards, commissions and agencies associated

January 27, 1971

with the work of the department. Therefore, the time that he can devote to policy considerations will become increasingly less, and there are still many fisheries problems unsolved. We have been waiting since 1964 for action on our territorial sea and fishing zone legislation and we are still waiting. There has been no settlement as yet of the thorny problems surrounding the fishing rights of the French on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
I also note that Bill C-207 provides for the appointment of an officer called the Deputy Minister of the Environment, to be the deputy head of the Department of the Environment. The Montreal Gazette of January 7 reported that the present holder of the position of Deputy Minister of Fisheries will be retiring a few months in advance of his 65th birthday to make way for a new appointee. The proposed appointee has a good reputation for competence, arising out of his success as deputy commissioner general of Expo 67, but a resume of his previous activities makes no mention of any experience in matters relating to fisheries. The press release from the Prime Minister's office also expressed appreciation for Dr. Needler's services, and expressed the hope that the government would be able to call on him for special assignments and advice, especially in the fisheries field where he is an acknowledged authority.
Dr. Needier has been associated with the fisheries department in different capacities since 1929. In my opinion, a man of this calibre should have been retained, in order to strengthen the Canadian delegation at the International Law of the Sea Conference in 1972. It would seem that the fisheries branch will fast become the unwanted stepchild of the new Department of the Environment, and this could spell disaster for many people in Atlantic Canada where fishing is a way of life.
There are many other questions that could be raised on this section of the bill. For example, the legislation outlines the job that must be done, but it does not say who will pay the bills. Further, it mentions co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities, but it provides no mechanism for establishing pollution controls. Who will train pollution control officers? Will the federal government pay for their training and their salaries when they are posted throughout Canada?
These are some of the questions unanswered by the bill, but as time is passing, I must turn briefly to the other sections of Bill C-207. While I stated my agreement with some reservations to the establishment of the Department of the Environment, I cannot agree with Part IV of this bill cited as the Ministries and Ministers of State Act. The proposal would permit up to five ministers of state to be in existence at one time. This is a preposterous recommendation, a proposal which cannot and should not be approved by this House. We have at the present time the largest Cabinet in this country's history, with a total of 29 including the Prime Minister.
I suppose no one can say this enormous cabinet has not been effective, for by putting their heads together, by working as a unit, this cabinet has been successful in establishing a situation in Canada where we see more
Government Organization Act, 1970 than 6 per cent of our labour force presently unemployed. This was one of this government's objectives, namely to create a little slack in the economy. The little slack developed into a slump, and the dark shadow of the worst winter of unemployment in history is today threatening our work force of eight and one half million Canadians. A survey among our top economists, labour leaders, and businessmen shows that they expect an army of some 750,000 to be unemployed this winter.
However, it is evident that this government has plans to improve the lot of those with low incomes by appointing five additional ministers. In addition, the bill proposes the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary for every minister who holds an office for which a salary is provided in Section 4 of the Salaries Act. There are 16 parliamentary secretaries at present, receiving an additional $4,000 per year, and the proposals to increase the cabinet and allow each minister a Parliamentary Secretary can only be termed political piracy of the public purse by this Liberal government.
This is a devious, socialistic piece of legislation, the aim of which is only to increase the number of ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries without having any specific duties for them. This is not only a socialistic proposal for the expansion of Ottawa's bureaucracy, but the course of action proposed in this bill further diminishes the powers of Parliament and makes a mockery of elections in which people vote for a Member of Parliament in the sincere hope and belief that once elected he will have some say over their affairs, over their laws, over the manner in which they are governed. This situation no longer exists under this government, which seeks to undermine the power of Parliament so that it can ride roughshod over the wishes of the Canadian people.
Listen to the words which call for the establishment of Ministries of State:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming within the responsibility of the Government of Canada warrant the establishment for the time being of a special portion of the public service of Canada presided over by a Minister charged with responsibility for the formulation and development of such policies, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
Under this legislation, the House would not even be permitted an opportunity to debate the proposal to establish a new ministry, and I cannot help but wonder why we are debating Bill C-207. Why did the government not go ahead and set up the Department of the Environment and do all the other things for which this bill provides by Proclamation? Why does this government bother to keep up the sham of even considering Parliament? Obviously, it is only a sham and a show put on to mislead the voters of Canada into believing that, indirectly through their vote, they have a say in the policies and programs introduced by this government.
What a sham and what a delusion! By Proclamation, the Governor in Council can establish at its discretion up


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, Bill C-207, sets up a new department. It sets up a new Department of the Environment. This new department replaces the present Department of Fisheries and Forestry. It also brings a number of related services, branches, and divisions together to deal with pollution. These include wildlife from Indian Affairs and Northern Development, water from Energy, Mines and Resources, meteorology from Transport and the environmental health unit from National Health and Welfare.
Our new Federal Department of the Environment will be concerned with Canada's renewable resources. It will be concerned with wild, living things, resources like trees, fish and wildlife. It will also concern itself with their life support systems, other resources like air, water and soil. Taken together these living and life related resources make up a natural whole. They are interrelated. They are mutually self-sustaining. They must be managed and they must be guarded in a comprehensive way. They must be operated on a sustained yield basis, now and in the future.
Our new Department of the Environment has two common elements. One is living and the other is essential to life. One will deal with living organisms. The other will deal with their environments. Together, they constitute our earthly biosphere, and our earthly biosphere is very fragile indeed. Looked at from outer space our biosphere is thin to the point of vanishing. It is a thin envelope encircling this tiny planet of ours. Reaching a few thousand feet up our mountain sides into the air and dipping a few hundred feet down into the water, it sustains all the life we know. Yet it, too, has its deserts and its dead spots. So, the preservation of our biosphere, of which Canada makes up a very important part, must be of great concern to us all.
Our new Department of the Environment is a resource management department. But it differs, in one very important respect, from our other resource departments. It deals with the animate. It deals with the living. It deals with the renewable. It is primarily biological in its orientation. It puts the accent on quality rather than quantity. It must often be soft nosed, not hard nosed. It must put ecology ahead of economics whenever a choice has to be made between the two. However, ecology and economics are not always opposed. We can have economic growth and a healthy environment, too. But to have maximum economic growth and a sound environment will take a lot of doing. It will take a lot of monitoring, a lot of careful

January 27, 1971

planning; the best possible management plus considerable give and take on both sides.
Economic growth in the old-fashioned, quantitative sense is an illusion. It is shortsighted. It is narrowly conceived. It recognizes certain private costs but ignores others. It passes hidden charges onto others. And these hidden charges can later turn up in the form of barren soil, smoke laden skies and waters which are repulsive to us all. A fuller accounting of costs, and especially of costs and benefits over the long run, inevitably turns up a different balance sheet. Blighted landscapes and unhappy hours are negative factors which must be taken into account. More public costs must become private costs. The cost of pollution abatement must be met, increasingly, by the private sector. After all, private enterprise has proved that it can deal efficiently with many things. Why not see to it that our industrialists, and our scientists, deal with many of our environmental problems as well?
Let me refer to what I regard as a classic case. Let me refer to the drilling for oil in our beautiful Strait of Georgia in B.C. If the oil companies were allowed to go ahead I doubt if the price of petroleum products would come down in Vancouver. Of course, the local fishery would be threatened, pleasure boating would be less pleasant and waterfront properties would not be as valuable as they used to be. These minuses, I am convinced, would outstrip the value of the new jobs on west coast drilling rigs by a factor of more than ten to one. Natural apprehension, the public's concern about the destruction of the local environment, and the threat to our tourist industry would be too great. Economists refer to many of these considerations as "intangibles". But they have their own inherent value in our human scheme of things. No politician worth his salt can ignore them. No local ecologist or no global environmentalist would, either.
Recently, the Science Council of Canada referred to the Strait of Georgia. It suggested that an Ottawa based economist take a dispassionate look at the pros and cons of drilling for oil there. Reading between the lines, one gets the impression that the Science Council thinks that such an investigation might even come down on the side of the oil companies. I doubt very much whether it would, Mr. Speaker. I doubt it very much.
Anyone with any idea of the quality of life could not help being skeptical about the idea of oil derricks in the Strait of Georgia. Anyone with a feel for "intangibles" would guess that a careful cost-benefit analysis would turn thumbs down on the establishment of an oil industry in the midst of this recreational mecca. There isn't another area in Canada quite like it. I doubt if there is really another area anywhere in the world which has a greater potential for human enjoyment and the wise use of leisure time. This is why I am convinced that it will make a magnificent national marine park, perhaps the first in Canada; undoubtedly, the biggest and the best in the word! Ecologically speaking, drilling for oil in Georgia Strait is sacrilege. Environmentally speaking, it does not make sense. Scientifically speaking, it shows a callous disregard for human values. I am surprised that the Science Council would stub its toe on that one!
Government Organization Act, 1970
I must not imply, Mr. Speaker, that offshore drilling is all bad. Canada has a long shoreline. It has the longest shoreline in the world. We also have a vast Continental Shelf. It reaches 400 miles out into the sea off Newfoundland. It underlies all of Hudson's Bay and most of our straits and seas in the High Arctic. So we have a choice. We have a choice of location from an environmental point of view. So, let us choose our offshore drilling sites with care. Let us make sure that we do not set up oil drilling platforms where they are bound to be offensive, where they hurt real estate values and where they will be detrimental from a recreational point of view.
Of course, our new Department of the Environment will have to keep a close eye on the oil industry. It will have to keep a close eye on Canada's natural gas industry. It will have to watch coal mining, uranium mining and copper mining. It will have to make sure that natural leaching processes do not distribute too many copper ions around for they, like many exceptional concentrations of trace metals, are poisonous to fish and other forms of wildlife. It is true that man needs more energy and cleaner energy. He needs better construction materials and he needs chemical products which fertilize the land. But he can pay too high a price. He can churn out too many substances which are anti-life. He can produce too much that is harmful, that is toxic, that is suffocating, that blunts our senses, that shortens our lives.
I have singled out the oil industry as a starter. But I could have mentioned the pulp and paper industry instead. Using Canada's magnificent forest cover, it generates more employment than all of Canada's mining industries combined. But our pulp and paper industry is a polluter, too. It passes some of its costs on to others. Half or close to half of all the wastes being dumped into Canadian waters by industry originate in our pulp and paper mills

50 per cent or close to 50 per cent in bulk, in tonnage terms. This is why the pulp and paper industry has been singled out for special treatment under the Fisheries Act. This is why it is facing new regulations, new regulations under the Fisheries Act which are nation-wide in their effect.
This is why we are joining with the provinces in our efforts to clean up our pulp and paper mills before it is too late. Our approach to industry may interest you, Mr. Speaker. First, we comb the literature; then we talk to the consulting engineering companies, and ours are the best in this business. Then, we sit down with the industry itself. We learn all we can about the best plants, how they have been built and how they operate. The best is the test. From the best, we develop a set of standards which we know can be met and practiced. These new standards are embedded in our regulations. Coupled with the deadlines, we put the laggards in industry on notice. We put the polluters in industry on notice from one end of the country to the other.
2828

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
This massive clean up, of course, will cost money, a good deal of money. It will cost the pulp and paper industry, and consumers, several million dollars for every $100 million dollars of new pulp and paper mill construction. It will cost roughly half as much as the industry's annual wage increase settlement with labour. It will be barely offset by one year's increase in productivity. I do not want to make light of these increased costs. Our forest based industries have been going through a difficult time. Prices are only a little higher than they were in the mid 1950s. Wage rates have been going up by leaps and bounds. The Canadian dollar has been revalued and Canada's pulp and paper industry still faces a battery of income and income related taxes which, in total, are among the highest in the world.
Still, pollution abatement must be given top priority. New mills must not be built unless they contain the necessary in-plant facilities, catchment basins and biological treatment ponds. They must pass muster with government inspectors and engineers. Sound operating procedures must be followed to the letter. Nothing which is toxic to fish must get out of the systems of these plants. Nothing must be allowed to escape from these plants which is deleterious to aquatic life of any kind.
Old mills, understandably, are in a different category. Each one tends to be a special case, each one calls for special treatment. Some are already obsolete, others do not have enough space in which to instal the necessary facilities. So conversion presents a problem. This is why our new department of the environment has to look at each plant in turn, and this is why we cannot expect many of these older mills to be cleaned up overnight.
The technique is to schedule a series of changes, each with its own particular deadline. The sequence of adjustments leads up to a final deadline. Failure to comply with the schedule can result in a series of fines. The longer the lag, the bigger the bill. Running at $5,000 a day, it can add up to a lot of money, to more than $1 million a year if the company is unlucky enough to be found breaking the law for that length of time.
Some hon. members have asked when our new regulations dealing with the pulp and paper industry will be published in full. My answer is, in a few weeks time. We still have to hear from some of the provincial pollution control boards. We still have to have a final meeting with the pulp and paper industry itself. But no one with any competence will be able to say they were not consulted first and consulted thoroughly.
We have leaned over backwards to make sure we were reasonable. In so doing, we have created a precedent. For the first time in Canada, and perhaps in the world, the best brains in industry, in government and in our universities have sat down together to tackle pollution in an entire sector of our national economy. They are pooling their knowledge and revealing their plans with a view to giving Canada the best treatment facilities and the best treatment procedures so far known to mankind. One of
our problem areas is the Ottawa River from the national capital downstream to Montreal. Half a dozen pulp mills have been using it for decades as a big industrial sewer. Once our federal Fisheries Act regulations are in place, these mills will have to sit up and take notice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: They will have to do this because we will have a single standard to which they must conform on both sides of the Ottawa River, and from its headwaters to the sea.
Ontario administers the federal Fisheries Act in Ontario. Quebec administers the federal Fisheries Act in Quebec. Relying on the same Act and enforcing the same regulations, we should be well on our way toward solving a problem which has been baffling both levels of government for years.
Using our federal Fisheries Act, we will be able to stop the polluters. We will be able to stop these local pulp and paper mills from treating the lower Ottawa River like an industrial sewer. Facing a common set of regulations and enforcement procedures, they will have no choice. With Quebec, Ontario and Canada breathing down their necks, they will have to make the Ottawa River a fit place for fish to live.
Before I leave water and begin to talk about air I should, perhaps, say a word about mercury. Canada is far ahead of the United States in this connection, and well ahead of most countries in western Europe. Unlike Japan, and to a lesser extent Sweden, we have caught our mercury pollution problem in the nick of time. We are well on our way to solving it, without having to face a human health problem in this country.
The main offender has been the chlor-alkali industry. It used to dump thousands of pounds of mercury each year into our rivers and streams. As soon as we began to detect high levels of mercury in wild birds and fish, we called in the companies. They were told to stop polluting and to recycle their effluent. They were instructed to keep their mercury bearing wastes inside their factory fence. The companies moved quickly to put things right. They built settling ponds and began pumping surplus fluids back into their plants. This recycling process has been highly successful. It has already cut the amount of mercury getting into our rivers by more than 90 per cent.
The record, on a plant by plant basis, makes interesting reading. It is documented in a table which I have here, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could have the permission of hon. members to have it included in today's Hansard.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The table referred to follows]

January 27, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970



STATUS OF MERCURY LOSSES IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM CANADIAN CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
Anticipated Losses on Effluent Mercury Losses	Completion of Current
[Stage Direction]
Abatement Program
1969 Dec. 1970	
[Stage Direction]
Production	Ibs/ton	lbs/ton	Reduction	lbs/tonChlorine	chlorine	chlorine	Percent	chlorine	CompletionPLANT	Tons/Day produced (a) produced (b)	1969-1970 produced (c) DateFMC Chemicals Ltd., Squamish, B.C	170	0.15	0.0118	92.1	0.0029	Feb. 1, 1971Interprovincial Co-operatives Ltd., Saskatoon, Sask.. ..	85	0.30	(c)	0.001-0.002	99.3	Dryden Chemicals Ltd., Dryden, Ont	33	0.21	(C)	0.007	96.7	0.005	June 1, 1971Dow Chemical of Canada Ltd., Thunder Bay, Ont	80	0.15	0.0009	99.4	American Can of Canada Ltd., Marathon, Ont	37.5	0.27	(C)	0.012	P5.6	0.01	April 1, 1971Dow Chemical of Canada Ltd., Sarnia, Ont	No. 1 No. 3	160\ 2501	0.15	0.0017	98.9	0.0009	Dec. 31,1971CIL, Hamilton, Ont	88	0.10	KC)	0.0008	99.2	CIL, Cornwall, Ont	120	0.10	(C)	0.007	93.1	0.0008	June 30, 1971Standard Chemical Co. Ltd. (d) Beauharnois, P.Q	110	0.15	0.016	89.3	CIL, Shawinigan, P.Q	100	0.10	(C)	0.006	94.0	0.001	June 30, 1971Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd., Arvida, P.Q	110	0.20	(C)	0.026	87.0	0.01	April 1, 1971DomtarLtd., Lebel-sur-Quevillon, P.Q	72	0.15	0.0416	72.3	C.0097	April 1, 1971CIL, Dalhcusie, N.B	85	0.10	(C)	0.0024	97.6	0.0003	June 30, 1971Canco Chemicals Ltd. (e), Point Tupper, N.S	55	-	0.0035	-	
Notes:
(a)	Based on Departmental estimates of mercury losses in liquid effluent of 0.15 lbs per ton chlorine produced.
(b)	Based on measured effluent concentrations.
(c)	Based on estimates by the Company.
(d)	Standard Chemical Co. Ltd. will have a new plant on line early in 1971 which will replace the existing one. Their mercury losses are estimated to be 0.01 lbs per ton chlorine produced.
(e 1 Plant commenced production in 1970.
John (Jack) Davis: In looking over this table, you will note that some plants have done better than others. Some have already reported a loss figure of less than 0.005 pounds of mercury per ton of chloride produced. This is excellent. It is well below the target figure which Swedish experts recently considered to be the limit of modern technology, namely 0.01 pounds per ton of chlorine produced.
Our ultimate aim, nevertheless, is perfection. We want to make our Canadian chlor-alkali industry as antiseptic as possible. We want to bring the mercury content of its effluent down to the point where there is no net addition to the background levels already present in nature. In other words, our target is for the industry to tend to take mercury out of its natural water supply rather than add new mercury. This is actually happening in one or two Canadian localities now. It must become the objective of all chlor-alkali plants in Canada and our fisheries regulations will be drafted so as to make this performance compulsory from coast to coast.
To be even more specific, the target set in our regulations is 0.01 pounds of mercury per ton of chlorine by April 1, 1971. The target for September 1, 1971 for all plants is 0.005. The target for the end of 1971 is the local background level or better. A year from now all our chlor-alkali plants should, in effect, be improving on nature. They will be taking mercury out of their natural surroundings rather than adding mercury to them.
Now, let me turn to the question of clean air. We have a lot of new teeth in so far as water is concerned. We have an amended Fisheries Act, an amended Canada Shipping
23786-38i
Act, and a brand new Canada Water Act. These were all put in place in 1970. Now, we need a new clean air act. We need it in 1971. We need to supplement the powers which the federal government already has in respect of water and soil. We need it because the potential polluter has a choice. He can choose to burn his waste products and send them up the chimney rather than dump them in a neighbouring stream or bury them in the ground.
As in the case with water, we are working closely with the provinces. We are asking them for their advice. We are asking them how our new federal clean air legislation can complement their own provincial laws. We are asking them also how they would like us to deal with motor vehicles and other products which are sold throughout Canada and which can be a serious source of atmospheric pollution unless they are designed and equipped in the proper way at the factory itself.
I have already been talking to my opposite numbers in the provinces about transborder situations and international situations. I have been trying to head off jurisdictional wrangles. I have stressed our willingness to complement provincial law and to avoid unnecessary duplication. I have stressed the need for national ambient air quality objectives, and on all these scores, Mr. Speaker, I have met a favourable response in one provincial capital after another.
That there is a federal role in respect of air, I have no doubt. Its movements are broadly continental in their

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 sweep. They are generally from west to east. Coming in from the Pacific and sweeping down across the Prairies, they lose moisture and pick up moisture. Crossing along over Ontario and Quebec, they may also pick up fumes from thousands of factories and millions of automobiles. These outpourings, along with those emanating from great American centres like Chicago and Detroit, are bound to affect the quality of our atmopshere. They are bound to affect the quality of the air we breathe in the area of the St. Lawrence and in the Atlantic region as well.
Air, even more than water, is indifferent to man made boundaries. It sweeps from province to province and from nation to nation. It can weave its way across the international boundary line and back again. It can be upgraded by plankton in the ocean and young trees on land. It can be quickly downgraded again by industrial man at work and at play. Renewed by plant and animal life our worldly air mantle has great recuperative powers. But these powers, like those of our rivers and streams, are finite. They are by no means unlimited. They can be over-taxed, much as Lake Erie has been over-taxed by the outpourings of the main industrial heartland of North America. They can be over-taxed by industry and municipalities alike, and they can only be brought back again at great cost to others, some of whom may live hundreds and even thousands of miles away.
I would like to make an important point here. I am opposed to a patchwork approach to pollution. I am opposed to different standards in different places. I am opposed to pollution havens. I am opposed to big industry picking on our weaker provinces and our weaker municipalities. I am opposed to sloppy housekeeping anywhere, because it is bound to hurt the local citizenry in the end. I am prepared to argue against those who say that each industry and each municipality should be able to rely on the so-called "assimilative capacity" of its local waters and its air. If they are allowed to do this the effects are bound to be cumulative. What do they say to the next industry that comes along? And to the next and the next? What do they say to a doubling and a trebling of the output of the initial industry? When does the regulatory authority cry halt? And when does it begin to discriminate against late comers saying that the rules of the game have to be changed after all?
Why not insist on the best clean up procedures at the outset? And why assume that we must really spoil our environment before we begin to clean it up again? Why act as if we know all about the assimilative capacity of our surroundings in the first place? The scientists, and you and I, Mr. Speaker, do not know very much about assimilative capacity at all. Those who take the patchwork approach to pollution do not know much about ecology. They do not know much about living things. Perhaps they have never heard about the synergistic effects of one pollutant piled on top of another. Individually, they might not have much of an effect, but in combination several pollutants can kill several times over, and who knows what combinations and permutations will result from several industries and several municipalities dumping their wastes into the same local environment?
So, why run the risk of losing everything when uniform national standards can provide us with all the protection we need? Why run this risk when recycling within the factory fence is possible in most cases? And why settle for anything less than the best when new industry can be made to take every precaution as long as everyone is being treated the same everywhere in the country?
Earlier in my speech, Mr. Speaker, I took a swipe at the Science Council of Canada. I took a swipe at the technocratic gobbledygook which it published recently about oil drilling in the Strait of Georgia. But I should add, Mr. Speaker, that the recommendations of the Science Council of Canada are not all bad. Some of them are excellent, and many of them we have already acted upon. Others we intend to adopt in the very near future. The Science Council says that we should have a federal-provincial review board. We already have a forum for consultation on these issues. We have the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, and I might loosely refer to it as the Council of Renewable Resource Ministers. The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers met recently in Winnipeg. It discussed forestry for three full days. In previous years it had discussed fisheries, recreation, and the development of river basins. It has concentrated on pollution at times, and on land use at others. Frankly, I think it is more than a review board. It has the ability to look ahead as well.
The Science Council says we should set up special advisory committees and consult frequently with the top brains in industry and in our universities. It says this with particular reference to forestry. But we, in this department, have already asked Mr. T. N. Beaupre of Domtar to chair our new Forestry Advisory Council. Its first task is to review our forestry research priorities. Later it will concentrate building a two-way bridge of ideas between our Canadian Forestry Service and the companies themselves.
The Science Council believes that we should contract out more of our research work. Less development should be done "in house" and more should be done in company plants and graduate schools. I agree with this. We in Ottawa have tended to be too inbred. Too much of our work has been done behind closed doors, and too many studies have been filed away without being read by people who could make some practical use of them. The Science Council says that we should concentrate on certain areas of research and avoid spreading ourselves too thin. I agree with this also. I agree that more of our work should be mission oriented. I agree that it should be tailored to suit Canada's particular needs. I agree that our environmental endeavours should fit our own Canadian situation. Let me give you a particular example of what the Science Council means and of what I mean.
The Science Council says that we should build a big new environmental centre on the west coast, dealing with the marine-atmospheric interface and employing biologists as well as oceanographers and climatologists. It would be located facing the Pacific. Already we are developing a tidy nucleus in West Vancouver but more, much more remains to be done on the air side, and it is

January 27, 1971

B.C.'s turn in so far as the building of a big new environmental institute is concerned.
The Science Council makes a good case for ice studies and ice removal in the lower St. Lawrence. I have no doubt that environmental studies aimed at clearing this great waterway in the winter months will pay off handsomely. Here is another task which our environmentalists should tackle with determination.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and tell the House about our testing of pesticides in Halifax, about our eutrophication studies on the Great Lakes, about fish farming on the Prairies, and about our efforts to rescue the wildlife habitat on the Athabasca-Delta. But suffice it to say that our scientists and our engineers are hard at work. They are working flat out on pollution problems and renewable resource management problems from coast to coast, and from the Great Lakes to the Arctic Archipelago.
Our new environmental department is a decentralized department. Less than 10 per cent of its work force is located in the Ottawa area. The rest are to be found out where the fish are, where the trees are, where the lakes are and where the problems are. Our biggest wildlife centre is in Edmonton. Our biggest fisheries research laboratory is in Nanaimo. Our big centres for inland waters are in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Burlington, Ontario. The headquarters of our meteorological service is in Toronto. Our main oceanographic institute is in Dartmouth. We are planning a new centre for Arctic studies in the Northwest Territories. Here is decentralization with a purpose. It is decentralization with an eye to the expansion of our resource base, and with a view to enhancing our environment in the long run.
In this wide ranging speech, I have covered a lot of ground. But I must be careful, Mr. Speaker. Our new Department of the Environment will not embrace all of the activities of the federal government relating to pollution control. Other departments like Agricultural, Urban Affairs, Northern Affairs, Transport, Regional Economic Expansion and Energy, Mines and Resources will also have important responsibilities in the environmental field. They will deal with particulars, while the role of our new Department of the Environment is more general. It is more sweeping, and it includes the role of a coordinator. It must make sure that our plans do not have any gaps in them, that our programs are as broadly based as possible, and that the quality of life in Canada is preserved for all time to come.
Reading our daily press and watching television one is often gripped with a sense of apocalyptic doom. Handed a sordid dossier of man's mishandling of his surroundings, we are bound to be depressed. I agree with those who are sounding the alarm. If things keep on this way we will be in a real mess. We will be in a real mess by the year 2000. But let us not blame science and technology for all our ills. Man's greed is the real culprit. It is his greed in the material sense which is to blame for the present state of things.
Of course, we have to mend our ways. We have to stop doing those things which the scientists tell us are harmful to our environment. Since greedy practices have
Government Organization Act, 1970 become a habit, this will not be easy. But, knowing the facts, we have the will to change. We have the will to use modern technology in such a way as to ensure our own survival and that of all other living things.
Of course, Canadians will have to make some hard decisions about the kind of world which we want our children and their children's children to inherit from us. Environmentally speaking, we all want it to be a better world than we now know. So, we must make sacrifices in the 1970's. We must make sacrifices, especially on the economic front. But armed with more scientific knowhow, we can enhance our environment. Our new department of the environment, properly manned, properly organized and properly directed, can help us on our way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in saying a word about our present deputy minister, Dr. Needier, who is to retire shortly. For many years he has been in the government service. He performed a yeoman's task, first on the Fisheries Research Board and, latterly, in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I hope we have not seen the last of him. I shall do my best to persuade him to act as an adviser to us, particularly on international matters and, more particularly, in relation to the next Law of the Sea Conference. I hope that these few words will allay the concern of the hon. member for South Shore about our ability to deal with fisheries problems, and especially international fisheries problems, in the months and years ahead.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry? I listened with much interest to his comments regarding the cleaning up of the environment, and especially to those remarks concerning mercury. As he is aware, a very serious situation has developed in the Canadian deep-sea fishery. Fishermen who are landing swordfish are finding that their catches are being impounded because of their mercury content. Since this is an immediate and urgent matter, may I ask whether the minister has looked into it. What are those fishermen to do? Are they immediately to go on unemployment insurance or are they to continue fishing on the understanding that any swordfish which may be landed will be purchased by the minister's department, in order that this important and viable industry may be continued in Atlantic Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the department has been in close touch with the fishermen and the vessel owners concerned. They understand the situation. They understand that there is little likelihood of our being able to pass, and therefore market, the swordfish that they are likely to catch. Probably some of the smaller, younger fish might meet the standards. Many of the larger and older swordfish are unlikely to meet these standards. As a result, we have the same problem facing us in respect

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 oi this deep-sea fishery as we had with respect to some of our lakes in Western Canada. In that case, we had to ban fishing altogether and find ways of supporting the incomes of the commercial fishermen affected.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question before he concludes his remarks? At the same time, may I be permitted to join in the sentiments expressed by the minister and by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) with regard to our retiring Deputy Minister of Fisheries. Since the minister did not really touch upon this matter in his remarks, could he tell us what is to happen to our Department of Fisheries, which heretofore has been primarily responsible for the maintenance and enhancement of our commercial fisheries. What is to happen to the department, and how will that be related to the new department about which the minister has been speaking so eloquently?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for fisheries is most important. That is one of the major responsibilities given to the federal government under our constitution, the British North America Act. We must do our utmost to make sure that the fishery is maintained and nourished as effectively as possible. We shall be identifying various fisheries services. They will use the badges, letterheads and so on which formerly were used by the department. The functions of these services will be paralleled by the functions of the forestly services and the wildlife service. In other words, we shall have the Canada fisheries service, and it will use all the designations which formerly were used by the department. That also applies to the Canada forestry service and the Canada wildlife service.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, may I be permitted to ask a question of the minister? In order to allay our fears over the future of the minister's fisheries responsibilities in Atlantic Canada, may I ask whether it is intended in future to appoint two deputy ministers, one to be responsible for fisheries and the other to be responsible for environmental pollution matters?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. We shall have one deputy minister who will bring about effective co-ordination within the department itself. In addition, we shall appoint several assistant deputy ministers, one of whom I believe will be an assistant deputy minister of fisheries.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I listened to the minister this afternoon with a great deal of interest. May I thank him for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of the speech he intended making. It is always easier, if one sees a copy of a speech before it is made, to follow the minister's remarks and to note the various points raised.
Before proceeding with the main part of my presentation, there are one or two comments I wish to make about the minister's remarks. I wish to talk about standards. The minister indicated that standards were being
set up. I presume that they will be national standards. We should like to know whether they are being set up under the Fisheries Act or under the Canada Water Act, or whether they are to be established under the new wildlife services branch which is to be set up. I think all members will be interested in knowing that. Possibly I ought to have directed a question earlier to the minister on this matter.
The minister made a good point by indicating that he is very much opposed to the patchwork approach to pollution legislation in Canada. I am delighted to hear that. Nevertheless, in looking at the particular bill we are debating, it seems to me that it constitutes a patchwork approach to pollution problems. I say that for the simple and sole reason that it has not taken into account all aspects of pollution, and I think it ought to have done so. I intend to deal with that matter later in my speech.
The minister also said that he is opposed to pollution havens. Again, I think this is good news. I know that the minister has advocated this on numerous occasions. This shows me that at long last the truth of what we said when debating the Canada Water Act has come home to the government benches. Under the Canada Water Act, if water quality management areas as outlined in the legislation were set up, pollution havens would be created in Canada. If the standards are not equalized throughout the length and breadth of the country, pollution havens could be established in various provinces. The minister mentioned that we are to have uniform and national standards. I endorse this statement 100 per cent. This is a sound approach to the over-all problem. Of course, we do not think that the same standard ought to apply to every little patch of water in Canada. That was not our inten-ion, and the minister knows it. So far as I am concerned, the mere fact that the department is to move in the direction of imposing national standards shows that it is wise and sensible. Its action will indicate to industry all over Canada that we shall not allow pollution havens in any province or any part of any province. Again, I wish to make clear to members of the House that that was the precise point we tried to put across last year when debating the Canada Water Act.
Before coming to the bill itself, I wish to make one or two other observations. We understand that three new services are to be created, services dealing with fisheries, forestry and wildlife. I wish to leave this thought with the minister. We are going to have a wildlife service. When are we going to have a Canadian wildlife act? There must be a revision of all the ideas connected with wildlife. It will be necessary to study international agreements and hold discussions with representatives of other countries. We must move quickly along this line.
I wish to make a few comments about the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-207. I feel this bill is an example of poor legislation. There is no doubt about that. This bill encompasses several major principles, many of which have no relation to each other, apart from the fact that some slight change in government organization is taking place. A new department of the environment is to be

January 27, 1971

established. It will carry out a number of functions which other departments previously carried out. This should be the subject of a separate bill so that it could be debated independently of the other issues. It has no relation to the Public Service Superannuation Act which is discussed in Part VII. It does not have any relation to Part VI which relates to the post office. It does not have anything to do with the section dealing with the addition of a number of Parliamentary Secretaries to the government payroll. This is a clear indication that the bill should have been broken down into a number of separate and related topics and presented to the House in that form.
An omnibus bill of this type is an excellent way for the government to try and cover up some of the unpleasant moves it wishes to make by tying them to other pieces of legislation which might be acceptable. Hon. members are given the choice of either accepting or rejecting the whole package. This is not a sensible way of handling the nation's business. I trust that the procedural debate which took place yesterday will result in the elimination of this type of omnibus bill in the future. There are many items covered by the bill, but I intend to confine my remarks to Part I which establishes the new department of the environment. Possibly I should make a few general remarks on pollution before I start.
In May 1969, the United Nations made a report on problems of the human environment. It outlined the crisis of world-wide proportions which faces us in this field. Since that report of almost two years ago, we have increasing evidence of the deterioration which is occurring in every aspect of our environment. Even with warning signals flying everywhere, we are only toying with the problem. No all-out attack has been launched to find solutions to our problems. No concrete, over-all plan has been devised by this government to tackle this major and worsening situation. Perhaps a few comments from the United Nations report would put in proper perspective the need for a measure to launch an all-out attack on our pollution problems, rather than the partial and ineffective solutions offered in Part I of this reorganization bill.
The United Nations report emphasized that for the first time in the history of mankind a crisis of world-wide proportion involving the human environment was arising. The portents of this crisis were apparent in the explosive growth of human populations, the poor integration of a powerful and efficient technology with environmental requirements, the deterioration of agricultural lands, the unplanned extension of urban areas, the decrease of available space, and the growing danger of extinction of many forms of animal and plant life. The report stated that if current trends continued, the future of life on earth could be endangered. In dealing with pesticides, the report indicated that an estimated billion pounds of DDT had been dumped into our environment and that we were adding to it at an estimated rate of 100 million pounds per year. The total world production of pesticides was estimated at over 1,300,000,000 pounds annually.
The report estimated that 500 million hectares of arable land have already been lost through erosion and
Government Organization Act, 1970 salinization. I point out that a hectare is 2.471 acres of land. Over one billion acres of arable lands have been lost to mankind through various types of mismanagement. The report indicated that two-thirds of the world's forest area has been lost to production and that 150 types of birds and animals have become extinct as a result of mans' actions. It estimated that another 1,000 species or races of wild animals are considered to be rare or endangered. A number of these are within the confines of our own country. The report indicated also that erosion, soil deterioration, deforestation, watershed damage and the destruction of animal and plant life continues, and in some areas are accelerating. This over-all type of loss is endangering man's existence on earth. The three basic causes of this deterioration or pollution of the human environment were classed as, the accelerated population growth, increased urbanization, and an expanded and efficient new technology. Each of these was closely associated with the increase in demands for space, food and natural resources. The failure of society to plan for logical and sensible development along these fines was leading to wholesale pollution of our environment and endangering the very existence of mankind on this earth.
Canada is a relatively young nation. We have one of the largest land masses in the world under our control. We have immense resources. Our population in relative terms is small, and yet we find that immense damage has been done to the human environment. Pollution is now classed as one of the major problems facing the Canadian nation. Many forms of wildlife have been endangered. Pesticides are affecting the quality of the fish, meat, and foods we eat. Recreational areas are being destroyed and because of their filthy and unhealthy conditions are being barred from public use. In many of our heavily industrialized areas, air pollution has become a major health hazard. Our Arctic and northern territories, which constitute 40 per cent of Canada's total area, are endangered because of lack of adequate land-use regulations. This is an area where the ecology is extremely fragile. Many of our major waterways are being used as sewers to flush untreated effluents into the lakes and oceans where they can wreck their damage on the ecology there.
We have inherited all these problems because of man's inherent greedy nature and the failure of governments over the years to realize that the prosperity of a nation must not be entirely based on economic values. We have too long worshipped the almighty dollar and allowed the rape of our natural resources to take place on an unprecedented scale, regardless of the consequences. It is up to us today, Mr. Speaker, to make some of the moves which should have been made generations ago, and insist that full and proper protection of our environment be one of the prime objectives of legislators. There will have to be a re-thinking and a re-shaping of the policies of all groups. If this is not done at an accelerated pace within the next few years, we might well find that man's existence on this globe will be extremely limited.
The bill before us is called the Government Organization Act, 1970. It provides for a re-organization of several government departments. It sets up a new department called the Department of the Environment. This new

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 department will include all the functions of the old Department of Fisheries and Forestry, along with a number of related services which have been moved out of other departments. There will also be some new directives for dealing with environmental pollution.
I feel this aspect of the bill setting up this new department of the environment, with an outline of its functions, is certainly an improvement over any existing federal efforts to deal with our widespread water pollution problems. However, Mr. Speaker, I feel that it falls far short of what we should be doing in this field. Several of the key requirements for adequate pollution control are missing from the legislation. Unless immediate action, such as I intend to outline, is taken on some of these matters I am afraid much of the legislation will be ineffective.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that on a number of occasions we have had re-organization of government departments in an effort to solve some of our economic and social problems. In many instances, the changes have not been too beneficial. The setting up of a new department is often the excuse for a further delay by government in carrying out much-needed reforms. The excuse is that the new department must be given time to organize its program and set out its priorities. However, if this new department is to be successful, there must be a wholesale change in this government's approach to our environmental problems.
If this policy change is not made, then all the switching around of government functions will do little to solve those problems which currently face us. It would be disastrous for our nation to try and lull the general public into feeling that an all-out attack by the federal government was taking place on our environmental problems when, in fact, very little was being done. There is little point in any government passing new regulations if they are not prepared to enforce the regulations which are already in effect and which, if they had been properly enforced in the past, would have eliminated most of the major pollution problems which now face us today.
Perhaps I should give several examples of the failure of the Canadian government to enforce pollution laws and pollution regulations which have been on our statute books for years. The best example is to be found in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence river system. In a 1909 treaty with the United States, we find this reference to pollution:
It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.
Despite this clearcut directive that boundary waters shall not be polluted, we find that both Canada and the United States have totally ignored it, so that today parts of the Great Lakes system are among some of the worst polluted waters to be found on the continent. Just a few days ago in this House the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) tabled the final report of the
International Joint Commission on Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River. This report is a damning document of almost total neglect of this vast waterway by both the United States and Canada. It shows the complete lack of government concern over the years for the enforcement of pollution laws and regulations. Today, we are in the process of setting up programs to try and undo the terrible damage which we have caused to this water environment. The cost will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and it will take a long period of time to restore in any real measure the quality of the water which we should have in this river system.
This failure of enforcement is related to practically every Act which we have in our statutes containing regulations pertaining to pollution. In most instances, these regulations have lain dormant for years and have been completely ignored by both the government and the general public alike. For example, no charges were laid under the Navigable Waters Protection Act during the years 1963 to 1969, for violations of those sections dealing with pollution of waters. Under the National Parks Act, only one infraction was recorded in the same seven year period. There were no pollution infractions charged under the Mining Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act followed a similar pattern. A few infractions of the many hundreds of the Canada Shipping Act Provisions were reported and dealt with. The best attempt at enforcement was carried out by the fisheries department, and the many cases of mercury pollution, etc., which are turning up these days are a clear indication that a host of other charges should have been laid many years ago.
I feel it is essential for members to speak out on these issues. A reorganization of government departments is taking place. I presume this move is made with a view to having the new department operate more effectively and more efficiently. If the object of the government in setting up the new Department of the Environment is to lay a solid base for the solving of our environmental problems, then I feel that the move will be ineffective.
There is no doubt that there will be some improvement in dealing with our water resources, but even here the new department will be ineffective in many ways. I feel that the change has been made in an effort to lull the Canadian public into thinking that a real job will be done on all environmental problems. The mere structure of the new department, and the many missing components required to get at the basic cause of pollution, are indications that a major, all-out attack on our environmental problems will not be achieved by this reorganization.
To begin with, I feel the new department has been given the wrong name. I feel a better name would be the "Department of Renewable Resources". The structure of the department indicates that, in addition to the renewable resources of fisheries and forestry, it will be responsible for several former portfolios involving only renewable resources. This means it will be merely another of the competing departments of government. It will not be the effective, universal overseer of all environmental

January 27, 1971

activities. This department as set up is not intended to have any voice or control over those other government departments whose activities might have ramifications in the environment.
This must be crystal clear to all members of this House. If it did have this power, there is no doubt that there would be major friction between the minister for this proposed new department and every other department of government. I firmly believe that any authority dealing with our environment should not hold direct responsibility for a particular resource portfolio. Ministers who are responsible for fisheries, forestry, northern development, mining, manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, etc., have vested interests in pursuing activities most advantageous to their specific areas. It seems to me that a national environmental authority should be able to stand above the narrower concepts in order to judge the effects of all potentially relevant human activity.
There is absolutely no doubt that responsibility for any particular resource based industry might conflict with the responsibility to protect the environment from damage. Two good examples are to be found in the production of energy generated from hydro sources and in agriculture, where there is need to protect crops, even by the use of pesticides, which could cause major soil pollution and might in the long term have to be banned.
There are a number of alternatives to handling the environmental problems through this new department. We could set up a genuine department of environment with no direct responsibility for any particular resource portfolio. This department could be formed to take responsibility for coalescing an denforcing all current environmental control legislation. It could set and police national standards. It is absolutely essential that some move be made to correlate and enforce current laws. There is no indication that this will be done in the present legislation. For example, the new minister is not going to enforce the pollution regulations administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This new department could be given the task of scrutinizing all activities in the country for their potential environmental impact. In this respect, adequate surveys on resource development projects would be undertaken before these projects were allowed to proceed. In this way adequate safeguards would be set up to protect and conserve our Canadian heritage.
A good example might be in the field of hydro. Here, full and adequate surveys would indicate the feasability of the project and the damage which might result to other aspects of our environment. I might add, this type of survey was desperately needed to measure the potential effects which the building of the Bennett Dam might have had on the vast Mackenzie Delta. There was no department charged with this responsibility at that time. There was no department to insist on this type of a survey, and there is nothing in the current legislation to indicate that this situation has been remedied.
The department should be asked to provide positive reclamation programs for those parts of the environment which have already suffered damage. Here again, we
Government Organization Act, 1970 could pick up numerous examples where positive reclamation is required. One of the largest and most important of these examples is to be found in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence river systems, although there are dozens of reclamation projects needed in every part of the country.
The department should be given the power to develop a population policy for Canada. Many people consider that Canada is vastly underdeveloped, but population policies for Canada and the world will be one of the future keys to solving major pollution problems.
If the setting up of a department of environment such as I have outlined does not meet with the approval of the government, then perhaps the government would consider creating an Environmental Council of Canada. You might say these two suggested organizations would be somewhat similar, but one would have more power than the other. This Environmental Council would be similar to the National Pollution Control Commission which our party advocated when we were dealing with the Canada Water Act. The creation of an Environmental Council of Canada was recommended to the government by the Science Council of Canada. It should be a non-political organization sponsored by the government. Its basic role would be the provision to the public of facts about their environment upon which they would be able to base adequate value judgments. It is absolutely essential that the general public be given the cost in material welfare of providing a quality environment.
Canadians must have these facts, and they must be given a chance to make a choice once these facts are made known to them. This Environmental Council of Canada could be an independent Crown corporation with a directorate representative of environmental interests, with a small professional staff. It would conduct and publish the studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada. It could make analytical reviews of environmental questions which are the subject of public interest. It would, in effect, become the major source of informed opinion on environmental problems in our nation.
The council could be a valuable advisor to the government, if the government decided not to set up a separate department. It could stimulate particular ministers to an appreciation of the inter-relationship between resource uses and the necessity for considering problems in a larger context. It should draw attention to gaps in the support of environmentally oriented research. It should provide the inspiration and leverage for new kinds of activities in government departments. We have similar councils in Canada today. One is the Economic Council of Canada, which advises the government on economic problems. It publishes a report which is available to all individuals and groups in Canada. This report outlines the real economic problems facing the nation. Perhaps an environmental council of Canada, set up along similar lines, might also be able to provide Canadians with effective guidance on environmental problems. I bring this to the attention of the minister because I realize that the government is not too keen on setting up a new depart-

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 ment which will oversee all environmental problems throughout the nation.
I indicated at the beginning of my remarks that there were a number of major factors missing from the proposed new department of the environment. I have mentioned several, but one of the most important relates to finance. We need a national pollution control fund, call it what you like, and this is another of the keys to the solution of many of the most acute and persistent pollution problems which face us today. The federal government cannot really launch an effective campaign against environmental problems unless it is prepared to put up huge sums of money to launch an all-out attack against these problems.
It must be crystal clear to everyone in Canada who knows anything about pollution that one of the big problems holding back a number of solutions is that problem associated with money. Perhaps the best example can be found in the field of sewage treatment. Municipalities from one end of Canada to the other are anxious to deal with the sewage problems which face them. The fact is that the tax base of municipalities and provinces is too restricted for them to carry out any crash program on sewage treatment, although some funds are being made available by the federal government through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, the amounts available for sewage treatment are insufficient to meet the problem.
In this respect, target dates should be set for the completion of secondary and tertiary plants and, most of all, money must be available at low interest rates to the municipalities so they can get the job done. There is much the federal and provincial governments can do to provide low cost loans. The failure of the federal government to take effective action along this line is an indication that it is derelict in its duty in so far as this aspect of pollution clean-up is concerned. There should be a right, by law, for every Canadian to live in clean environment, to breathe clean air and to use clean water. It should be a crime to pollute and our legislation, if necessary, should be enforced by an amendment to the Criminal Code making pollution a crime.
I have not much time left but there are one or two points I should like to summarize quickly, if I may. I feel that much wider use of advisory boards should be made by the government in so far as environmental problems are concerned. I realize that the minister is interested in this and has indicated that he intends to move in this direction. I hope he moves quickly because we have little time to lose.
Another reason I feel the new act is not going to be effective can be found by a consideration of schedule A. We find there are a number of very important pieces of legislation missing from this schedule. I have in mind legislation which the minister and his department will not be in a position to oversee. One of these pieces of legislation is the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act. Why should this department not have jurisdiction in respect of that Act? We passed legislation in an attempt to stop oil pollution of Arctic waters, and this Act should certainly be included in schedule A.
What about the National Parks Act? If there is any area which is part of the over-all environmental picture it is our national parks. Why is this Act not included in the new department along with some of the other functions taken from the various departments? The national parks represent one of the keys to our environmental protection, yet we find reference to this area missing from this list of legislation.
Let us consider the Navigable Waters Act. Why is this not one of the items which falls within the jurisdiction of the minister of this department? Because of this exclusion Mr. Bennett was able to build the Peace dam without having to come to the federal government. A crown corporation in the name of the province or in the name of the federal government is not covered by the terms of the Navigable Waters Act. One of the first thing we should do is make sure that the legislation we now have is amended in order to give this new department a chance to call for surveys when provincial governments, hydro companies or crown corporations want to dam a river.
Other pieces of legislation are missing. This is what makes me feel we will not get the effective control of our over-all environmental problems that we should get. Let us go up to the Arctic for a moment. Here we have our northern area, 40 per cent of Canada's total land mass, under the control of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The emphasis there is on economic development. That department has a Deputy Minister who has been concentrating on economic development, and doing a good job, but who has totally ignored for many years any of the environmental problems which have been brought to the attention of the department. To-day, the same man is to be in charge of the economic development and environmental problems in the Arctic. As someone said, it is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop, because environmental problems will largely be ignored. These are the things which worry me.
I believe a thorough examination of the legislation should be made in an effort to have more controls in the department. If there is not a department with over-all authority to co-ordinate the services, set up standards, provide funds and set out priorities in respect of pollution problems in Canada, we will not have the effective controlling measure we should have. I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to make these remarks. I can assure the minister that during the committee of the whole stage we intend to question very closely many of the policies and programs which have been outlined and which we trust may be amended in the proposed legislation.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a number of members on the other side of the House have expressed some reservations about the particular bill which is before us. I should like to say I have a reservation but it really does not have anything to do with this particular bill. I think this is a good bill. It encompasses a
[Mr. Harding.)
January 27, 1971

number of studies, thoughts and new departures. I am very happy to participate in this debate and would like to limit my remarks mainly to the establishment of the new Department of the Environment.
The establishment of this department is a giant step forward which should go a long way toward overcoming the so-called pollution crisis about which so many people in Canada and in the world are concerned. I am not one of those who cries doom and gloom and thinks that everything is lost. I agree, however, that there are some serious problems in respect of air, water, soil and other kinds of pollution and that there remains much to be done. Because of the great concern shown by Canadians in the last few years, and the strong legislation brought forward by this government, 1 believe the battle against pollution is beginning to be won and that even greater strides will be made toward winning the battle in the next few years.
Yesterday the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that the creation of a new Department of the Environment lacks goals. I do not agree with this assessment. I believe it is very clear that the goal established here is to ensure and create a better and cleaner environment for Canadians. The creation of this department brings together in a single ministry those federal agencies which deal with our so-called renewable resources. I think it is a great idea to have one department deal with water, air, soil, fisheries, forestry and wildlife. In establishing a Department of the Environment, the government is following an integrated or indeed an ecological approach to the improvement of our environment. The key word here should be "ecology".
As one who has studied ecology, at least plant ecology, I am very pleased to hear the word used in much of our everyday conversation. Ecology is quite an old science. Indeed, it has been pointed out that it goes back to the days of Socrates. Just for the record, the term "ecology" was composed in 1885 by a zoologist named Reiter. His combination of the Greek roots "oikos", meaning home, and "logos", meaning study or discourse, etymologically implies study of organisms at home, although he made little further attempt at definition. A year later Haeckel, another zoologist, formulated a simple definition which was in keeping with the original usage of etymology and which remains today the most widely accepted definition of the scope of the word. Haeckel defined "ecology" as the study of the reciprocal relations between organisms and their environment.
A great many problems, indeed most of those involving the conservation of biologic resources, greatly over-reach the limits of any one field of specialization. Ecology is a science that integrates separate disciplines, synthesizes them and presents them as a system. It is very natural and right that the Canadian Wildlife Service should be with fisheries, foresty, and the other disciplines of the Department of the Environment. The minister outlined many of the reasons this should be so. The basic orientation of this branch is scientific in nature. For a long time I have felt the Wildlife service was rather out of place in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop-
Government Organization Act, 1970 ment and would be better located in a department which was functionally oriented in the same direction as it. The same can be said in respect of the Water Resources Branch.
I also hope that as the new department begins its monumental task one of its functions will be to encourage more education in the environmental sciences. Ecological, or environmental education if you like, has been very lacking over the years in our Canadian universities. By and large, if a Canadian student wished to receive any kind of specialized education in the ecological sciences he had to go to a United States university. I am glad to note that recently courses in environmental studies are being offered at certain universities. At the University of Calgary they are offered up to Master's level; at the University of Manitoba up to Bachelor's level; at the University of Waterloo up to Bachelor's level; at the University of St. Jerome up to Bachelor's level and at York University up to the level of a Master's degree. Perhaps by definition I am omitting some very valuable courses offered by other universities, but I believe I have made my point. I hope the new Department of the Environment will do everything it can to rectify this situation.
In addition, I believe the Department should be involved in assistance at the pre-university level. With the type of expertise it has, it should be in an excellent position to give leadership in this field. Some schools boards and teachers' organizations have been doing some great work in this area but they need some encouragement, guidance and assistance. Just the other day I received a submission from the Kamloops School District No. 24, specifically from supporters of the McQueen Lake Environmental Study Centre, in which assistance was asked from this new department. I think they have an excellent program and I hope that their request meets with some success. The objectives of their projects are very laudable indeed. I should like to point out a few of them. The first is functional on-side activities of man and also an aesthetic appreciation by man of nature. Some examples of environmental studies approached by students are these: In art, simple mosaics from leaves, grass and twigs; landscape painting and inspiration for landscape painting.
In the field of ecology there is human, ecological history of homesteaders, pond life, grasslands, forests and over-all environment. I could go on. In zoology, they suggest the migration of birds and animals, nesting of birds, life cycles of small mammals, and insect life. All these should be studied more intensively. This is the kind of thing that the new department could encourage by helping out the organizations that I have named.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) suggest that an environmental council should be established to advise the minister and to bring attention to the things that are being done in the field of environmental sciences, particularly the work that is being done by the new department. I suggested

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 this at one time in a question I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), and indeed the Prime Minister, will give this matter very serious consideration.
I think that the whole government approach to pollution control and environmental quality should be put together. I sympathize with the hon. member to some degree when he points out that perhaps certain other matters should also be dealt with by the new department of environment. On the other hands, the department might then become too large. I am not in favour of creating what might be called a pollution czar, and I think perhaps if this were done by the government under the bill before us, the first criticism that might be levelled by opposition members would be that the minister is an empire builder.
The hon. member made another good point with regard to population. I feel that this is going to be a serious problem which we will have to face in the next few years. Over-population is certainly a serious problem. I do not know whether it will come under the jurisdiction of the new department of environment, but I hope that the minister can also give this serious subject some consideration.
I was going to deal with the matter of standards but perhaps I will leave it for now. I was a member of the committee dealing with the Canada Water Act. Much of the debate here centred about a lack of definition. I agree with the minister when he says that we should not create pollution havens. We also said this in the debate on the Canada Water Act. At the same time, we have to recognize ecological differences between the different waterways and in different parts of the country. I hope that, as a result of the remarks the minister made today, this whole question will receive a much clearer treatment in the next few months.
I agree with one thing which the Leader of the New Democratic Party said yesterday and which I will paraphrase. He said that the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was a good minister. He said that he had confidence the minister would do the job that is required because of the record he has achieved in the last couple of years. May I add that the people of Kamloops are very proud of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who was born and raised there. Even though he has not lived there since his late teens, he is still considered a native of that area.
In closing I want to wish the minister luck in his new department. I know that most of the Canadian people will be with him in his efforts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate which I consider to be very important, since this bill deals with a great number of matters, all of which are more or less important. I believe that pollution is perhaps the main

subject matter of Bill C-207 and this is why 1 would like to elaborate on it.
However, I feel that other sections of this bill should have been dealt with separately because we more or less object to them. In passing, may I say that this method of introducing omnibus bills leaves us in a rather difficult situation. Hon. members will understand that we agree with certain aspects of a bill such as this while we disagree with others.
On second reading, especially, we have to commit ourselves with regard to the principle of the bill. That puts us in a rather difficult situation. That is why I feel that, although the practice dates back quite some time, as soon as we find that it does not meet the proposed objectives or the needs of the debate, it should simply be set aside. We should not feel bound by tradition.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal more specifically with the problem of pollution. It is difficult, over a short period of time, to delve into all the aspects of an omnibus bill such as this one, and if the occasion arises, I shall at a later date deal with the other aspects of the bill.
Pollution is not a new problem. It has been around for a long time, but apparently we have only been concerned about it for a few years. It is evident that rivers have long been polluted, but the flow of some of them enabled us to protect the supply of drinking water. However, as population increased in some of our cities, pollution has worsened and we have continued to use those rivers as open sewers. Today, we must bear the consequences.
Industries set up on shore-lines have also contributed to their pollution. Now, we know that a single plant producing 1,000 tons of pulp daily consumes as much oxygen as a city of 250,000 inhabitants.
It is readily realized that the owners of the numerous factories which must satisfy the needs of consumers, whether they are pulp mills, oil refineries, or even alcohol distilleries, are more interested in picking up profits than in the protection of the consumer. The great number of factories has largely contributed to the pollution of streams, rivers, the Great Lakes and even the ocean.
I feel that our governments, as well as those of other countries, must undertake a battle against pollution. I trust that the neighbouring countries have provided for this, now, and that they will keep on taking the required measures so as to contribute to the control of water and air pollution.
For a long time in the history of Canada disputes have arisen between border cities about air pollution, for example. You will recall the discussions in Trail, B.C., some years ago which degenerated into legal action. Such events have gradually made the population and the governments aware of the necessity to undertake this fight against pollution.
It gives us some satisfaction to see that the industries themselves have come to the point where they admit
January 27, 1971

they are sources of pollution. Who would have thought this possible only ten. years ago?
I have on hand a booklet dealing with the concern of the pulp and paper industry over water pollution. It is an article written by Mr. Robert Snorton about a conference held in Washington on October 23 and 24, 1969, under the auspices of the United States Department of the Interior. If the industries that have been the worst offenders with regard to the pollution of our rivers and waterways are worried, the time has come for them to participate in the fight against water pollution, first of all by modifying their plants and by putting a stop to their dumping of waste in waterways.
A few weeks ago, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and myself asked questions in the House about mercury pollution in James Bay. We believe that pulp and paper mills in Quebec and in Ontario dump their waste in the rivers flowing into James Bay. As a result, the hunting of white whale was forbidden there last year, because mercury pollution exceeded the rate acceptable for consumption.
The directors of pulp and paper industries, not only in Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario, but across Canada, should take steps to put a stop to the pollution
Mr. Speaker, the recent examples of Dow Chemical, Wyandotte Chemicals, CIL and ALCAN which admitted having discharged mercury into the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence shows the tragic importance taken by industrial pollution.
We are now being told that those industries do not want to take the responsibility for correcting this situation. According to the Quebec Water Board, 140 gallons of water are required to produce one barrel of oil, 20,000 gallons of water for a ton of paper, 450 gallons for a barrel of beer. It takes 100 gallons of water to produce one gallon of alcohol.
In a white paper published in February 1970, the Water Board estimates that 80 per cent of water pollution results from industrial activity. A paper mill which produces 1,000 tons of pulp a day consumes as much oxygen as a town with a population of 250,000 people.
These industries use up an enormous quantity of water to produce beer, oil or pulp and our resources are limited, although we have believed for a long time that they were not. We are being told that only 3 per cent of all water available in the world is fresh water and that two-thirds of this fresh water is frozen at the poles.
For these reasons, we should not waste our freshwater resources even if we consider our low level of pollution, our relatively low population and the number of lakes and rivers in Canada.
I think that it is not only up to governments to use the taxpayers' money to fight pollution but also our biggest industries which contributed so much to our water pollution should share in this effort.
I was appalled yesterday when I read the statement made on January 26 by Mr. Arnold Hart, Chairman of the Bank of Montreal and I quote:
The Canadian people must be willing to forgo abundance so as to palliate the cost of pollution.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Mr. Speaker, the government is surely able to fight efficiently against pollution without having to deprive their citizens.
I suppose that, according to Mr. Hart's statement, the taxpayers will be asked to pay more taxes by the government, to provide for such an effort, but I do not think they should be deprived of the present abundance in order to pay for that. According to Mr. Hart, we have no other alternative than being poisoned or being starved to death.
There is no reason for us to die on account of that. Our institutions should be sufficiently organized and financed to fight successfully, without people having to suffer financially.
Among other things, Mr. Hart has this to say, and I quote:
-that is where the problem lies.
-any effort to combat pollution will result in economic restraints-
Such financiers fear so much lesser profits that they are anxious and frightened about the war on pollution.
Whether the bill is paid by our industries or our government, the consumer will bear the costs in the long run. The new Minister of the Environment should be smart enough to control this war on pollution, to prevent abuses, and exorbitant expenses leading nowhere. Besides, he should make sure that necessary legislation is introduced to put an end the pollution of our waterways.
I believe that industries should be required to treat sewage and smoke from their plants. New installations will be needed to reach such goals. New industries should be called upon to treat their sewage before returning it to nature, and also to adopt measures preventing air pollution.
Northern Ontario, especially Sudbury, has plentiful mineral resources, but nearing Sudbury, one is astonished by the view it offers. There is no need to set on an interplanetary trip to see what the moon is made of. A visit to the Sudbury region would give a notion of what the lunar landscape looks like. Air and water are so polluted that vegetal and, animal life is nonexisting. I am blaming both the Ontario and Ottawa authorities for having allowed this situation to develop around a city whose inhabitants should be permitted to lead a normal life.
e (5:50 p.m.)
Cities should also be compelled to treat their sewage. Surely there is some legislation allowing cities to borrow and benefit from incentives to build water filtration plants; some of them did it but many others, in spite of government legislation and of certain incentives, have not been able to do it because their finances, their charter or their tax assessment did not enable them to raise sufficient capital to undertake such schemes.
As for shipping, our laws have not been enforced with sufficient severity. I know there is legislation which forbids ships operating in our rivers, our lakes, or close to our coasts to discharge oil, but the fine is so small that they find it more economical to dump oil into the St.

January 27, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 Lawrence or into our lakes. Our laws are repeatedly broken since it is found more profitable to pay the fine.
I believe the act should be altered and that steps should be taken-this is very urgent-to ensure that transportation of hydrocarbons by vessel be strictly regulated in order to avoid such disasters as have taken place recently off Canadian coasts and those of many other countries. Tankers are damaged, or go into collisions and there is immediately a panic because of the disappearance of life near those coasts, which leads to immeasurable ecologic perturbations.
In my opinion, governments should agree to draw up much stricter regulations governing the manufacture of tankers that navigate in our waters, and take the steps required to avoid such frequent disasters.
In this respect, there would certainly be plenty to do. Research is also needed to find out the various effective ways of fighting pollution. I know that our country, Canada, can count on the services of scientists who are quite willing to work and who are highly qualified to undertake and pursue this kind of research. They will
work at it efficiently and at a cost that will still be reasonable.
I want to assure the House, the department and the minister who will be appointed, of my co-operation in this regard. I am sure that averything will be done in the interests of Canada and that all hon. members will work hand in hand with him. This way the government will make sure that our country does not become poisoned by polluted water and polluted air. Any legislation aimed at preserving us from these hazards is welcome not only by hon. members but also by the entire population.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock. It is only one minute to six. If Your Honour and members of the House agree, may we call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, January 28, 1971