1971-02-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under paragraph (2) of Standing Order 41, I should like to table copies of a press release issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and explaining the minor change made in the method of adjusting seasonal variations and showing that this method brings no change in the result obtained regarding the seasonably adjusted unemployment rate of 6.2.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to what the minister has attempted to do in that it does not come within the four corners of Standing Order 41(2). I have raised this point previously, Mr. Speaker, and I raise it in all seriousness today because of what happened yesterday and of what is being attempted to be done today. Standing Order 41(1) reads as follows:
Any return, report or other paper required to be laid before the House in accordance with any Act of Parliament . .may be deposited with the Clerk of the House on any sitting day-
Standing Order 41(2) goes on to say:
A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of a minister, may, in his place in the House, state that he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, any report or other paper-
If one were to take the words "any paper" in their fullest and broadest sense, a minister could table anything, even a written memorandum which he had sent to somebody else. But I suggest to Your Honour and to the House that when this rule was changed a short time ago it was never thought that it would be prostituted in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Under the principle of ejusdem generis, these words should be interpreted in a particular way, and for a minister or a parliamentary secretary to attempt to bring in a self serving, exculpatory, or explanatory press release in this way constitutes, in my
opinion and in the opinion of the members of this party, an infringement of the rights of minorities and an abuse of the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I know that Your Honour is very much aware of this problem, and I would just say one more thing in support of the point I am making. Yesterday the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) attempted to seek unanimous consent of the House to make a motion, and in your response Your Honour said:
I have expressed the thought on earlier occasions that if hon. members were entitled, when moving a motion under Standing Order 43, to make a general statement it would only be equitable-
I stress those words.
-that someone on behalf of the other side should be allowed also to make a statement, and that certainly would be contrary to the spirit of Standing Order 43.
Your Honour does not want there to be a double standard in the House. I do not want a double standard, and hon. members of all parties in the House do not want a double standard. But if, after hon. members have attempted to move motions under Standing Order 43, someone on the government side is to be permitted to make a statement, I suggest even more strongly that when a minister of the Crown attempts to bring in a press release to explain something which happened on a previous day and to try to justify it and apologize for it, members on this side should be entitled to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult to deal with the point of order, and I assume it has been difficult for the house leader on the other side to deal with it because he has not had an opportunity to examine the paper that the minister tabled under Standing Order 41(2). But from the description given by the minister it seems pretty clear that it is a paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibility of the government.
It is an explanation of the issue that was raised yesterday affecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which is under the administrative responsibility of the government.


An hon. Member:: So are many other things.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course, if the statement went beyond an explanation of the statistical methods

February 12, 1971
Seasonal Unemployment
employed it might not fall within this Standing Order. But I do make the point that it is possible for a minister to lay on the table a report or paper dealing with the administrative responsibilities of the government, and thereupon the same shall be deemed for all purposes to have been laid before the House.
When this standing order was agreed to it was understood that there were matters of interest to the House that could be laid on the table-


Gerald William Baldwin: But never press releases-never.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that should not be communicated to the House in the form of an oral statement which would lead to further oral statements. I agree that we are in this position somewhat because yesterday the hon. member and his party abused the rules. I think it worth pointing out that when one rule is abused, as it was abused yesterday, without any opportunity for spokesmen on this side to reply to long argument made by the other side, this tends to lead to other abuses.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday that if an argument were to be made under the particular Standing Order used by the opposition, it would be equitable to allow the other side to argue. That was his ruling and we did not argue the point. But if the same practice is to be followed in the future, if hon. members should use the Standing Order to make an argument, then we shall have to claim our rights on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The minister, not having been given an opportunity at any point yesterday to answer the arguments made by the opposition, today used another Standing Order to lay on the table an explanation of the statistical procedures that were employed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I claim that under this Standing Order he has the right to do that, but I think his action has to be understood in light of the situation that developed yesterday, which I thought was quite unsatisfactory from a procedural point of view.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the President of the Privy Council simply to assert that what the minister has done is only to exercise a right under Standing Order 41 (2) does not necessarily make it a fact. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and in my view you should so rule, that what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did was to use Standing Order 41(2) to get the floor, and once he had the floor he made what amounted to a statement on motions.


Gerald William Baldwin: Quite right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To say that he was tabling a document, without adding anything more,
would have been all right. But he described that document in a manner which constituted, in effect, entering into the debate which Your Honour would not permit yesterday-and I do not quarrel with that ruling. The President of the Privy Council has just said that the government had no chance to reply yesterday and therefore it was replying now. That is precisely what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did. The words he used were the government's answer to the whole question of the change in the methodology, to use Your Honour's word of yesterday. I submit that because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has today made what is a statement on motions, Your Honour should follow the rule that permits spokesmen for the opposition parties to comment on such statements.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that I could make a statement in response to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member assumed a bit too much. I would think that very valid points have been made in this argument by the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Peace River. We are faced with a very difficult situation.
Hon. members will recall that when an attempt was made yesterday by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate to present a motion to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43, I rose and on a point of order suggested to the hon. member that his statement was going somewhat far beyond what was allowed under Standing Order 43, that he was in effect making a statement, and that if we allowed such statements to be made in support of motions under Standing Order 43 the government, or someone on behalf of the other side of the House if such a motion were made by a government member, should be allowed to make a statement in reply thereto. This is why I invited the hon. member to put the motion as quickly as possible. The President of the Privy Council has stated that to reply to the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce thought what he should do is table a document in the form of a press release by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


Jean-Luc Pepin: By the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


Mr. Speaker:: I have serious doubts whether this is a correct practice. I would think that the correct practice might have been for the hon. minister to make a statement on motions.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that the minister has made a statement. I am not certain that he has. I felt that the minister in tabling the document was coming very close to making a statement when he described the document that he was tabling. I cannot judge nor rule that it was really an argument or statement which the minister was making when he tabled the document. Perhaps he should not have described it, as he did. Having said that, I cannot find that the minister has made a statement. It is still open to him to make a

February 12, 1971

statement on motions-one not relating to Standing Order 41(2)-at which time opposition members would have an opportunity to make statements.
My suggestion to hon. members again is that when we extend the rules we become involved in difficulties such as the one we now have. If a question during the question period is accompanied by a statement or prefaced with an allegation of fact, the question is really out of order. An individual member putting a question which includes a statement of fact or an allegation may be unhappy when the minister argues a case or makes a statement in reply to the allegations of the hon. member. Again, I would say that both the question and the answer are out of order.
It is when members try to use the rules to their advantage as members that the House and the whole system get into difficulty. I invite hon. members to try to respect the rules as much as possible, to try to follow them as closely as possible, and to discipline themselves to respect not only the letter but the spirit of the rules which have been proclaimed for the efficient operation of this institution.
This has been a somewhat unhappy incident, I would hope it would guide members and the Chair in future situations.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept Your Honour's ruling with great respect, as I always do. However, may I say that even though we do not have the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as a backup to our research system we do have a competent research office, and on the basis of Your Honour's ruling I assume it will be acceptable for us to table in the House on Monday a statement prepared by our research office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member would have to have the rules amended in the meantime. Perhaps that might be done over the weekend.
4*	-I*



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House to put a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing importance. The residents of the town of Springhill have been suffering from the effects of a mine dump fire since 1965. This fire is presently burning over an area of some 45 to 50 acres at a depth of from 40 to 60 feet. On a wet, humid or snowy day the fire pollutes the whole town of Springhill and the surrounding area.
A number of investigations have been carried out into the effect of this pollution and the means whereby this mine dump fire can be extinguished. An investigation has been under way by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources since early last year, which was supposed to
Pollution
have been completed by September of last year but has not been completed to date. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has informed me that the information contained in this report will not be made available to the public. Since this pollution could well affect the health and lives of the people of the town of Springhill, numbering some 7,500, I move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Environmental Pollution.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order immediately in connection with this motion. I do so, I hope, in the spirit of the ruling you made a few moments ago and in an effort to co-operate.
I appreciate the importance of the matter the hon. member raises and the effect his recital has on our feelings, but it does illustrate the difficulty that arises if an hon. member is permitted to give what I consider to be a rather substantial description of a problem and then ask leave to make a motion and confront the government with a decision as to whether it should acquiesce or reject the request at this time. Surely it is putting the government in a very difficult position if its only response on an occasion of this kind is to say yes or no. It could be interpreted by the people affected as indifference to their problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is far from being the case, because the government is sympathetic toward those who may be affected by these circumstances. However, I believe that if it is possible for an hon. member to make an extensive explanation of the reasons for placing a motion before the House it ought also to be possible for the government to consider the situation and make an extensive explanation of the circumstances which make it possible or not possible to give leave for the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Otherwise the situation that is developing under this Standing Order will go from bad to worse and lead to a most unsatisfactory position, in fact, to the very difficulty to which the Chair drew attention a few moments ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope we do not become involved in a repetition of what took place a few moments ago, but I will hear the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North.


Robert Carman Coates: I think there are one or two questions which should be clarified. The President of the Privy Council intimated that this was the first time the information contained in my statement had been provided to the government as a basis for reaching a definite decision. In the first place, I stated the facts of the situation in as concise a manner as I could. There was nothing partisan at all in what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 12, 1971
Pollution


Robert Carman Coates: The second point is that I made a speech in the House a very short while ago in the course of which I mentioned this subject. The President of the Privy Council was in the chamber. He comes from the same province as I do. He knows the situation. He cannot get up and camouflage-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The argument made by the hon. member at this time is not entirely relevant to the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council. The President of the Privy Council has in substance reiterated the point that the Chair made a moment ago.
I appreciate the difficulty in connection with Standing Order 43. Hon. members have been using Standing Order 43 more and more since the House adopted a change in our rules to eliminate difficulties that had resulted from an abuse of the use of Standing Order 26. The Committee on Procedure and Organization, in its wisdom, revised rule 26, and there are some hon. members who feel that perhaps it is now operating a little more efficiently and to the greater satisfaction of hon. members, though this opinion may not be held universally by hon. members.
What we are obviously doing now is using Standing Order 43 to replace Standing Order 26, and in my view Standing Order 43 was never intended as a substitute for Standing Order 26. In my view Standing Order 43 should be interpreted by the Chair as strictly as possible. When hon. members make a motion under Standing Order 43 I have invited them to limit their presentation to the House to the urgency of the matter and not to develop or present a substantive argument. I am satisfied that in most instances this prescription has been respected by hon. members. We have had a considerable number of motions under Standing Order 43 which have been limited, brief, to the point, and non-partisan as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North suggested a moment ago. They have been motions that have been limited entirely to indicating the urgency of the matter raised in the motion.
In my view there is nothing substantially wrong with the motion moved by the hon. member. In the difficult situation that has been raised by the point of order made by the President of the Privy Council, only two things are possible. First, the House can change the Standing Order. The Standing Order is in the book and it is open to hon. members to use it, and this is what they have been doing. If the majority of the House is of the opinion that the Standing Order should be amended, then it is open to hon. members to change it, either by proposing a motion to the House or by having the matter considered by the Committee on Procedure and Organization, with that committee reporting back on the advisability of making a change in the rule which could then be considered and possibly adopted by the House. The only other alternative is to rely upon the Chair to use its discretion in deciding when, in the opinion of the Chair, the presentation of the motion has gone beyond the limits prescribed by Standing Order 43. This is what I have tried
to do and what I shall continue to do. I might say again that in this particular instance I find nothing substantially or essentially wrong with the motion proposed by the hon. member.
As a parting word, may I add that the concurrence prescribed by Standing Order 43 is not the concurrence of the government but the concurrence of the House. Even if the whole government-the cabinet-were in favour of a motion proposed by any hon. member, it would be sufficient if one member of any party, even a member from the ranks of the hon. member who proposed the motion, to oppose the putting of the motion: it would then not be put. We should interpret this Standing Order in the way it should be interpreted, which is in the way it is written, namely, that it requires unanimous consent, that is, the consent of every member of the House. I do not think the government should want to take on its shoulders the responsibility of refusing a motion. If a motion is refused, it is not refused by the government but by the House, as expressed by the voice of but one single member who has the right to refuse his consent to the putting of the motion.
I again want to tell hon. members that I am fully aware of the difficulties which have arisen in respect of the interpretation of the use of Standing Order 43. Until such time as it is amended by the House I will do my best to satisfy hon. members on both sides, including the President of the Privy Council, and to ensure that it is not abused or used for presenting substantive arguments and that the presentations of hon. members are limited to an indication of the urgency of the matter.
Hon. members have heard the motion and I must inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



WAYS AND MEANS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 60(2), I request the designation of an order for consideration on Tuesday next of the ways and means motions tabled by the Minister of Finance on December 3, 1970.

February 12, 1971



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the Prime Minister because I think this question should be directed to him. However, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister and perhaps we can get a satisfactory explanation. On Wednesday the Prime Minister tabled the text of the communique of the federal-provincial conference. There appears in the English and French texts what seems to me to be an irreconcilable difference in the use of language. I refer to page 10 of the French text and page 9 of the English text. Is the Acting Prime Minister able to explain to the House how the English phrase "expressed its sympathy" is equivalent to the French phrase "se declare en accord"? What steps are going to be taken to reconcile this difference?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, this is a question which ought to be directed to the Prime Minister rather than the Acting Prime Minister since I was not present and presiding at the meetings of the constitutional conference. However, I will direct this question to the Prime Minister and I am sure he will be glad to provide an explanation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister also direct this question to the attention of the Prime Minister? What steps have been taken in direct or indirect contact with the premier of the province of Quebec who apparently relies fully on the French text as expressing what happened at that conference?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance who, while he is not on the roster, may compensate for the six ministers whose names are on the roster for today but are not present.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask my hon. friend a question in return as to the source of that information. I just do not have that information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think this would be an order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: We could change the rules.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the source of that information is a report in this morning's Globe and Mail by Mr. David Crane who received this information-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will ask the minister a direct question. What is the government's estimate of the seasonally adjustment unemployment figure for this current year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the author of the newspaper article obviously had access to the research department of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government has not stated publicly the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment for any specific time during the year. It has stated that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment will go down from its high of last September of 6.9 per cent, and indeed it has now declined to 6.2 per cent, much to the chagrin of my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if I can persuade the minister to stop being flippant and try to deal with the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have a job there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when I get around to making my next budget speech in a month or two-April, probably-I will at that time, as usual, forecast what the GNP will be.

February 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Another budget in April?


Edgar John Benson: Maybe in March.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance arising out of an answer he gave just a moment or two ago in which he suggested that the government had not made any public statement as to the forecast of unemployment. I should like to ask him whether the government has made any estimate of likely unemployment, either actual, seasonally adjusted or both, for this year and, if so, would he please inform the House what that estimate is?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, periodically the government does estimate what is going to happen over a period of time, but it is not the practice in this House, nor has it ever been the practice, to make these assumptions public as they are just assumptions.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as the government and the minister are not averse to making forecasts in respect of housing starts, the gross national product and other types of economic activity, why will he not disclose his estimate of levels of unemployment? Is he embarrassed or ashamed of it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: No, it is done during the budget speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon.
member and the minister that we are now entering the field of argument.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ROLE OF PROVINCES IN COPING WITH RECESSIONS

['We have called for a meeting of the ICC. We expect it will be held. Just how far the Indian and Polish members will co-operate with us in investigating all of the breaches of the neutrality of Laos, I do not yet know.']
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's invitation to the provinces to finance further unemployment assistance, was he introducing a federal constitutional proposal that the federal government should have the fiscal and monetary power to create recessions and the provinces the responsibility to find the resources to cope with them?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is wrong. I simply pointed out to the provinces that the bond market had improved greatly because of the actions taken by the government over the past year, that it was possible for them now to get money in Canada to proceed with public works, which was not a possibility a year ago, and that by borrowing in Canada they assist the whole Canadian economy because this does not put upward pressure on the Canadian dollar.



Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us whether the Canadian government, as a member of the International Control Commission, has received a copy of a report on the measures taken by the Republic of Viet Nam, to ensure its own defence, and would he table this report in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in the House the other day, Mr. Speaker, we have asked for meetings of the International Control Commission. Informal meetings are now proceeding. Just what the content of these discussions will be we do not know yet.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if the minister could indicate as well whether there has been any communication from the two original co-chairmen of the Geneva conference on whether or not they have made any progress with regard to the reconvening of that conference in terms of bringing a period of peace and stability to southeast Asia?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have called for a meeting of the ICC. We expect it will be held. Just how far the Indian and Polish members will co-operate with us in investigating all of the breaches of the neutrality of Laos, I do not yet know.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the press statement tabled by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce today states that a new method is being incorporated by DBS for dealing with seasonally adjusted figures, would the Acting Prime Minister repudiate on behalf of the government the erroneous statement made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration yesterday that this was not the case?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I
understood the allegation of the opposition yesterday, it was that the government has directed the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to make changes. That is completely unfounded. The Dominion statistician, I am sure, would resign if there were any interference with the publication of these figures.

February 12, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the Acting Prime Minister get down to answering the question I asked, even though it may be embarrassing, and repudiate the erroneous statement made yesterday by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that there was no new method?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether by using the new method adopted on January 1 there would have been any difference in the results during the month of January, 1970, from the results under the old method and whether in fact it is legitimate to compare the results in January, 1971, with the results of the statistics since the year 1954 computed under the old formula?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is exactly what DBS says in the statement which I tabled this morning. I am in a funny position, Mr. Speaker. If I told DBS how to compute their statistics I would be accused of telling them how to establish statistics, which is the last thing I would do. For one reason among many, I would not know how to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That never stopped you before.


John Howard Lundrigan: While agreeing with the minister's last statement, may I ask further whether in fact the statistical formula which came into use on January 1, 1971, made any difference in the regional computations in view of the fact that in August when the old formula was used the figure for Atlantic Canada was 8.5 per cent while under the new formula the figure is 8 per cent. I ask that in view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will ask DBS to establish that and I will also ask them to issue a communique which I will table on Monday.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I would like to ask the
Minister of Transport what action he will be taking to relieve the intolerable congestion of facilities at the Toronto International Airport.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that you would permit me sufficient time to give in detail all of the steps that are being taken. Perhaps, however, you will permit me to indicate
Inquiries of the Ministry
to the hon. member that arrangements were finalized yesterday for the building of a special temporary terminal at Toronto which will be used exclusively for charter flights beginning, I think, on June 16, and which should significantly relieve the pressure on the current terminal.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister may recall my question of a few days ago when I brought to his attention the statement by Mr. Noel Doucette, the president of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, that 90 per cent of Indians in Nova Scotia were unemployed. The minister stated that he would inquire to see whether there was a special problem in Nova Scotia in regard to new housing starts and said he would be glad to report to the House. I wonder if he is in a position to do so now.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that in 1970-71, we have spent $195,000 to build houses in that area and that this year we have decided to bring up that item to $246,500, which will ensure the construction of 29 new houses in the area mentioned by my hon. friend. As for the other reservations in Nova Scotia, the president of the Indian Association has asked us to delay our program, because the Indians would like to consider the situation before we proceed.


Robert Muir: The translation came through that $185 million had been expended. I would be glad if that were so but I assume it was wrong. May I ask the minister whether he is aware that the latest so-called increase of $100,000 was for all of the Atlantic region and that Nova Scotia only received $47,000? Is he also aware that as many as two, three and even four families are living in one house, if I may be so bold as to call some of these shacks houses?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I just said that we will construct 29 new houses on the area to which the hon. member referred. As far as other areas in Nova Scotia are concerned, the Indian Association of Nova Scotia asked us to delay because they themselves are conducting a survey of the situation.


Robert Muir: I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that the president of the Indian Association has completed his survey and it has been sent to the department. He said the other day that he wants houses built for all

February 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the Indians. He does not want any delay. They have a high rate of illness and there are more Indians in hospital than whites because of lack of housing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On Wednesday last, as recorded at page 3242 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Finance a question regarding his statement to the provincial premiers in conference that if they needed more money they should go out and borrow it. His reply was that the government will be borrowing $2 billion to pour into the economy this year. Is that $2 billion in addition to the $1.5 billion which the government will be required to borrow for refunding purposes to meet maturing obligations? Does this mean the government will be borrowing this year $3.5 billion?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, it is $2 billion new money.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister whether he considers that it will be possible for the provincial and municipal governments to borrow in the Canadian market if the federal government is going to borrow $3.5 billion, or will the provinces and municipalities be required to go to the United States market despite the advice by the Minister of Finance that they should refrain from doing so?


Edgar John Benson: I think that there will be ample funds in the Canadian market to take care of $2 billion in borrowings by the federal government plus the legitimate requirements of the provinces.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the government decided to initiate studies into the provision of rail commuter services north of Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday I agreed with the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto that the Department of Transport would take the initiative in conjunction with my colleague who is responsible for housing and urban affairs with a view to determining what further rationalization may be possible in terms of the rail lines leading into Toronto to see whether these can be employed for commuter purposes.


John (Moody) Roberts: Can the minister give some indication of when he expects these studies to be completed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. The first phase is simply to devise a mechanism through which these studies can be undertaken. We will be discussing them with the railways, the province of Ontario and the various municipalities concerned, but a start will be made almost immediately.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a previous one and it is directed to the minister in charge of housing. Has he set forth any moneys in the CMHC budget to acquire or hold lands to help relieve the transportation problem that the Minister of Transport has referred to regarding Toronto?


Hon. Roberi K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there is no precise authority within the Act for that to be done. As my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has indicated, it is a matter to which we are beginning to address ourselves. There are other areas of Canada which have shown an interest in this matter and in the context of setting proper urban objectives we will not exclude it from consideration.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport relating to rail services in Northern Ontario. Following the strong representations by all Northern Ontario M.P.'s requesting that the Transport Committee hold public hearings in northern Ontario in order to assess the implications of the CNR's decision to reduce its passenger service and in order to study the whole question of rail services, is the minister now prepared to say whether he will authorize the committee to hold such hearings?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to say what I can authorize the committee to do. Surely the committees of the House are pretty well autonomous in this regard. The Transport

February 12, 1971

Committee will have a reference from the House of the estimates of the department and also of Canadian National within a very short time, and I assume any decision members of the committee make in this regard would be conveyed to me.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that when trains Nos. 7 and 8 were taken off no representations to the CTC were provided for in the format adopted, would the President of the Privy Council be prepared to permit the Transport Committee to make a tour of the areas affected so that the communities which are being sadly affected would have an opportunity to make their case to a public body?


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and also has to do with the cancellation of trains Nos. 7 and 8. Would he tell us if he himself is making representations to Canadian National in an effort to persuade them to reverse that decision in light of the numerous representations being received by members of this House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can only reply that I hope hon. members opposite will get over their ambivalence. On the one hand they are asking me to keep my hands off the CNR when it appears desirable to do so, and on the other hand they are asking me to make representations to the railway. I have conveyed to CN on every occasion the representations made to me in this regard, and I feel that is as far as I can go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the supplementaries on the first question asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe have only a distant relationship to the first question. I do not think these questions should be asked as supplementaries. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's West.



ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-REFUSAL TO PAY EMPLOYEES UNABLE TO WORK BECAUSE OF SNOW STORM

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to action taken by the CN at St. John's, Newfoundland, whereby they refused to pay 550 of their employees who were unable to go to work because of a severe snow storm. Would the minister have an investigation carried out with a view to correcting the situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries and I will convey to the hon. member the views of the CN on that matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



GEORGES BANK-ISSUE OF OIL DRILLING PERMITS BY CANADA PRIOR TO AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES ON INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the results of seismic surveys in the Georges Bank area are being compiled, can the minister state if Canada will issue oil drilling permits for the Georges Bank area before an agreement is reached with the United States on the median line issue?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice since it is a very technical one.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question at this time. Since Canada's position is well known, our interpretation of the international boundary being the median line, can the minister say what is the United States position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy when answering the first question to give an answer to that also.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE RESPECTING TERRITORIAL LIMIT OFF SOUTH COAST OF NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, while we are on this subject may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is in a position to report to the House what recent initiatives have been taken with the government of France to resolve our treaty problems with that country with respect to the territorial limit off the south coast of Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not think this is a supplementary. It might be asked as a related question, but at the moment I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate has a supplementary.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With great respect I think the question is supplementary, but even if the question is related I think the minister should be allowed to reply to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is the hon. member's opinion but the Chair has reached a judgment decision, and that is the decision I have made. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.



GEORGES BANK-CANADIAN RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES POSITION

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what response the Canadian government gave to

February 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the United States position on Georges Bank, namely that the U.S. government does not acquiesce in or recognize the validity of permits or other authorizations issued by the government of Canada to explore or exploit the natural resources of any part of the Georges Bank continental shelf.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have the impression that the question asked by the hon. member is related to the same extent as that which was asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. It might be a solution to the problem if the minister were allowed to reply to this question and the hon. member for St. John's East were allowed his as a supplementary to it. The question of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has been asked and perhaps the minister should reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to try to reply to both of these related questions. With respect to the last one asked by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, this would be the natural position for the United States to take, just as it would be for us if we disputed the claims of the United States. We would take the same position. I do not think it is unusual. I shall find out what reply we made to this particular contention and report at the same time as I reply to the other question.
As to our discussions with France they have been proceeding on and off. I am not quite sure whether they are now on or off, but they continue.
*	* H*



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Inasmuch as upwards of 100 fishermen, and that is a conservative estimate, of Indian origin on the west coast have been pushed out of the fishing industry this year because of a variety of reasons, can the minister declare or announce what plans his department has to alleviate and help in that situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, evidently the problem is extremely complex. The up-dating of fishing fleets to conform with the new policies of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry on the west coast raises a very serious problem. However, we make financial assistance available to Indians so that they may compete in this market. As far as redundant manpower is concerned, general programs have been set up to find other jobs for them or to train them for other fields of employment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think it was a month ago today that the Minister of Fisheries said that

a new financing program would be operated through the Indian Fishermen's Assistance Board. What I am asking is whether the minister can announce the details of that program so that the Indian people will know where they stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister and to the hon. member that this is the kind of statement ithat should not be made by way of an answer to a question. The minister might indicate if he would be prepared to give an answer by way of a statement on motions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to tell the hon. member when we will be prepared to make a statement in this regard.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Have he or the officials of his department had an opportunity recently to confer with officials of the Manitoba government in relation to the future development of the townsite of Churchill and, if so, can the minister advise the House what progress is being made?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a series of consultations with the government of Manitoba and with Premier Schreyer personally. It would be my hope and expectation that we could look forward to an agreement with the province of Manitoba at a fairly early date.



HOUSING


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In his speech the other day, the minister stated that the rate of interest on housing loans had been lowered to 7J per cent. As most of the housing loans granted during the last few years bore interest at 9J per cent, does the minister intend to adjust the rate of interest on those loans accordingly or grant some kind of adjustment to the builders?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the residential mortgage
February 12, 1971



MAXIMUM CMHC GUARANTEE ON HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS

Walter C. Carter: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, Mr. Speaker. In view of the rapid deterioration of housing quality in many Canadian centres, can the minister tell the House if the government is thinking of increasing the maximum amounts guaranteed by CMHC with respect to home improvement loans in order to cover the rising cost of building materials and labour?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we made amendments to the National Housing Act in June, 1969, permitting loans for the purchase of existing housing and the rehabilitation of existing housing. In those cases provision was made for a maximum mortgage loan of $18,000. We are increasing the funding of our direct program through CMHC to encourage that kind of activity. I referred to that in my comments the other day and also in answer to a question from another hon. member.



REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATE ON DIRECT LOANS BY CMHC

John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should direct it to the Minister of Finance inasmuch as he is over here obtaining advise from my leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: May I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing.


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Finance has returned to his seat.


John Gilbert: Is it the intention of the minister to reduce the interest rate on direct loans presently being made by CMHC?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we made a reduction within the last six or eight weeks. It was a slight reduction. As soon as it seems possible to do so, it will be my desire to lower it again. The rate currently stands at 9J per cent.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIRPORTS
STE. SCHOLASTIQUE-NUMBER OF JOBS TO BE CREATED [Translation]


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Two weeks ago the minister told me in his reply that he was not aware of the figures quoted by a Quebec organization on the number of jobs that will be created by the Ste. Scholastique complex. I would like to ask him whether he has checked those figures and if that project is still capable of providing 75,000 new jobs?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question reasonably fully on the last occasion by saying that both sets of figures, the ones that were presented by the officials in the first instance and the ones that have subsequently come to light from other agencies, were estimates. I have asked the officials to take another look at them to see whether they can be refined further. They are only estimates, and I think it is fair to say that one set could probably be defended every bit as well as the other.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the board of inquiry which investigated the crash of the DC-8L jetliner in Toronto was critical of the Department of Transport and Air Canada, would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions assuring us that those recommendations which were announced by the inquiry are being considered and in fact incorporated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member ought to have completed his comments by saying that there were references to several other agencies besides Air Canada and the Department of Transport. To the extent that the recommendations apply directly to DOT, we accept those without qualification. We are seeing what can be done now to implement those recommendations. On the broader question, the whole issue is being examined and I will report to the House when we have arrived at conclusions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement the other day, in which he suggested that he had no doubt about the airworthiness of the DC-8L jetliner, are we to assume that the criticism in the report recommending a redesign of the engine to wing assembly
3332
February 12, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
and the recommendation with respect to improvements of the landing brake system are to be ignored?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the minister to reply to the question because of the delicacy of the matter. I think that normally such a question would be ruled as being argumentative. Perhaps the minister should be allowed to reply to the question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you, Your Honour, for your consideration, because it is a matter that I would not want held in abeyance. My statement was very carefully worded, and I repeat it now. We are completely satisfied about the airworthiness of this particular aircraft, if the operating manual and instructions are followed. I think that is simply reflecting the views of Mr. Justice Gibson.
On the larger question, we conveyed the findings to all appropriate parties in the United States. As the hon. member and the House will appreciate, this question is one that has to be negotiated internationally, because it is not simply Canadian aircraft that are involved or Canadian aircraft which are flying over Canada. I want to emphasize that the airworthiness of the aircraft is not in question provided proper procedures are followed. It is my information that they are now being followed to the letter by all Canadian carriers.



HOUSING


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the housing capital budget announced by the minister this week and in view of the visit tomorrow by the minister to Wynyard in Regina East constituency, would the minister indicate if he will have any welcome news for the people of Wynyard on the ten-house project they have been trying to obtain for the past five years?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am very appreciative of the reminder. I will do everything I can to get the appropriate information on that particular project at this time.



SASKATCHEWAN-ACTION TO INCREASE STARTS

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for housing. Since Saskatchewan received only 2 per cent of the total federal public works spending in 1970, and since the number of housing starts fell from 4,425 in 1969 to 993 in 1970, what special action has the minister taken to rectify this situation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, but I missed the first part of his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might take note of the question and reply at some other time. There are only a few minutes left in the question period.



CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport inasmuch as this matter was dealt with a while ago. It is of great concern to western Canada and pertains to the Canadian National, and the problems of railways generally. May I ask the minister if he would give consideration to the possibility of dissolving the Canadian Transport Commission and giving the responsibilities of the commission to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation. He must assume that it will be considered.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office. Would the minister please make a statement on motions, informing this House exactly what offer the government made, other than the offer of the Prime Minister which was refused, to the Laplame drivers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not consider this to be funny at all. I should like to know what was offered. I should like the minister to explain to the House exactly what the offer was and why it was refused.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: think, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is too important for us to make fun of it. I am ready at any time to table the last proposals that were made to the Lapalme boys.



SHIPPING


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the govern-
February 12, 1971

merit's interest in the subject of unemployment, and in view of the fact that shipyards have had to lay off some of their shipwrights because the minister's department has not promulgated regulations with respect to the program announced over six months ago, will the minister make efforts to see that those regulations are promulgated so that the shipyards can get on with their work?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is referring to the support for exports.


Louis-Roland Comeau: No. I am referring to the program that was announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, which affects the minister's department.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have seen the regulations. I thought they had been issued. I shall look at this matter again.
* * :*:



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister's department, in line with parks policy, tried to buy up or terminate the logging leases at present in force in Wood Buffalo National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, these are the only logging rights in a Canadian national park. We do not intend at this time to buy them up since we are negotiating with the Alberta government with a view to exchanging this area for a region in southern Alberta which might well become a most interesting national park.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, has the department completed the buying up of timber berths in Glacier National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, but I think we have managed to buy back all logging rights in the national parks of the Rockies.



WOOD BUFFALO-PLANS FOR REFORESTATION-AGREEMENT ON EXCHANGE OF LAND

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Actually, I have two questions. First, is his
23786-69J
Inquiries of the Ministry
department planning to proceed with the reforestation program in the park? Second, when does he contemplate that agreement with the government of Alberta will be reached on the exchange of land that he mentioned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, these two problems are complementary. If we make an exchange with the government of Alberta, the latter should initiate the reforestation program in the park. However, we are awaiting results of the negotiations and I cannot tell the hon. member when they will be conveyed to us.



PROFIT BY ITALIAN SPECULATORS ON RESALE OF CANADIAN BARLEY

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does the minister have any knowledge and, if so, can he tell the House the approximate profit per ton that Italian speculators are making on the resale of Canadian barley?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for information which normally should be sought by way of a written question. Unless there is urgency, the question in those terms cannot be accepted.


Cliff Downey: A supplementary question. Can the minister state whether the mass exodus of the cabinet to Saskatchewan is what the grain farmers of western Canada can expect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Lome Nysfrom (Yorklon-Melville):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister taking any initiatives as the result of protests concerning the closure of 56 CPR station agencies and nine caretaker agencies in Saskatchewan and Alberta which was recently authorized by the Canadian Transport Commission?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice as to specifics. I know that there has been some action within the past week or so. I understand this is one of the matters 1 may be discussing with the government of Saskatchewan over the weekend. I am told that I will be going to Yorkton, so I will give the hon. member's regards to his constituents.

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 9, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, February 9, clause 6 of the bill was under consideration. Clause 5 of the bill had been allowed to stand with the amendment of the hon. member for Kootenay West. Is the committee ready for the question on clause 6?
On clause 6-Protection of environmental quality.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a matter, not by way of a point of order, but as an objection. At this stage we are dealing with clauses 5, 6 and 7, the proposition to establish a department of the environment. It has been announced that this new department will be headed by the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and with the passage of this bill and the establishment of this new department, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry will disappear. I think it is incumbent on the government, because of the importance it attaches to this proposal to set up a department of the environment, to have the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry here. He is the person who is to head up this new department; he has been chosen by the government for that purpose. It is unkind of the government-


An hon. Member:: Discourteous.


Frank Howard: Discourteous, of course; but I was being generous and gentle today, as I always try to be, though dealing with an insensitive government it is difficult to achieve this objective consistently. Certainly, though, the government owes it, if not to Parliament, then at least to the Canadian people, to see that the minister charged with heading the new department is here to deal with the subject from his point of view.
I know the President of the Treasury Board will not accede to this request. If he had felt any sensitivity about it, either he or the Acting Prime Minister would have seen to it that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was here to handle this matter himself.


Mr. Drury:: Perhaps I might comment on the last remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena. As he is, I believe, aware, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has attended-


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the minister rising on a point of order? It was the understanding of the Chair that the
minister was rising on a point of order. If I am in error the hon. minister might so indicate.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would find it difficult to classify this intervention as a point of order, so I shall wait.


Frank Howard: Then, it obviously has no substance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Frank Howard: The minister rises to say something, and the only way he can do that is by way of interruption or by way of a point of order or a question of privilege. He declines to pursue the matter in that way. I would not object if he wished to make some statement. Indeed, I am ready to yield the floor so that he might do that.
I see he is not interested.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am. It is just that I find it a little difficult-


Russell Clayton Honey: Do I understand from the hon. member for Skeena that he is prepared to yield the floor to the minister at this point?


Frank Howard: That is what I said.


Russell Clayton Honey: There was some confusion about the point of order. I understood the hon. member to say that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I believe the hon. member is aware that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has attended up to the present the discussions in the House on part one of the bill.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He had intended to be here for the continuation of this debate, but I regret to say that because of difficulties in making travel arrangements he is not here this morning.


Frank Howard: It would have helped a great deal if that explanation had been made earlier. Presumably, this leaves us in the position of having to proceed with our consideration of the bill while awaiting the minister's appearance. He may be here later today. I understood the minister to say he encountered travel problems this morning. Perhaps this afternoon he will be here, and able to deal with some of the matters with which we are concerned.
I should like to make reference apropos to what is sought by this particular clause, to the statistical information which was provided yesterday about levels of unemployment, and the degree to which those figures were distorted by the government. I should like to mention how this sort of distortion and flavouring of the statistics relating to the number of people unemployed is used to cover up the real seriousness of the situation. Yesterday, as I understand it, statistics were issued by

February 12, 1971

the Department of Manpower, by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and by the Bureau of Statistics, all three of them agencies of the government, giving separate and different statistical information. Frankly, I think each one of them either deliberately or accidentally underestimated the number of unemployed in the nation. I mention this only to counterbalance what the Minister of Labour said on a previous occasion when the figures were not accurate-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that we are dealing with clause six. I hope we are not rehashing yesterday's budget debate.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair was listening to the hon. member for Skeena. I thought that he intended, very rapidly, to relate his opening remarks to clause six.


Frank Howard: I do not think the President of the Treasury Board is out of line. He is correct. We are considering clause six. I heard you say that myself, Mr. Chairman. I should have thought the government would have shown some concern about unemployment by operating under the terms of this clause. I believe my remarks are germane and to the point. Let me read the clause:
The Minister of the Environment-shall (a) initiate, recommend and undertake programs and co-ordinate programs of the Government of Canada which are designed to promote the establishment or adoption of objectives or standards relating to environmental quality or to control pollution;
Surely, sufficient is involved in these activities to enable us to relate embarking on undertakings of this sort to the fact that we have the highest level of unemployment experienced in this nation for many years. Obviously, by objecting to the course of my remarks, the President of the Treasury Board indicates that the government has not thought clearly about this subject. It is my contention that this should be an aspect of government activity; in other words, efforts to control pollution can also be used as a means of finding employment. It could be done under this particular clause. We could save our environment and, at the same time, save our own people. I am sure no one on the government side would object to my advocating a program of this sort, even though the President of the Treasury Board did not seem to think that the application of the clause could have the effect I am suggesting.
As I was saying, large numbers of people are not included in the unemployment statistics though they are, in fact, unemployed. I have heard figures of-


Russell Clayton Honey: I say to the hon. member, with respect, that I have listened to his explanation of the manner in which he proposes to relate his remarks to clause six. I gave him the benefit of the doubt because there was, I thought, some relationship, but I should like to say to the hon. member that we should not transgress too far upon such a thin thread of relevancy.


Frank Howard: I have great admiration and respect for your instructions as to how the rules should
Government Organization Act, 1970 be applied, Mr. Chairman, but, with that respect, I suggest I have heard figures ranging between 75,000 and
100,000	people in connection with those who are undertaking retraining programs administered by the Department of Manpower. They are doing so in the hope that they will learn a new trade which will better fit them to become employed within the economic structure. What I am saying is that here is an area for worthwhile activity, namely, the training of our people to prepare them for work in pollution control where they may help to save our environment. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is any tenuous thread or that it is incompatible with the terms of clause six.
I refer to the clause again. It provides that the minister of the environment shall initiate, recommend and undertake programs relating to environmental quality or the control of pollution. In the course of doing so he is to co-operate with provincial governments, agencies or any bodies, organizations which have similar objects. This presents a clear opportunity for the government to do something worthwhile in the field of environmental control. It is in these circumstances that I referred to the numbers of people who are undertaking these manpower training programs, indicating, as an aside, that these people had been left out of the Minister of Labour's explanation of what was contained in the unemployment insurance statistics.
Let me tell the committee that we might well employ some of the native Indian people in this field. Many of them have a greater experience of the natural part of life than do a lot of the people who live in cities. After all, the streams, lakes and forests of our land are their environment. We could embark on an excellent program of environmental control by using people who are of Indian origin. Their cultural background fits them to understand environmental control easily. Moreover, there is, as hon. members know, an exceptionally high amount of unemployment among the Indian people. Let me put a statistic or two on the record. These statistics result from a survey of the native Indian population by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the Pacific region for the fiscal year 1970-71-just last winter. The survey showed that in the Fraser Indian Agency, which covers the lower mainland and up into the Fraser River, New Westminster and that area, 19.3 per cent of the work force of Indian people was unemployed. This was one year ago. The government is talking in terms of a 6 per cent or 6.2 per cent average throughout the nation, yet one year ago unemployment in one Indian agency in British Columbia was three times that amount. On the west coast, I take it in the area represented in part by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni, during the same winter 23 per cent of the Indian people in the Campbell River region were unemployed.
In the area represented by my hon. friend from Kamloops-Cariboo, in the Indian agencies of Kamloops, Nicola and Lytton in the central region of British

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 Columbia, agencies that are covered by the Canada manpower centre at Kamloops, the percentage of the labour force unemployed was 44.3 per cent. The whole range of statistics just for the province of British Columbia alone gives a similar picture.
Inasmuch as this statistical information was available to the government, to the manpower department and to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development one year ago, there should have been developed some kind of program with regard to environmental control of pollution. These programs would have given these people some gainful and meaningful work, and by the same process enabled them to contribute something to the quality of life in Canada.
Last night the Minister of Regional Economical Expansion took part in the budget debate and recited a number of programs that his department was planning in this particular area. I submit that this was simply window dressing. If the minister is really concerned about this sort of thing, then clause 6 of the bill gives him an opportunity to do something about it. It gives him the opportunity to initiate programs or to co-operate with other agencies in similar objectives. I am sure that the Department of Manpower and Immigration has a similar objective with regard to environmental matters as that proposed by the department of the environment itself. If there is one area in which co-operation might more easily be had than any other area, it is between two departments of the same government, two structures in the federal area, each of which has a constitutional authority to involve itself in this sort of activity.
As I say, the speech of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was window dressing, and if you read between the lines you will find that he is not seriously concerned about tackling environmental questions, about using the opportunity available to us through this sort of government activity to put people to work and to help save the nation from ecological destruction.
Let us examine what the minister said last night in order to show how distorted a view of the situation he gave the House. The minister said that one of the great steps they were taking was that they had almost concluded-the government is at the stage of "almost concluding"-new ADA agreements with a number of provinces. I think he said particularly with some of the Prairie provinces. Under these new ADA agreements there would be ample opportunity to enable native Indian people on or near reserves, in co-operation with the provinces, to do something meaningful which would give them self-respect, instead of destroying that self-respect by welfare programs and by the high unemployment level that exists among our native Indian population. _
That statement by the minister was false. It was false to the extent that it did not tell the whole truth. In order to show how shallow is the approach of the government to this whole question of improving the economy, I can say that almost one year ago the federal government signed a new five-year ADA program with the province of British Columbia. Under that program specific mention
was made, among other things, of initiating programs for the employment of Indian people as well as programs for employment in the fishing industry; there was a companion activity. Even though that ADA agreement has been in existence for almost one year now, there has not been a single, solitary program put into operation of any help or benefit to a single, solitary person of Indian origin. So, when the minister stood up last night, as he did, and said that we were negotiating ADA agreements to help the native Indian people seek employment and the like, that was a falsehood.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. An hon. member wishes to ask the hon. member a question, but first of all may I say that the hon. member is wandering further than he should from clause 6. I would invite him to make his remarks germane to this clause. An hon. member is rising to ask whether the hon. member for Skeena would permit a question.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I will take my cue from the Minister of National Revenue last night who said he would be glad to answer any questions at the conclusion of his remarks. I, too, will be happy to do so at that stage.
May I say I did not intend to wander. My intention was deliberately and consciously to suggest the course that this government should follow. In view of the earlier intervention by, and lack of imagination of, the President of the Treasury Board, it is obvious that the government has no intention of involving itself in this area. However,
I submit it is possible for the government to do so.
One area in which the government should become directly involved through the activities of this department is in municipal sewage treatment plants, to use that for the purpose of argument. Many municipalities in this nation do not have the financial base or resources to build their own. They are up to ears in debt and are unable to get additional funds so they can embark upon a thorough program of sewage treatment within their municipal boundaries and thus curtail pollution of the environment that comes from that source.
This is an area in which the government could easily involve itself by making money available to the municipalities. I realize that the Minister of Finance, both yesterday and on other occasions, gloatingly referred to the $16 million loan fund that has recently been established as a base for a make work type of project to the provinces and the municipalities. But I submit that $160 million is not very much in view of the job that we have to do to preserve our environment.
In order to put this question into some reasonable perspective, I should like to relate the generous way in which the Canadian government has looked in the past, indeed even today, upon situations in other countries. Take, for example, the attitude that Canadian governments have adopted towards lesser developed nations like Argentina, Greece, India, Pakistan and a couple of dozen others. Let me point out the extent to which Canada has lent money to these countries. I am not disagreeing

February 12, 1971

with the necessity for using what resources we have and can afford to assist other nations that are less well off than we are to enable them to increase their economic standard of living and quality of life; I mention this only in the context of what we should be doing for our own municipalities.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Skeena did indicate that he would accept a question from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. St. Pierre:: I listened with great interest to the hon. member's remarks concerning Indian reserves in British Columbia, and I know that the facts are as he states them. My question is, in view of the fact that the ADA agreement requires that initiative shall begin with provincial governments, and since the B.C. government resolutely refuses to take any initiative on behalf of Indian reserves anywhere in B.C., how can the member properly criticize this level of government when it is the other one which is refusing to assist the Indian reserves?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my friend, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, my appreciation for putting this different dimension on what I was saying. It was not I who raised the ADA agreement, it was the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion. Last night he said this was the valuable way his government and his department intended to tackle the problem. That is why I said he spoke a falsehood last night because he knows very well that no ADA agreement is going to provide these things. I just wanted to put this in context. I thank my hon. friend for pointing out how inept and calculatedly false the minister is.


An hon. Member:: You didn't answer the question.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena raised some questions that obviously require answers from the government. If we are being asked to establish a department of environment, Parliament should know what this department is going to do. We want to know whether there is any meat or substance to the powers conferred on the new ministry, and whether there will be the kind of authority which is being asked of Parliament in this particular case. We want to know whether there is going to be any meat or muscle in these words relating to the initiation of programs to improve the environment.
If the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry were here today, I am sure he would be in a position to confirm what I propose to say about one example of the kind of concrete step some of us think the government should take if the department of environment is to really per-
Government Organization Act, 1970 form the function the hon. member for Skeena mentioned in connection with the state of the fishing industry in British Columbia.
The clause we are dealing with makes reference to the fact that this minister has the authority, once this bill becomes law, to work in co-operation with other agencies, including provincial governments. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is as well aware as I am of the close interrelationship between industrial activities of the forest products industry in British Columbia and his responsibilities as the minister of fisheries. He must realize that what has been happening in British Columbia over a period of time has created a situation, and if we are going to restore and maintain the environment something of the order of $100 million will be required to bring the streams in British Columbia back to the level of potential production of salmon they enjoyed in their natural state.
As my colleague said, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is not present at the moment. Undoubtedly, the President of the Treasury Board is assuming some responsibility for putting this bill through the House. I am sure he is familiar with the spending programs of the federal government. Perhaps he is the appropriate minister to answer some of these questions and to inform the House whether, if we give this power to a new minister, this department will be anything more than simply parliamentary window dressing.
This is the kind of information we should have. We should be informed about the effects of these programs on unemployment, and I have in mind particularly those people who are relatively unskilled in an industrial society. Many Indians possess skills which could usefully be put to work carrying out these programs. Is the government going to put $100 million into the hands of the minister of environment in order that he might actually do something to improve the situation on the coast in relation to the environment in that part of Canada which was very productive in respect of Pacific salmon when it was inhabited only by Indians? This is the kind of question I think is germane to the discussion on this clause of the bill. Some spokesman, on behalf of the government should be in a position to provide real answers before we put the seal of parliamentary approval on this proposed measure.
I am sure that the whole question of preserving the environment in other parts of Canada is equally as important. It probably requires the same kind of financial muscle that is required to effectively deal with the deteriorating situation of the natural environment on the Pacific coast. Even though we are doing away with the fisheries part of the department's name, the minister does have responsibility for the sea coast and inland fisheries which the department of fisheries heretofore held. Let me emphasize the relationship between the proposal in this clause of the bill and the importance of useful and productive work. A fundamental question is involved which should be answered by the government before we pass this clause.

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the two preceding speakers who dealt with clause 6. This is one of the key clauses in the bill. We are told that this government is going to initiate, recommend and undertake programs, and co-ordinate programs which will be designed to promote the establishment or adoption of objectives or standards relating to environmental quality, or to control pollution. We are told that the government is going to promote and encourage the institution of practices and conduct leading to the better protection and enhancement of environmental quality.
We have not heard from anyone on that side of the House how the government intends to do these things. We are not holding up this legislation. The House of Commons is entitled to this information. We are fed up with this passing of permissive legislation which is never complied with by the department concerned. Someone on that side of the House should get up and tell the House of Commons is a crystal clear way what the government intends to do. Surely, the government has a number of programs lined up. Surely, it has a number of projects in mind for various provinces in Canada. Surely, someone in the government should tell us how the government intends to tackle these problems and how much money it intends to spend. How is the government going to approach the over-all problem of pollution which exists in Canada today? I agree with the two preceding speakers who have said we have had absolutely no word from the government in this regard. We should have some information before this clause passes.
But there is something else with which I want to deal which is, in my opinion, vital so far as this legislation is concerned. If those who are interested in environmental standards would look at clause 6 and read to the last line on that page, they would see that it refers to promoting the establishment or adoption of objectives or standards relating to environmental quality, or to control pollution.
Before I sit down I will move an amendment that we make these national objectives our standards. This is what we are after. I have gone through a number of speeches which the minister has been giving from one end of Canada to the other within the past four or five months. He is always talking about national standards. I am going to suggest to the government that if they are interested in national standards, then let us put them in the bill. Reference must be made to them in the legislation which is currently before the House. If the government does not do so, it will be a clear indication, just as we had in the Canada Water Act, that there will be a hodge-podge of standards from one end of Canada to the other, and this we do not want. I want to point out that the minister, himself, has been preaching this idea of national standards which he took from us last year. If this is the philosophy of the new department, then it must be spelled out in the legislation. We are going to insist that it be incorporated there if we can persuade the government that this is what their requirements should be.
I should like to point out the need for national standards. We have gone over this I do not know how many times. If there are no national standards, pollution havens will form from one end of Canada to the other, and the public of Canada do not want pollution havens. The public of Canada do not want one province in Canada to have lower standards than another, thus giving it an opportunity to attract industry. Last year at the federal-provincial conference a number of provinces made submissions to the government. One of their biggest worries was that if national standards are not written into legislation, encouragement would be given to big companies, such as pulp mills, to say to one province that unless it keeps its standards down, the company will move to another province where the standards are lower. This is not what we want. We are fighting pollution in this country, and for goodness sake let us act as sensible politicians in the House. Let us draft legislation which will tell these potential polluters that we do not care where they go because all parts of Canada will be protected. We will not give one part of Canada an advantage over another by allowing a hodgepodge of different standards which can only result in pollution havens. We seem to have a great deal of difficulty in getting this idea home to the government.
I want to point out on this standards issue that two years ago the committee on national resources passed a unanimous report that national standards be established throughout this country. It is amazing to me that there are no members on the government side, who were members of that committee, supporting this report which was unanimously adopted by the committee. They should be telling the government what they want. It should not be left to members of the opposition to draw this to the government's attention constantly.
We have raised the problem of standards and, in a moment, I will move an amendment. Before I do so, I want to again mention the programs to which reference is made here. We will not solve pollution problems in Canada unless this government makes up its mind that vast sums of money will be set aside to tackle these problems. No minister of the Crown has risen to tell us where the government will find this money to carry out the program under consideration. What about the disgraceful mess which results from the fact that many of the big cities are dumping almost 100 per cent of their sewage into adjacent streams? We are told that CMHC has a limited amount of funds allotted to tackle the problem. We should be setting a time limit of five or seven years from in which to achieve our objectives. We should be letting the people of Canada know that when 1975 or 1980 roll around, we will make certain that every municipality in this country will have stopped dumping raw sewage into the waters of this nation. This, objective should be spelled out in the legislation. Then, we should provide funds to these municipalities, low cost loans, so that they can get on with the job of dealing with the sewage problem.
There is a host of other projects. What about the dozens of lakes and rivers that are polluted with mercury

February 12, 1971

where even now fishing is banned? If any fish are caught in those rivers they have to be destroyed. We have to buy that product and destroy it. How are we going to go about cleaning up this mess which we have allowed industry to create over the years?
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That clause 6, subsection (a) of Bill C-207 be amended by adding thereto on page 3, line 1, the word "national", so that line 1 will read "or adoption of national objectives or standards".


Russell Clayton Honey: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock we were considering clause 6, with an amendment thereto proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will be here this afternoon? If we are going to approve the granting of certain powers to him, including authority to prepare certain programs, it seems we ought to have some information from him as to what those programs are.
It is true that the minister made an excellent speech in general terms on the question of pollution. But it was one of those speeches about motherhood and apple pie with which everyone agrees. No one likes pollution, and everybody thinks the environment has to be protected and the quality of life ought to be improved. Surely, the committee is entitled to some information as to what programs the government has in mind, what standards the minister proposes to set, and what general objectives he expects to attain. This kind of information can only be given to the committee by that minister.
May I also say that when we come to deal with Part II of the bill dealing with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources we will certainly insist upon that department's minister being here, but that is merely an aside. Have we any hope that the minister of fisheries will be here this afternoon to deal with some of the questions raised by my colleague?


James Aloysius McGrath: Before the minister responds to that very important question, Mr. Chairman, may I say I think it is impossible for us to discuss this part of the bill or any proposed amendments without the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry being here. We experienced the same situation a few days ago, and at that time the President of the Treasury Board accepted a very useful
Government Organization Act, 1970
suggestion to defer discussion of the amendment until the minister was present. I would ask him to take the same suggestion under consideration today. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we could defer discussion on this part of the bill until the minister of fisheries returns, because I do not see how we can usefully discuss this part of the bill without him, and I say this with great respect to the President of the Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, obviously the passage of the bill would be very great assisted, and hon. members would be better informed, were the minister here. Unfortunately, I learned during the lunch hour that it will not be possible for the minister in question to get here this afternoon. If it is the feeling of the committee that it is important to have him here, then perhaps we should stand the remaining clauses of this part of the bill.
However, in respect of the requests for an indication of the standards that the minister proposes to set and the kind of programs he is going to have, I might just comment that this may not be an orderly way to proceed. What we are examining here is a structure within which the minister will be able to perform his duties, and we should be looking at the appropriateness of the structure rather than undertaking an examination of the programs.
The purpose of the legislation is to enable the minister to formulate, and present in the usual way, programs for dealing with the problems we face. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has said that the minister has already given a speech in which he indicated his convictions and beliefs generally. This legislation, coupled with the putting forward of programs in the usual way in the estimates, subject to review by a standing committee in detail, seems to me to be the orderly way in which to proceed toward the programs and an examination of them. If, however, it is felt that the committee could be substantially assisted by having the minister present, perhaps we could stand these clauses rather than waste time.
I might say in respect of the amendment now proposed, and I do not think, perhaps that the minister concerned needs to speak about it, that the present purpose of clause 6(a) is to initiate programs and to seek the adop: tion of standards and objectives in relation to pollution. A number of aspects of this environmental problem are exclusively matters for provincial jurisdiction. By adding the word "national" as has been proposed by the amendment, we should, in my view, considerably narrow the field of activity of the minister concerned. As the wording now stands, he is instructed by Parliament to concern himself with an endeavour to promote objectives and standards relating to provincial jurisdictions as well as to the federal jurisdiction. In my view, adding the word "national" would pre-empt or remove him from that particular field. I am not sure if the hon. member had that in mind. I gathered from his remarks that he wished for an extension of responsibilities in relation to jurisdiction rather than a narrowing.
3340

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
There is no question but that the matter of the setting of national standards will be a preoccupation of the minister of the environment and should be a duty and responsibility. As the hon. member pointed out to the House, he has already indicated that this is his intention. However, by incorporating this phraseology in the section, we should, in my view, narrow this field and limit this responsibility. I hope that he will be authorized and, indeed, instructed, to concern himself in the establishment of standards in areas which are purely of local or nonfederal jurisdiction.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West. I wish to say at the outset that I disagree with the remarks that the minister has just made. The minister said that setting national standards would limit the area in which this department would be able to work. I think the opposite would be the case. The desired result, I submit, could be brought about in one of two ways. One positive way of achieving standards would be to have the provinces, municipalities and territories of Canada, as a result of consultation and co-operation, agree to uniform national standards for the control of pollution and for the cleaning up of the mess that is prevalent in all parts of our ecology.
Failing that, there is another way of achieving national standards, but it is not as good. If we were unable to obtain a high level of standards after consultation with the provinces, and after all they are all concerned about the matter of pollution control, then it seems to me the federal government should give the country the kind of leadership the country expects. It ought to lay down national standards. I submit that no provincial premier, and no mayor of any municipality in the country, would dare to oppose those standards unless he wished to commit political suicide. I hope that the federal government has the imagination to accept this idea, which would meet the wishes and demands of the public of Canada. The government ought not to allow any of the little premiers or mayors, who act like Arab sheiks more concerned with their little "oildoms" than about their countries as a whole, to frustrate it. Actually, I have heard of no objections to national standards from provinces or municipalities. It seems to me that the demand for them is universal. Any suggestion that the amendment would limit the effectiveness of the federal minister, I think, begs the question. That is negative thinking and ignores the kind of responsibility the national government ought to exercise.
It would probably take about ten years to complete a program involving municipal pollution control. Under that program, every city in Canada, within a ten-year period, ought to be provided with not just primary and secondary sewage treatment facilities, but with tertiary treatment facilities which would recycle the water and provide drinkable water for the population. This program must be implemented from coast to coast. It must not be implemented merely by municipalities able to finance such projects. Neither must that program be undertaken
only by provinces capable of undertaking it. There must be provision for all provinces and municipalities to receive some financial assistance. Obviously, pollution policies will be required.
May I, off the top of my head, suggest a formula which could be used. Perhaps the minister of the environment could make available 25 per cent of the cost of a project as a non-repayable grant; another 25 per cent would not be repayable if the work were done within a certain period of time. The remaining costs, if there were any costs to the municipality or province, would be financed by loans bearing interest of 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent. I submit that such policies could be undertaken in a more orderly way under a federal authority. Also, the standards established ought to be national. I know of no municipality in Canada that would object, because such a program requires leadership and imagination on the part of the national government. Some municipalities or provinces may impose less stringent controls than others in the field of pollution. This must be stopped. I think that leadership from the federal government is required for those municipalities and provinces which might not live up to national standards.
May I now talk about industrial pollution? The federal authority, it seems to me, must have control in this area in order ensure that the costs of industrial pollution control are not passed on to consumers as price increases. Industrial polluters have profited for decades because they have not been forced to instal anti-pollution equipment which would have been costly. Having made those kinds of profits for a number of decades, I do not see why they should now continue. This would be unfair. I do not see why the law of the land cannot require the people involved to amortize the cost of anti-pollution equipment from profits over a given period of years. If a steel company needs to spend $50 million or $60 million on pollution control equipment, it seems to me that the shareholders of that company should take a reduction of 25 cents or 50 cents per share over a five-year period, say, because they were amply rewarded in the years when the corporation was operating without such equipment. It is in these areas that I think the national government ought to exercise some control and direction. The co-operation of all sectors will be needed if we are to cure pollution and prevent it in future.
For too long have too many officials of many governments in this country attempted to hide behind the British North America Act and to use that act as an excuse for not doing something or for avoiding responsibility. Surely, in this age when the Canadian people are mobile, there ought to be some leadership and direction from Ottawa in this area. In all fairness, there should not be limited standards or different standards as between one jurisdiction and other. The citizen of Montreal visiting Regina has just as much right to breathe clean air and drink clean water in Regina as he has in Montreal. He is a citizen of Canada, and the air and water of the country from coast to coast belong to the citizens of Canada.


Randolph Harding: Hear, hear!

February 12, 1971


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We need national standards in the field of pollution control to prevent differences of this sort occurring. Surely, the jurisdictional argument for not doing something is no longer valid. It is time for this government to start acting and stop speaking. As my leader said a few moments ago, we have only had motherhood speeches. Everyone agrees we must do something about pollution. There is no argument on that. However, we want to know how, how much and when. We do not want a bill containing motherhood clauses that are so wishywashy and weak that the minister is unable to effect, enforce and ensure pollution control and the cleanup of our air and water.
I hope members opposite will support this amendment and persuade the minister to accept it. In that way, members opposite will not be constrained to vote against that amendment. I hope they will express some support for this kind of approach and this amendment.


Mr. Howard (Slceena):: The President of the Treasury Board is always very meticulous and careful in his pronouncements. He always ensures that the language he uses is precise and does not lend itself to misinterpretation. Before lunch, the minister deliberately indicated something to the committee that was not in accordance with the truth of the situation. When we inquired before lunch about the whereabouts of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the President of the Treasury Board stated that the minister was having some transportation difficulties and hoped to be here this afternoon. At the opening of the session this afternoon, the President of the Treasury Board stated he had learned over the lunch hour that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry could not be here this afternoon. As regretful as that is, perhaps we should let the matter stand and proceed to another part of the bill.
I just had a conversation with some one in the office of the minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I was told, and I am sure that the President of the Treasury Board knows, that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, by previous decision of the cabinet, is in Saskatchewan today to take part in the opening of the winter games. Although the minister knew that this bill would be before the committee today, he did not bother to cancel his other engagements. Members of the cabinet are in various parts of Saskatchewan today, partly as a publicity program and partly in conjunction with the opening of the games. By direct instruction of the cabinet, the minister is in Biggar. He is scheduled to be in Regina tomorrow, then Moose Jaw, returning to Ottawa on Sunday.
I am sure that the President of the Treasury Board does not want to leave the impression with the committee that it was through accident or inadvertence that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was not able to be here. The President of the Treasury Board should briefly indicate the circumstances, so this country will know that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry had no intention of being here today, although he knew the bill would be
Government Organization Act, 1970 discussed because the Government House Leader indicated that this would be the first item today. Members of the cabinet knew that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry would not be here today. It is not an accident, but a deliberate absence, and at a time when the minister should be dealing with public business. The President of the Treasury Board stated that, in dealing with the legislation before us, we should be concerned with the objectives and not the details. He stated that we should be concerned with the construction and the broad general outlines, not the specifics of the program. According to the minister, this is the orderly way to do things.
On previous occasions when the government has introduced legislation, it has misled the House by following courses of action not contemplated at the time which nullified the understanding the House had about the manner in which we would deal with that legislation. I wish to give an example of this. Amendments to the Fisheries Act dealt with in the last session contained the provision that before industry could get approval to build a new plant, it had to file with the minister or the department plans and specifications for pollution and environmental control measures. The purpose was to ensure that the provisions of the Fisheries Act were followed by the industrial plant. Because this was a matter of public concern, an undertaking was given that the plans and specifications would be available to the public so that they would be aware of what the industry planned to do in terms of meeting the general objectives of the Fisheries Act.
Yesterday, I moved a motion for the tabling of plans and specifications submitted to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry pursuant to the Fisheries Act relating to pollution control and engineering matters. These Plans related to the Buckley Valley Forest Industries Limited proposed pulp mill in Houston, British Columbia. Contrary to the intent of the act, the parliamentary secretary stated that the government had no intention of making them public or disclosing this information. He stated that the plans and specifications are the private property of Buckley Valley Forest Industries Limited. The intent of the law was to do the opposite.
The President of the Treasury Board has now asked us to follow the same procedure, namely give blanket approval to the vaguely worded bill before us and leave the implementation of it to the cabinet. Then, the minister could deal with these plans in secret, keeping the public from knowing what is taking place other than what might be revealed in press releases issued from time to time.
I have read a press release of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and have heard him when he was interviewed over television. As far as the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is concerned, speaking for argument's sake now about the pulp mills in particular, the hon. gentleman expressed the opinion that any water used in such a project should be kept within the plant; that pulp

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 mills should be required to operate a recycling process so that they poured no water back into the river, lake or stream systems of the nation. These pulp mills, he said, would have to extract within the plant, or break down by a bio-degrading processes, the chemicals and toxic substances which were present, and they could only add water to replenish the amount absorbed by evaporation, absorption and natural processes of that kind. Because this statement was made apropos the new fisheries legislation, and because Buckley Valley Forest Industries is proposing an operation which is not now in existence, we are entitled to know whether the declaration by the minister represents a requirement to be imposed upon the company and upon other plants from now on. Will it, in fact, be a requirement when the chips are down and when the legislation is enacted?
The procedure used yesterday by the parliamentary secretary to deny this information to the people in the area concerned, to those who live downstream from the site of this proposed new pulp mill, to those who are up in arms over this issue, runs completely contrary to the intentions of Parliament, the expectations of Parliament and to the proposition which was put to Parliament by the minister when the amendments to the Fisheries Act were introduced. These considerations must apply, I submit, with regard to the legislation now before us. The present attitude is not good enough morally, bearing in mind the obligations the government have to the people of Canada. The moral obligation to people is what we can best rely on, I suppose. To use vague phraseology about initiating and undertaking measures for pollution control, without spelling out the substance of the ideas and programs which do exist, amounts to asking once more for a blank cheque approach, namely, for a general endorsement by Parliament couched in legal phraseology. When it comes down to the fine print, we discover that the cabinet fails to fulfil the trust placed in it by Parliament or its obligations in terms of the national structure.
In passing, I believe I can justifiably contend against the assertion by the President of the Treasury Board that the inclusion of the word "national" in the provision concerning standards would narrow the authority of the minister. I submit that just the reverse is true and that the minister is using a superficial argument which is not borne out by the facts. Surely, as everyone seems to be agreed, the question of controlling our environment, of preserving the ecology in which we find ourselves, of preserving nature and perhaps human life itself into the bargain, is of such importance that it must be considered national in scope. It should not be undertaken in such a way as to produce one set of standards in one province and another set of standards in another province, or one of set of standards in one municipal area and a different set in another. Surely, we ought to think in terms of a national concept, a national goal.
We have just completed a federal-provincial conference on the subject of the constitution. Full disclosure of what went on at that conference has not been made to Parliament or to the people of Canada, but it is to be hoped that had the government felt it lacked sufficient constitutional authority under the British North America Act to cope with this issue of pollution it would have asked for agreement from the provinces to cloak itself with that authority. But even apart from this, assuming there is some difficulty in the constitution which would make legislation by the federal government ultra vires should it seek to establish itself in a national field, there is nothing whatever to prevent Parliament from declaring that it is interested in the national scene, that the standards which are established should be national in scope and inviting the provinces to accept them.
Clause six provides that the minister, in pursuance of his obligations, powers and authority under clause 5, is able to co-operate with provincial agencies or with any other agencies or bodies having objectives similar to his own. If we were to establish a national standard there would be no difficulty about saying to the provinces: here is an area which we have carved out in the national interest and we suggest you take this standard and put it into effect. This is what we did in connection with the Hospital and Diagnostic Services Act. This is what we did in connection with the medicare legislation. We established national requirements and said to the provinces: If you want to participate in this program these are the criteria you have to meet. This is all we are asking by virtue of the insertion of one simple word "national" in the text of this bill. For the minister to say that this would narrow the field and limit his scope to put these ideas into full effect is spurious reasoning and should be rejected. There must be a national concern and a national objective, not a requirement which can be one thing in one part of the nation and, according to the pressures exercised, something else in another part of the nation.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: I wish to speak briefly on the amendment to add the word "national" before "objectives and standards" because I feel an important issue is at stake. Unfortunately, the President of the Treasury Board was not able to deal with it convincingly. I am not trying to detract from his performance in any way, because obviously he is operating under difficulty in an area with which he is not personally acquainted.
The other day we were confronted with a definite example of the need to set a national standard for use in pollution control. In this case I refer specifically to air pollution. In many of our urban centres today, as a result of the increasing emission of noxious gases by industry and transport traffic, air pollution reaches such a peak at times that whole areas become almost unfit for habitation. Those who live or work in Montreal know only too well the situation which occurs when, because of a weather condition known as inversion, the pollution level rises above a certain point. On the occasion I have in mind it goes to about .4 parts per million which, as I understand it, is close to the point where a city becomes uninhabitable, particularly by those subject to respiratory diseases.
On the first really bad day, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry what steps were being taken by

February 12, 1971

his department to assist the provincial government and the municipal authorities. One thing which became apparent from the reply was the absence of a consensus as to the level of air pollution which exists from day to day in Montreal. In addition, there seems to be considerable variation between the standards which apply in one city as compared to the standards set by another. Those who have had an opportunity to compare the official reading with the unofficial reading given in Montreal know there is a wide difference as to the actual degree of pollution.
I am told, in effect, that even the official measuring devices that are used vary widely. This can create real problems if provincial statutes or municipal bylaws are passed establishing safe levels for the emission of foreign substances into the atmosphere. As a matter of fact, at the present time there is a substantial amount of law on the books respecting air pollution, so much so that if in the city of Toronto the official measuring devices indicate that air pollution has reached a dangerous level, certain industrial plants can be shut down. If these measuring devices that are being used are not consistent in the measurements they take, if they are not set according to some national standard, then intrusions of a federal authority by the establishment of some blanklet legislation or administrative regulation may create some real problems for the effective administration, either on a provincial or municipal basis, of pollution control standards.
It seems to me that what the hon. member is attempting to do in his amendment is to make it crystal clear that when this department is established it will set national standards and objectives to which the provinces and major municipalities will always be able to refer. These will be universally accepted standards. If this is not to be the case, then when we come to deal with the problem of controlling environmental pollution in this country we will be creating what will almost amount to a system of anarchy by depending on the particular devices employed or standards established from place to place. I am sure that no hon. member would find this a very satisfactory situation in terms of trying to improve and clean up much of the pollution that already exists in this country; and certainly air and water pollution are two major areas of pollution that we must confront now.
As I said earlier, I think the minister is going to have difficulty in logically opposing this amendment-unless, of course, he does not have a full understanding of what is being attempted in this legislation. Perhaps the suggestion made by one hon. member some time ago that we stand this clause until the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry returns is appropriate. I am a little shocked, not only that the minister has not planned to be here-if indeed he considers this matter to be important-but also at the glib way in which the President of the Treasury Board indicated that he had been here throughout the debate. Hon. members will recall that we, in fact, stood
Government Organization Act, 1970
clause 5 the other day because the minister was not here at that time.
While there may be some kind of slap-dash handling of the matter by the government at the present time, we of the opposition want to deal with this legislation responsibly. We cannot deal with it responsibly when ministers are not here to defend and to explain various aspects for which they have accepted responsibility. Thus we should at least have the good sense to stand those aspects of the legislation until the ministers concerned do deign to come to the House to discuss these matters with us.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be a good idea to stand the clause. The atmosphere of this chamber is not always that of a cloister and it may be difficult for the minister to appreciate the nature and the quality of the arguments that have been so effectively advanced by members from all parties of the opposition.
I think the minister should be given the chance to read what has been said. The President of the Treasury Board smiles. It may well be that the very reasonable arguments advanced from this side of the House from time to time merit only smiles from the treasury board, though I hope that is not the case; but since the minister is going to undertake a fearful responsibility, I think he might well examine the arguments that have been made. Most of what can be said has been said, though I might be able to advance in a few sentences one or two additional arguments.
With regard to the national aspects of this matter, I am sure that if the Fathers of Confederation and those voters and citizens of the country in 1867 who were responsible for the constitution of Canada had realized what their descendants were likely to do to the environment, to the waters and to the soil, they would have so framed the British North America Act as to place this particular aspect of our life within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. After all, the winds that blow in this country blow traditionally in a certain direction. The waters flow in a certain direction. The winds that blow the pollutants that have been emitted into the atmosphere and environment flow across provincial lines and international boundaries. Waters flow across provincial borders and international boundaries. These conditions cannot be seasonally adjusted; they blow and flow without regard to that matter.
The enforcement of the present pollution laws in the Fisheries Act, the Shipping Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and so on is based on the criminal law. Offences created in respect of matters that pertain to restrictive trade practices and to national health and welfare rest on the delicate edge of the criminal law. But I should like to think of this in the broader sense so that we can regulate, as well as prohibit or sanction, following failure to abide by pollution regulations. I know that this is a sensitive area and that some provinces are very concerned about it. However, I think that if this matter were left to the people of Canada as a whole, they would say that jurisdiction in this regard must be vested in the federal authority. I think there is no alternative.

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
I have promised to be brief and I should just like to mention one other aspect. Problems are being created in relation to certain international labour standards. Treaties that have been entered into by federal representatives with regard to labour conditions have been notorious for the fact that some of their terms have never been implemented because they relate to matters that fall within the accepted and acknowledged jurisdiction of the provinces. The same thing can be said about the United Nations declaration of human rights; some of these rights cannot be implemented because at the present time they come within provincial jurisdictions.
I am convinced that some time within the next 10 or 12 years negotiations will be had on an international basis on various matters. The nations of Europe are talking about this among themselves today, and I think eventually nations from behind the iron curtain will also be involved. Treaties are going to be signed relating to pollution control and the setting of standards for the environment. The United States will be taking similar action. There will have to be international agreements on setting standards.
This question, as I say, has not yet been settled constitutionally. I could make a lengthy constitutional argument here as though I were addressing the Supreme Court. I could argue that there is a good case to be made for jurisdiction resting with the federal authority, but of course I will not do that. If there are going to be international treaties executed ultimately, what power and authority will the federal government have to implement them? I suggest this will be extremely limited except under the aegis of criminal law. If this amendment is passed, it will provide some assistance to the federal negotiators.
I asked this question of the Prime Minister the other day in good faith, as we ask most of the questions we direct to the Prime Minister because we have not learned yet that it does not pay to ask questions in good faith. I asked what discussions had taken place at the federal-provincial conference in respect of pollution. When I asked the question, someone told me the minister was attending the conference to discuss this matter.
We have tried to put the amendment in terms that will strengthen the position of federal negotiators during discussions on this matter. I think there is no doubt that ultimately this jurisdiction must rest with this Parliament and this government. This is an opportunity to assert the view of this House that this should be the case. For these reasons, I intend to support the amendment.
Perhaps I will not have to go that far. When the minister returns he might say he has read the submissions of the hon. member who initiated this discussion, including those of the hon. member for Egmont, the hon. member for Skeena and possibly even the hon. member for Peace River, and because he is deeply impressed by those arguments he intends to accept the amendment. In any event, I will not hold my breath while I am waiting, but I urge the government to give consideration to this amendment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but be entertained by the hon. member who has just spoken.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to serve some useful function.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I should have thought that he, as a lawyer, would have appreciated the addition of this qualifying word would limit the standards and objectives the minister is to promote and to encourage. If the hon. member win read this clause he will see that this is the purpose. It is to promote and encourage standards and objectives in the field of environmental quality control. If we include the word "national" then the minister will be limited to promoting, advocating and attempting to have adopted standards other than international. Let me try a little Latin on the hon. member: inclusio unius est eclusio alterius.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. minister add "seasonally adjusted" in Latin at the end of that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member does not seem to understand the limit being imposed, so I presume he will not understand that the minister will not accept the amendment for the same reason. By adopting this amendment we would keep the minister out of the international field. That is what the hon. gentleman is proposing, that the minister should not be attempting to promote standards in the international field.
In view of the fact there seems to be unanimous agreement, we should perhaps let the balance of Part II stand during the absence of the minister, and proceed to the consideration of Part III.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is another question that should be dealt with at the moment. Earlier, I indicated to the committee that the President of the Treasury Board in fact misled the House today when he gave the reason for the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I said then, and I say again, that the President of the Treasury Board knew where the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was. He knew why he was absent and by relating to the House a reason other than the true one he, in fact, misled the House. Admittedly, that is a serious accusation but I am prepared to substantiate it if necessary. I think the minister should be afforded an opportunity to say truly why the minister is not here.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, what I did indicate on each occasion was precise. The hon. gentleman has a rather fanciful story about what the Cabinet did or did not do. He assumed that I was present at the Cabinet meeting, although he does not know.


An hon. Member:: It wouldn't have made any difference, anyway.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would not dignify this flight of fancy on his part, constructed largely out of whole cloth, by answering it in detail. As I indicated in the House this morning, I was advised that because of difficulties in making travel arrangements the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was not present. I was advised during the

February 12, 1971

lunch recess that he was not going to be here this afternoon, and I so advised the House.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said is correct. He said there were some travel difficulties. I have in my hand a document which lists the schedule or itinerary of a number of Cabinet ministers, one of which is the President of the Treasury Board. This document indicates that the President of the Treasury Board was supposed to leave here at eight o'clock this morning to go to Saskatoon. He obviously knew last night, as a result of the announcement by the Government House Leader, that the first item of business today would be the resumption of consideration by the committee of the government's organization bill. I assume that because of that knowledge, and there may have been other reasons, the minister decided to cancel that proposed trip.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's their loss and our loss too.


Frank Howard: He cancelled his proposed visit to Saskatchewan. In addition to that itinerary, there is an itinerary for other members of the Cabinet. They all emanate from the same place. There is an itinerary for the President of the Treasury Board and for the Hon. Jack Davis, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I assume because they are altogether, the President of the Treasury Board would have known about this. That is why I made the remark earlier when the minister stood up in the House and said with great precision that there were some travel difficulties which kept the minister away. In fact, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was then on the way to meet an obligation as outlined in this schedule.
The schedule indicates that on Friday, February 12-that is today in case you were not sure about it-at 12.30 p.m., about the time the President of the Treasury Board rose in this House, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was scheduled to depart Ottawa by Jetstar, arriving at the Saskatoon airport at 3.15 this afternoon. How could the minister stand up and say with great precision that this involved travel difficulties? I suggest he was deliberately misleading the House by not telling the House the facts of the matter. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I think if the hon. member for Skeena had a point he has made it. At the present time we are not discussing the itinerary of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I think the House knows exactly what the hon. member had in mind and I do not think we are now entitled to go further into the itinerary of the minister. If there is a charge to be made against anyone, a charge should be made. We should not be discussing or listening to a recitation about the travels of hon. ministers.


Frank Howard: I have great respect for your view about this, Mr. Chairman, but the President of the Treasury Board initiated this recitation this morning in an incomplete and inaccurate way. I think the committee
Government Organization Act, 1970 is entitled to know the facts of the situation, and I suggest they are not as the President of the Treasury Board related them.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Let me say to the
hon. member for Skeena that unless he has something new to add he has explained very clearly what he wanted to say about the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I am sure he does not want to beat the point to death.


Frank Howard: You are quite right, Mr. Chairman, I explained the matter clearly up to the point of the minister's departure from Ottawa. I think the committee is entitled to know why the minister is not here. He is not here for the simple reason he had a very pressing engagement in Saskatchewan which he considered more important than his attendance at Parliament and more important than the question of environmental control. Apparently, the President of the Treasury Board also considered this more important. Apparently, the entire Cabinet considered it far more important than environmental control in this nation. The progress of this bill to set up a department of environment is obviously less important than a meeting at four o'clock Saskatchewan time where the minister is attending a reception of the Biggar Liberal party.
That is what is more important, Mr. Chairman, and that is what should be brought out. That is the truth that should be told in the House, not the cover-up, phony excuse used by the President of the Treasury Board. That is exactly what it was, a phony excuse in which he referred to travel difficulties. The only travel difficulties were that the minister intended all along to go to the reception sponsored by the Liberal party in Biggar, Saskatchewan, and to disregard completely the business of the House and the business of this nation in its care and concern for environmental factors.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Frank Howard: It is a shameful situation. In addition to that, the President of the Treasury Board knew this precisely and in the face of that and without disclosing it to the House he stood up and barefacedly said that he learned by accident in the afternoon that the minister will not be here, and because he will not be here this afternoon, regrettable as that is, we should stand these matters. That is the first cover-up, to put the matter to one side because the Liberals in Biggar are more important than the people of this nation.
If the President of the Treasury Board wanted to be truthful, he should have put it on the record. But it is obvious from the way he is approaching the English language and from the way he approached the secret document about the employment of Francophones that the minister is not concerned about telling the truth of the matter; he is only concerned about using the English language to cover up the truth.

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I am becoming a little impatient. The hon. gentleman has been reading the mind of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and he has also been reading my mind and, as usual, arriving at the wrong conclusion, with a lot of rather unpleasant innuendos all the way through.
The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestly, I am informed-I have not spoken to him, nor do I pretend to read his mind-learned of the intention to proceed with this bill today. He was in Vancouver. When he received this communication by telephone, he undertook to try to make travel arrangements to come back here. By this morning he was not here. The fact is that the hon. gentleman has a timetable similar to mine, and because he could not get from Vancouver back here in time the hon. member assumes that the intention was to proceed with the timetable as it is written. I suggest that both his logic and his imputed motives are false. I suggest that perhaps we should let this clause stand.


Frank Howard: At 10.45 last night Vancouver time, which is 2.45 a.m. Ottawa time, and at 10.50 p.m. there were two Air Canada aircraft leaving Vancouver which would have got the minister to Ottawa this morning, first-class or economy, in time to prepare for this debate and in time to cancel his program for the Liberal party in Biggar, Saskatchewan. That also is the truth of the matter and it has nothing to do with innuendo, slander or anything else. I just make the direct statement that so far as the minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the government are concerned, the Liberal party in Biggar is more important than the well-being of the people of this nation with regard to environmental matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point which the President of the Treasury Board made in connection with the amendment before the House. He pointed out, in reply to two preceding speakers, that the addition of the word "national" would restrict or limit the objectives. I want to say very clearly that what I am trying to do precisely is limit the multiplicity of standards which we have in Canada. That is the reason for setting national standards. I want to bring home this fact to the President of the Treasury Board. That is exactly what I am trying to do in the amendment.
We are trying to establish a set of standards in Canada so that we will not have provinces or water quality management areas following a host of different standards which will eventually create pollution havens. We are completely fed up with the present circumstances under which provinces and water quality management areas have been given the power to set different standards in different parts of Canada. As long as we have this type of legislation on the statute books we will continue to have trouble with the root cause of the problem. If we are to stop pollution in this country we will have to set broad, national standards and let industry, the public and governments alike know that these are the standards and

that we will not allow them to be broken. This is the reason for the amendment we are proposing.
The minister tells us that it is a good idea to have a number of broad objectives. For goodness sake, we have been running wild for years and that is the reason we are in trouble now. That is the reason it will cost us billions of dollars to clean up the mess. Let us make certain that we have criteria and national standards which will do the job of controlling pollution nationally and provincially. These people are asking for guidance from the federal government and they are not getting it. They are getting nothing but a great big run-around in this biff and in other bills, in the setting of standards and in everything else. It is time the environmentalists and the Canadian public realized this. I suggest that the minister's answer is anything but satisfactory.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether or not this clause is to stand.


Russell Clayton Honey: There was no agreement to stand the clause.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I thought the President of the Treasury Board indicated that he was prepared to stand this part of the bill and to go on to part III. That was my understanding.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Skeena said he was not prepared to have it stood.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I will be very brief on the subject, but I would very much like to have the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry here. This is why I would like to have the clause stood. This type of amendment was proposed when we discussed the Canada Water Act last year. The NDP and our party proposed the type of amendments that are being proposed now, providing for national standards, but they were defeated. At page 2830 of Hansard of January 27, 1971, just two weeks ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry made the following statement. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can answer my question. The minister stated:
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.
He went on to explain what he meant. Then he asked this question of the House:
So, why run the risk of losing everything when uniform national standards can provide us with all the protection we need?
The hon. member from Renfrew is being hypocritical about this. He is going to vote against the amendment despite what the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has said. This is exactly what the minister wants to do under this legislation. I repeat his words:
So, why run the risk of losing everything when uniform national standards can provide us with all the protection we need?
How can you explain the fact that the government does not want to accept this amendment?
February 12, 1971


Mr. Guay (Si. Boniface):: You cannot explain it to someone who does not want to understand.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member for St. Boniface never understands.


James Aloysius McGrath: He only speaks from his seat; that is where his brains are.


Louis-Roland Comeau: He did not participate in the debate on the Canada Water Act.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: That was because you people took up all the time.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That is the reason he does not know the arguments that were presented. On that occasion the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry had all kinds of arguments to defeat our proposals. Now he is adopting one of our main proposals. He is advocating national standards

but I think he is just talking that way to the Canadian public. He does not really mean it because the President of the Treasury Board, speaking for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry this afternoon, does not want to accept this type of amendment. I cannot understand the President of the Treasury Board talking about infringement of provincial jurisdiction and all that sort of stuff. The Minister of Fisheries spoke in favour of national standards. He got headlines in all the newspapers; it was on the front page of every newspaper in Canada. The minister was being really tough, but now the government is backing away. I ask the minister or his parliamentary secretary to explain the reasons why the government does not want to accept this amendment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman understood that I was against national standards and was opposing the amendment for that reason, this is clearly a misunderstanding. I think in my earlier remarks I said that the Minister of Fisheries, and indeed the government highly favours the creation and adoption of national standards. There are, however, other fields in which standards would be useful and those are areas which at the moment are exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I think that we as Canadians are interested in seeing that standards are adopted for areas which are under provincial jurisdiction and we know that the minister would wish to promote and encourage the adoption of such standards. He also would wish, as the hon. member for Peace River indicated, to encourage and promote the adoption of international standards. If one limits him to purely national standards, I suggest this tends to obviate at least the responsibility for promoting and encouraging the adoption of both international standards and provincial or local standards.
I understand the argument that the adoption of national standards is important and the minister has publicly recognized this. He continues to feel that it is important. Indeed, the wording now in the clause would enable him to accomplish fully those purposes that he has indicated, and nothing would be added by the proposed amendment to the achievement of the objectives that he has stated.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I must object to that misinterpretation which I think has been quite innocent.


James Aloysius McGrath: There was nothing innocent about that.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is either ignorance or innocence and I prefer to say innocent in the circumstances. One of my colleagues has said that the minister's argument was a red herring. Mr. Chairman, it was more like the dead mackerel that shines and smells at moonlight. I stated categorically that in my judgment, within the next few years it will be almost inevitable that international agreements will be entered into. This being the case, I asked what will be the authority of the federal government to implement agreed international standards.
If the federal government is left in the position it is in now with respect to international labour arrangements and the implementation of the United Nations' human rights code, we will be in very serious trouble. But if we make it absolutely plain, be setting national standards, that the federal government has a right to set those standards, as advocated by the amendment, then at a later stage the federal government will be in a position to implement international standards: it will not have to go to each of the ten provinces-and some day there may be 11-and say: Here is the agreement we have signed. It is deemed imperative as a result of international negotiations that these international standards be established. The federal government would have to ask Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and so on to pass legislation to implement those standards. I believe the hon. member is trying by his amendment to obviate that and put the federal government in a position where it will be easier for it, having established its right to set national standards, to implement international agreements.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as I listen to this discussion it becomes more and more obvious to me that the President of the Treasury Board is either clutching at red herrings in an endeavour to dredge up some argument against the amendment or he has not read clause 6 of the bill. It may be a mixture of both. Clause 6 has two subparagraphs. Clause 6(a), to which the amendment refers, clearly states:
initiate, recommend and undertake programs, and co-ordinate programs of the government of Canada, that are designed to promote the establishment or adoption of objectives or standards-
If the government of Canada through its various agencies and programs is not interested in encouraging the promotion of national standards, then what is the purpose of having a national government? I felt that in his exchange with the hon. member for Peace River the minister was trying to introduce a constitutional cloak or smokescreen by suggesting that the insertion of the word "national" into clause 6(a) would restrict the application of the bill. Clause 6(b) refers to the idea of the minister working with other agencies, and in particular provincial governments, to "promote and encourage the institution of practices and conduct leading to the better protection and enhancement of environmental quality".

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is a clear distinction between what is envisaged in subclause (a) and subclause (b), and to suggest that the insertion of the word "national" in subclause (a) would restrict the powers of the minister to work with provincial agencies under the terms of subclause (b) is arrant nonsense. That is why I suggest that the minister has not read it, or he is trying to draw red herrings into the debate. I fail to understand the minister's viewpoint, Mr. Chairman.
I heard the President of the Treasury Board speaking on these matters long before the introduction of this bill. Why is there this extreme reluctance on the part of the government of which he is a member to introduce national controls in terms of national standards? The minister may recall that in 1966 a conference was called in Montreal under the auspices of the Council of Resource Ministers. His colleague who is now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was the minister who had responsibility in this area at that time. I was one of the few members of the House who took the trouble to go down, to register and attend that conference. I remember making a speech in this chamber not long after the conference was over. I gave a summary of the conclusions of the conference and quoted the guidelines suggested by it, guidelines which had reference to air pollution, water pollution and soil pollution. The conference was divided into those areas.
I quoted the recommendations that more or less delineated the areas of responsibility that might be assumed federally and provincially in respect of the battle against all three areas of pollution. The conference recommended unanimously that one of the basic responsibilities of the federal government ought to be the initiation of national standards of quality for air, water and soil. Mr. Chairman, those at the conference represented people from one end of Canada to the other; it was on of the most representative conferences ever held. There were experts in various fields of science, particularly biological science. There were representatives of the federal government and of the Fisheries Research Board. There were municipal representatives and senior officials of the public service of all the provinces. There were municipal legal advisers. There were representatives of industry and of conservation groups from across the country.
Out of all the mix and exchange of ideas there emerged, above all else, one concept-that the role of the federal government should be in the establishment of national standards of quality. I remember very well what a top management person in the pulp and paper industry said. He was part of the group I was in. He said that while they recognized that cleaning up the pulp and paper industry of Canada would cost money, and while it was true that no businessman liked to spend money that would not bring any direct return on the profit side, nevertheless so far as they were concerned if they could be assured that they would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage with people in other parts of the country they would buy the idea; they would clean up the

effluent being discharged into the air and water from the pulp and paper industry.
That was the basic theme that emerged from the conference attended by representatives of science and industry. To my knowledge, in that industrial group there were highly placed people from the pulp and paper industry from the Pacific as well as from the eastern parts of Canada. That was the consensus and that was the feeling one obtained from talking to senior people in the public service of the provinces, people who were speaking frankly and off the record, so to speak, so far as any direct quotation of their words was concerned. That consensus was reflected in the guidelines that emanated from the conference. Yet here we are in 1971 and we are discussing a bill to set up, among other things, a department of the environment. As the hon. member for South Western Nova suggested, the minister who is to head the department has said that he believes in national standards. Nevertheless, the President of the Treasury Board has presented his argument. Earlier in the exchange, which I will not go into, he said that he did not think we had attended any cabinet meeting. I have been wondering whether he attended the cabinet meeting at which was discussed the government's support of this bill and whether he knew that the attitude of the minister who is to head this department is that there should be national standards in Canada.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when the President of the Treasury Board suggests that this amendment would restrict in any way the powers and duties of the minister of the department to deal co-operatively with the provinces, he is speaking arrant nonsense. We are in no way attempting to insert anything in subclause (b) which would do that. We are trying to suggest that the bill should clearly set out that so far as the activities of the federal government are concerned, the responsible minister should have the green light to provide leadership in the setting of national standards and objectives respecting the quality of the environment in Canada. I cannot understand why the President of the Treasury Board should object to that kind of concept being included in the bill, particularly when it was stated to the House by the minister who ought to be here to deal with policy questions involved in amendments of this kind.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is of such vital importance that I think the minister's reply of a few moments ago cannot go unchallenged. I wish to make two or three points. The minister is trying to make out that we are trying to strap provincial authorities. I do not know whom he is trying to kid. He has apparently fooled the members of his own party but he is not kidding any of the opposition members or the general public.
The bill we are dealing with is federal legislation. We cannot legislate for the provinces. We cannot legislate pollution standards for the provinces of this nation and the minister knows it. Yet he stood up and said we will strap the provincial authorities if we include "national" in the clause. I have never heard such unmitigated nonsense. The argument just does not hold water-but a great many things which this Liberal government has
February 12, 1971

done do not hold water. Let us read the beginning of the clause. Anyone who can read and understand English will understand what clause 6 (a) says. It reads in part:.
initiate, recommend and undertake programs, and co-ordinate programs of the government of Canada-
This is the government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: We are the government.


Randolph Harding: The hon. member says that he is part of the government?


Mr. Mahoney:: The members on this side make up the government of Canada.


Randolph Harding: As I say, this is the government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member may not like it, tout this is the government.


Randolph Harding: We are initiating programs of the government of Canada. If we are to have national standards in these programs, they should be included in the legislation. That is all we are asking. We do not want to hear gobbledygook about affecting the provinces and municipalities. It is crystal clear to anyone who reads the legislation that it applies to programs of the federal government. This is what we are pressing for. We want national standards. The people of Canada want national standards in federal programs. Let us include it in the legislation and decide once and for all. Again I want to make it crystal clear that there is nothing in here to indicate that the federal government will dictate standards to the provinces. It is their own affair whether they have pollution control legislation. We could try to put pressure on them, but when it comes to this type of program we must be strong and courageous and insist that national standards be written into the legislation.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments apropos what the hon. member for Kootenay West has said about national standards. He stated that this is national legislation and if there is a constitutional obstacle it does not and cannot override the position of the provinces. The provinces will still be free to work within the areas of their jurisdiction. I and others to whom I have spoken briefly wonder why there is a distinction and a different approach. I wish to refer to Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution. Although this bill is not now before us I think it bears looking at because it will presumably be administered by the department of the environment. Clause 2(i) contains the words "national ambient air quality objective". It uses the word "national".-Further on there is reference to national ambient air quality objectives established pursuant to other sections of the bill. Clause 4(2) of the bill reads:
The Governor in Council may from time to time prescribe as national ambient air quality objectives any objectives formulated by the minister pursuant to subsection (1).
Government Organization Act, 1970
It gives the cabinet the authority to establish national ambient air quality objectives. Clause 7, regarding national emission standards-provides:
-the Governor in Council may prescribe national emission standards establishing the maximum quantities, if any, and concentrations of such air contaminant-
Clause 8 reads:
The Governor in Council may publish or cause to be published national emission guidelines indicating quantities and concentrations in ... air-
Because the bill before us is federal or national legislation, it would contain the same or similar phraseology with respect to air pollution. If this principle is followed in establishing national objectives and national emission standards with respect to air pollution, it should be contained in the overriding legislation, namely, that which establishes a department of the environment. The objectives should be national standards in the broadest possible sense. That is all we are asking. Any argument which states that the use of the word "national" would narrow the matter is spurious. If that argument is accepted, the use of the word "national" in the air pollution bill will also narrow that bill. That is not the purpose. The government should accept the objectives of the minister and declare them as national. What is harmful about that?


James Aloysius McGrath: If the minister were here, Mr. Chairman, I believe he would subscribe to the arguments which have been made. The minister has stated on a number of occasions that this is one of the objectives he has in mind. This is one of the over-all objectives in establishing the new department of the environment. A few months ago we debated the Canada Water Act. At that time we advanced arguments to indicate why we felt the Canada Water Act could not work. We said it could not work because it depended upon federal-provincial cooperation; it depended upon establishing water management boards across the country that would have varying standards influenced by the special interests of the province or the municipality involved. Following an interview with the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the January 3 edition of the Sunday Express stated:
"The Canada Water Act requires federal-provincial-municipal co-operation to work. The law is already there in the Canada Fisheries Act to force clean-ups, and industry is being fairly co-operative"-*
Where did we hear that before? That argument was advanced by members of this House during the examination of the Canada Water Act. We said the Canada Water Act was not necessary to provide the government with legislative authority to clean up our waters, rivers and inland lakes; the authority was already contained in the Fisheries Act. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is now saying the same thing. We felt, and still feel, that the Canada Water Act was bad legislation because it set up varying standards across the country which would be dictated by the special interests of the provinces and municipalities. In other words, we will end up without a national standard for water in this country.

February 12, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
This is what the amendment now before the committee is all about. This is why I believe that if the minister were here he would be anxious to have such an amendment incorporated. It would clearly define what he is seeking to do, namely, to set national standards for the environment. In the same article in the Sunday Express appear the following words:
Mr. Davis rejects the concept ol varying standards of water quality as espoused by J. J. Greene, Minister of Energy, when he had charge of the Canada Water Act.
Mr. Chairman, the minister himself was saying in that interview what we are trying to say in the House this afternoon and what my hon. friend is advocating in his amendment. If this bill is to mean anything at all, it must set up national objectives and standards for cleaning up our environment. The minister referred to this again the other day in the statement he made on first reading of the clean air bill. It was to set national standards. This is why the bill was brought in. He brought it in so there would be a national standard for clean air, not a standard affected by the special interest of particular provinces, of particular municipalities or even of international interests. It would be one decided upon in the overriding interests of this country as a whole. While I am on the subject of the press release of February 9, in connection with the clean air bill, I noticed it said:
Mr. Davis is minister-designate of the new department of the environment.
Mr. Chairman, there is no new department of the environment. Parliament has yet to give approval of the establishment of a department of the environment. There is a proposal to set up such a department. I suggest that the person responsible for writing that press release, and the minister who must take ultimate responsibility for it, were anticipating what they have no right to anticipate, namely, that Parliament will give consent to this bill as proposed by the government.
In this connection I have an amendment to move when we come to clause 2 regarding the name of the department. It is one which the minister, being the sensible man he is, will certainly be prepared to consider. The whole debate this afternoon underlines the ludicrous situation in which we find ourselves. We are trying to advance arguments to improve this legislation agreeing, as we do, with many parts of it, and we find ourselves at a great disadvantage because of the absence from the House of the minister who will have the ultimate responsibility for this new department, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
I remember a few days ago when the minister was supposed to participate in a great economic conference in Newfoundland. With the usual promotion which is one of the characteristics of the Premier of that province, it was announced with great fanfare that on the final day of the conference, which was last Wednesday, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Transport would be present. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was not
present because he had to come back to the House of Commons to pilot this legislation through the chamber. Now we find that his presence is not, apparently, of such great importance. Where is he this afternoon? He is in western Canada. He is not attending to any governmental duties. He is attending a conference of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan when he should be in this House attending to his responsibilities and listening to the very reasoned arguments put forward by hon. members who are trying to fulfil their obligations to the people of Canada by making this a good bill.
We remember the experience of a few months ago when the Canada Water Act went through this House. We contended it was bad legislation because it failed to recognize the necessity for a national standard of qualify control for clean water. Because this plea went unheeded we shall gradually see the Canada Water Act, which took up so much of the time of the House, pass into oblivion, where it belongs, to be superseded by the legislation we are now putting through and the concomitant legislation which is to accompany it such as the clean air bill and other measures which I am sure the minister will be introducing in connection with his new responsibility for pollution control.
I believe the amendment put forward by my hon. friend will generally improve the bill. With great respect to the President of the Treasury Board, I find it difficult to understand why the government will not accept it. I feel that if the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry were in the House today he would be prepared, as a reasonable man, to listen to the constructive arguments which we have put forward and to accept an amendment which we contend would have the effect of improving the bill. I am genuinely sorry that members of the House did not agree with the proposal put forward by the President of the Treasury Board to stand this pant of the bill until the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is here to take part in the debate. In the absence of the minister, what we are doing now is a useless exercise. With great respect to the President of the Treasury Board, he can never answer the arguments we are putting forward. He does not understand the bill, he has no responsibility for studying this part of its provisions and he will not have the ultimate responsibility of administering it.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will accept this small amendment. As has been pointed out, a similar provision is made in the air quality legislation. I see a number of members present this afternoon who are interested in controlling the pollution of the Ottawa River, a body of water which is interprovincial. They are well aware that if this effort is to be successful, co-operation will be needed from dozens of municipalities both on the Quebec side and on the Ontario side. It is obvious the minister will be unable to operate on the basis of standards set up separately by Quebec or by Ontario. Not only will there have to be agreement between the provinces as to the desired standard, but co-opertaion must be forthcoming from the townships concerned. Those responsible for spending money on clean-up plans in Quebec will have to take into account the degree of pollution from the Ontario side, and vice versa.

February 12, 1971

I am unable to understand why the minister should be reluctant to see the word "national" added. The fact that the President of the Treasury Board comes from Quebec may have much to do with his attitude in this respect. When we talk about issues which affect Quebec in any way, there seems to be a particular reluctance to attempt to remove from that province any of the authority it might have. He knows that if there is agreement between the authorities concerned, the standard which is ultimately reached will be in effect a national standard accepted by all who take part in anti-pollution programs. I see in the chamber today a number of members from the Ottawa Valley, the Ottawa River basin, who know full well that the effort of the national government will be paramount when it comes to dealing with the pollution of that river.
I have been very concerned during the last few weeks, as have many other members, as we have travelled across the country investigating another area in which a national standard will have to be established. I refer to the agricultural commodities. Again we have found, not so much a reluctance on the part of the provinces to make an agreement with the federal government to allow the federal government to establish national standards and quotas as a reluctance on the part of the federal government to take any initiative. I would be interested to hear the minister tell the committee whether or not the law clerks who drafted this piece of legislation were different from those who drafted the clean air legislation which makes reference to the word "national" in many instances. Certainly there has been a reluctance to refer to national standards in this legislation.
The Ontario Water Resources Commission will have a great deal to say in regard to standards to be established to control the pollution of this interprovincial waterway, which frankly is all that we are talking about. If we are talking of intraprovincial pollution, then the provinces will have their own standards. As far as interprovincial pollution is concerned, we will have to take into consideration the standards that are set by all provinces, and the mean that will be arrived at will be the national standard.
In this regard we are continually raising the old bugaboo of the Constitution. I suggest that if the federal government got off its fanny and made a decision in this matter, the decision would never be taken to the Supreme Court on appeal; the provinces would either meet the standards or would not do so. It has been suggested that if we are going to improve the environment, this is one area where the federal government can exercise a great deal of authority. In most instances the expenditure of money will be called for. In this regard I am reminded of a discussion I had a week or so ago with the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec. We were discussing the constitutional problem of just what belongs to the provinces and what belongs to the federal government and I was interested to hear him say, "You put money into it and you will have jurisdiction over it. There will not be any worry if you put money
Government Organization Act, 1970 into it". He suggested that the federal government has been able to get control of national dairy marketing because the federal government has put money into it.
This reminds me of the story of the young man who asked a young lady if she would go upstairs with him for $1 million.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: She said she would. Then he said, "Well, how about a couple of bucks?" and she replied, "What do you think I am?" He said, "Well, we have established that; all we are dickering about is price". It seems to me that on this question of the Constitution all we are dickering about is price and I suggest my story is a parallel. If, as the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec said, you are willing to put money into something, then you need not worry about the jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if there are tender ears in this place. I suppose the hon. member for St. Boniface has more tender ears than anybody else. Perhaps the facts of life are now known to him, and if so I apologize to him for shocking his sensibilities. If I can get back to the matter of control of the environment, in many instances the municipalities have a responsibility that they are not in a position to carry out. In many cases the provincial governments are not in a position to carry out the responsibilities that they have.
It seems to me that if the federal government is really interested in creating work for people it should quit playing around with programs such as the area development incentive program, under which the cost per job is $50,000, and start doing something to control pollution of the environment from the municipal point of view. If we spent $1,000 per job in the municipalities we would probably make quite a contribution toward the creation of a cleaner environment. This is particularly true in the Ottawa Valley and the upper Ottawa in which I have very great interest. There are hon. members of the House who represent constituencies situated along this great waterway which stretches pretty well from the north to the south of the province, and I am sure most of them would agree that the establishment of national standards for the Ottawa River is absolutely necessary. To do so will require the co-operation of hundreds of municipalities in the elimination of their pollution of this large waterway. For its part the federal government will have to assist the provinces in their supplementation of the resources of the municipalities.
If the President of the Treasury Board opposes the idea of having a national standard established or promoted as a national objective for controlling the quality of the environment, then he must be admitting that this is a matter that should remain with the provinces or with the municipalities or with someone else. I think anybody who has examined pollution will realize that the national government will have to set standards and in most cases will have to help the municipalities, the provinces and industry of this nation to meet those standards. I think

February 12, 1971
Human Tissue Transplants
we would be very foolish if we were to say that we are going to provide the wherewithal to meet standards that are not ours, standards that we have not formulated. I am sure that many municipalities believe their primary treatment plants have gone as far as they can to protect the environment, and I am equally sure that those municipal standards are quite inadequate from a federal or even a provincial point of view. So in refusing to establish a national standard government is admitting that the converse must be true, namely, that it wants somebody else to set those standards.
I think few people would agree that industry should set its own standards. Certainly the minister who will have to administer this part of the legislation does not say that. He has said that the federal government will have to set the standards. We will have to put up the money to assist in setting standards and we will demand that certain standards be met before new industries are established in certain fields. This is what the minister has said of the pulp and paper industry, and the government is going to spend money in this regard. I suggest that the standards the minister has in mind are not provincial, municipal or industrial standards, but national standards.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. It being four o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
Progress reported.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-10, an act respecting La Societe des Artisans, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motions. I understand there is agreement to allow to stand and retain their positions motions Nos. 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and to proceed with motion No. 24.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of convening a national ad hoc conference of appropriate people to encourage the enactment in all jurisdictions in Canada of uniform anatomical gift legislation and to
consider the need for international agreements to facilitate the transfer of human tissue between Canada and other countries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I have placed before the House today calls on the government to convene a national conference to promote the adoption in Canada of uniform anatomical gift legislation. The term "anatomical gift" refers to donations by people of tissues from their bodies for transplant therapy, medical research or medical teaching purposes. It is several years since the celebrated heart transplants dramatically focused world attention to the possibility of extending man's life by replacing worn-out body parts with those from another human being.


Some hon. Members:: We have a few around here.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Although the practicality of doing large numbers of heart transplants is still being assessed and the techniques refined, there can be no doubt that many other organs and tissues can be routinely transplanted in a practical way. There are 35 different body tissues and organs which can be successfully transplanted. There can be no doubt that thousands of lives could be either saved or made more healthy by the modern techniques of transplant therapy. However, the scientific knowhow for transplant therapy in Canada is years ahead of the legal framework to allow would-be donors to easily make gifts of their body tissues. It is a sad state of affairs when the legislators of a country cannot pass relatively simple, non-controversial laws to facilitate medical progress as fast as the medical research people can develop these new techniques.
We in Canada will be in a few months at least three years behind the United States in this area of medical legislation. A uniform act was proposed there in 1968 and has been accepted by every state of the union since that time. I think it is in the interest of Canada and the United States that both countries start to provide a working, uniform act. One was started in 1965 and by 1968 a uniform act had been adopted in the United States. All jurisdictions in that country passed this legislation. In Canada we had not agreed on a uniform action until last summer's conference and no jurisdiction in this country has passed the legislation. Let me read part of a short article which appeared in Time magazine of July 13, 1970. It states under the heading "Anatomical Gifts":
At Salt Lake City's University of Utah Hospital recently, a 57-year-old man lay dying after heart surgery. In his wallet was a card that read: "Desiring that humanity may benefit I hereby give for any lawful medical purpose any specific organs or parts of my body determined to be medically usable ... upon my death".
In the past, hospital authorities would have had to negotiate with the patient's next of kin to obtain organs for transplant, and the organs might have deteriorated and become unusable before permission was obtained. There was no such delay at the Utah hospital. Informed by the patient's wife about the donor card, surgeons were able to operate on him as soon as he was pronounced legally dead. They removed both kidneys for transplant and both eyes for cornea grafts. Within a few hours, one of each was used for transplants in other patients.

February 12, 1971

The speedy donation was made possible by Utah's passage of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which gives any patient the right to bequeath his body or organs for medical purposes. Because of almost nationwide adoption of the act-and changing attitudes towards transplants-surgeons long frustrated by a shortage of donor organs now foresee an increase in the supply.
Last week while discussing this problem with a transplant surgeon I was told of all the difficulties incurred in obtaining enough organs. This man specializes in urology and he said that in Canada at the present time it is estimated that 450 people are waiting for suitable kidneys and other organs that might be transplanted. A uniform act was adopted, as I mentioned before, at the conference of commissioners on the uniformity of legislation last summer in Charlottetown. This draft legislation was largely based on the proposed Ontario bill. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the special Ontario medical-legal committee headed by Mr. Allan Leal which has done a great deal of work on this subject during the last few years. However, in spite of this uniform draft bill being available to Canadian provinces, there is little indication that the matter has had much priority with provincial legislatures. Some of the ministers of health at the December meeting in Ottawa had never heard of the need for this kind of legislation.
It is not hard to document the number of people in Canada with serious kidney disease or haemodialysis, waiting for kidney transplants, or the number of people with impaired vision awaiting corneal transplants. However, statistics do not seem to impress governments as much as public opinion and demand for action. This would be one value of an ad hoc conference of people interested in the problem, to focus public interest on the need for such legislation across Canada. This conference would also provide a source of information on the need to provincial ministers of health, their departmental officials, medical associations and other interested groups and individuals.
There are at least two matters of concern to the federal minister of health which the provincial representatives would want to discuss. The first of these concerns the international transfer of human living tissue. Because of the geography of North America, much of the communication between surgical transplant teams is between Canadian and United States cities. For instance, if a surgical team in Hamilton has a patient dying of kidney disease and a donor bank at Rochester, New York, had a suitable kidney available, it would be rushed to Hamilton by police cruiser with no consideration for customs regulations.
It is obvious that transplant therapy is still very glamorous. However, when it becomes routine and transfers are carried out by commercial carriers there may well be problems in transfers of tissue at international boundaries. This matter should be considered by the people concerned and a formal arrangement made between Canada and other countries to facilitate the transfer of human living tissue. Another matter of international concern is the status of the wallet-sized cards which give a physician authority to use the tissue from accident victims for transplant therapy when they are away from their prov-
Human Tissue Transplants
ince or country of residence. There are 5,000 automobile accident victims in Canada every year and many of these involve our friends and neighbours in the United States. The status at the international level of these cards should be studied and an agreement between Canada and other countries made.
I have only touched on some highlights of the need I see for a national ad hoc conference on anatomical gifts. However, I believe from these remarks hon. members will be convinced that this is an area of law in Canada which is not only holding up medical research and education but is continuing human suffering and shortening lives. So I call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) not only to be sympathetic to this problem but to act in a positive way, to convene this conference, to call together the best experts on the subject and the responsible provincial authorities for a meeting here in Ottawa. Only in this way will the needs of the country in this area of science and medicine be promoted and quickly adopted.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in this debate, for two reasons. First of all, because the subject is one of cogent relevance to the present and is also becoming more and more important as scientific discoveries and capabilities improve; and, second, because the man in whose name this motion stands, the hon. member we do not want to follow that procedure". The corpse is members of this House, bringing to it a very fine reputation in the field of medicine as well as a compassion for the needs of people, and especially for improving legislation that will help out in human circumstances. I want to extend the basic motion that is before us. It has to do with uniform anatomical gift legislation within Canada and also across international borders.
The hon. member who proposed the motion and who has just spoken to the House referred in particular to portions of bodies of deceased people. But there is another dimension to this question, and I know he is aware of it, and that is parts of bodies from people who are still living. So we are concerned here with three things, and I will introduce the third. The first is the movement of cadavers or of corpses across international lines, or the freedom for medical people to remove from the deceased certain organs that can be used on one hand for research and on the other for people who are alive.
Second, the motion bears upon the removal from a living, healthy person of an organ, for instance one kidney or some other organ that they will donate to another person. Third, I want to raise a new dimension which I think makes this motion extremely relevant if not of crucial importance. I read recently that in one author's opinion the most urgent and exciting and, in a real sense, the most frightening breakthrough of our decade is that we have come to have the ability to develop life in a test tube, to sustain the development of embryos in incubators and to produce not only tissue but complete human embryos apart from the female body.

February 12, 1971
Human Tissue Transplants
In other words, scientists have become able to produce complete human embryos apart from the social context in which the embryo, upon reaching the stage of birth, is delivered into a family context. We have now come to the situation of being right on the verge of being able to produce human beings in foetal or embryonic form that do not belong in any particular family. If we produce an embryo, a human child, and if this child is sustained- and scientific knowledge now enables us to sustain life until such time as that child can function as an independent individual apart from incubators and special laboratory equipment-whose responsibility is that child? First, is it the offspring of the mother from whose body the female egg, either fertilized or unfertilized, was drawn? Is it the legal responsibility of the father as the donor of the sperm, or is this offspring the product of and therefore the legal responsibility of the originator of the laboratory in which this experiment was conducted, or of the technician so involved?
Also, to go one step further-this has a more direct bearing on the hon. member's motion-what happens to the initiation of life in a test-tube or the bringing together of egg and sperm outside of a female body, outside of the natural environment when this tissue develops? It is more than tissue, really; it is more than a limb in the sense that my hand is a limb or any other part of my body. Here we have in tissue form, because everything ultimately stems from tissue development, a complete human being. If for some reason the life is terminated or a decision is made to terminate it after one week, one month or five months of development, then this also comes directly under the question that is raised by the hon. member. Does this tissue have a special value, and what legal framework do we have in Canada or should we have today for the whole new set of circumstances which is being developed?
I will go one step further. All of us in our culture are familiar with the phenomenon of identical twins. What do we do when we perfect the art of what I would call, in semi-laymen's terms, primary fission in the sense of being able to make complete duplicates at an early stage of embryonic development so that we not only have identical twins but thousands of identical people reproduced over and over again? Theoretically you could populate a whole world with people who are all of the same chromosomal structure. This, again, means that we are starting to deal with tissue in areas that were not even dreamed of as recently as a decade ago.
It is true that the hon. member for Algoma pointed out that what has caught the public's imagination is the transplanting of heart, of kidneys and of different organs, but it seems to me that the real urgency is in evolving the process and procedures and the rules and regulations toward which the hon. member aspires in the whole realm of laboratories to create, to sustain, to direct and to reproduce life. In this sense I think we have not only to talk about kidneys and hearts but we have to talk about complete embryos, and we even have to deal with the question of who is the owner, if you want to call it that. Maybe you do not like that way of putting it. Perhaps I could put it as the question of who is responsi-

ble for the offspring that does not derive his or her existence from what we call the traditional family context.
These are questions that are far more urgent than people in our culture realize them to be. But because they are horribly frightening that does not mean they are not pressing on us. By adding that dimension to the hon. member's motion, I hope he will not be too dissatisfied that I have taken the liberty of the idea he has placed before the House this afternoon to draw attention to what is on our doorsteps. I want to now refer in concrete terms to some items he mentioned briefly or tangentially. They are the following: Unless specific statutes exist in Canada permitting persons to make donations of their bodies or of tissues or organs from them, there is, as we all recognize, the possibility that liability could be imposed upon physicians and institutions acting in accordance with the wishes of a donor made before death.
A lot of Canadians do not seem to realize that once they die their corpses are not their own property. They do not seem to appreciate that once death is legally pronounced, the corpse, the remains of the individual, becomes the legal property of the next of kin. Because of this, although you or I or the next person may very much want certain transactions to take place concerning, for example, funeral rites, concerning burial, concerning cremation, concerning removal of cornea or tissues of any kind, if we have failed to convince that person who is our legal next of kin of the merits of our recommendations or desires, then we have no right to assume that our wishes will be followed out.
For this reason doctors have been traditionally, and I think rightly so, reluctant to charge in, in the sense where angels fear to treat because this is a very emotional context. Anyone has any experience with such a routine procedure as post mortems is aware of how much difficulty most doctors have in simply obtaining permission to perform post mortems, even without taking portions of the corpse or body to be used for perhaps good reasons, in the sense of being laced in another human being or used for medical research. Therefore, it would seem to me it becomes extremely important that we have legislation along the lines that the hon. member hopes to have, and that we should have it uniform. It seems important that we should have the agreement of all provinces and also agreement stretching across internati-nal lines.
If we are going to pursue this subject with full information, it is important for the House to recognize that provision already exists in law, in the Canadian provinces and territories for donation of human tissue, and is of two distinct kinds. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon have what are known as corneal transplants acts which relate only to the donation of eyes for use in improving or restoring sight. The Northwest Territories and all other provinces except Quebec have human tissue acts which permit donation of the entire body or of certain organs or tissues for medical education
February 12, 1971

and research, as well as for replacement and rehabilitation. This would be replacement of parts.
These acts are very much alike in content. The corneal transplant acts provide that a hospital administrator may authorize a qualified practitioner to transplant the corneas of a deceased person who dies in hospital if that person had requested such use in writing or made such request orally during his last illness, with two witnesses present. I would emphasize the words "in hospital" because it is quite a different situation if death should occur outside a hospital. If death occurs outside the hospital, and even if the deceased had made a request for donation of certain portions of his or her body, authorization for transplantation must be given by the relatives in a prescribed order of preference. In other words if we does not plan to die in a hospital it is not good enough to want to give your eyes or some other portions of your body away. You must convince the person or persons who will be your next of kin that you want to do this. And, Mr. Speaker, this is not as simple as might first appear. Traditionally if a husband dies, his wife is the next of kin, and vice versa. But there are circumstances in which a whole family will die, or in which a husband and wife will die together, and one has to go through the succeeding relatives to obtain permission for transplants.
I turn now to the other body of legislation. Here I speak of the human tissue acts. It may be worth pointing out that in this instance, as the hon. member for Algoma has made clear, health is the responsibility of the provinces and essentially we are talking about action required at the provincial level. The human tissue acts permit use of the entire body or of organs and tissues for rehabilitation, medical education and research. Again in this instance, if death occurs in a hospital the hospital administrator may authorize the use of the body in accordance with a written request of the deceased or in accordance with an oral request if made in the presence of two witnesses during the final illness. And again, if death occurs outside the hospital authorization must be given the relatives of the deceased in a set order of preference.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoma has a professional background in the field of medicine. He has proposed this afternoon the convening of a national ad hoc conference to encourage the enactment in all jurisdictions of uniform anatomical gift legislation and to consider the need for international agreements to facilitate the transfer of human tissues between Canada and other countries. As noted previously, tissue acts are already in existence in seven provinces and the Northwest Territories and they are generally uniform in content. This has not arisen by chance alone. Each year there is a conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada. It is composed largely of deputy ministers and senior executives from departments of justice and attorney general departments both at the federal and provincial levels. The 1965 meeting of commissioners adopted and recommended for enactment a human tissue act. This was subsequently used as a model in seven provinces and the Northwest Territories.
Human Tissue Transplants
I am very much in sympathy with one point in particular made by the hon. member for Algoma when he pointed out that although this model was before the provincial governments, many of them, I suppose under the pressure of multiple requirements in modern day government, seem to have taken no action and, worse yet, to have little interest in the matter.
Speaking as a Canadian and as a Member of the Parliament of Canada, I hope that provincial governments across our nation will rapidly take action in tnis field. At the most recent meeting of the Commission on Uniform Legislation, held in Charlottetown in September, 1970, the 1965 model act was revised, thus bringing it into line with more recent medical and scientific developments and the consequent acceleration of public interest in this field. For many years individuals have asked me in my professional capacity and otherwise how they may be assured that portions of their body, if not their entire bodies, could be used for some useful purposes after their demise. It has been difficult to advise people in this area because there has not been the complete and full legislation that there ought to be in it.
The revision made in 1970 in Charlottetown is, with minor changes, the same as the draft prepared in 1969-70 by an ad hoc committee of the Medico-Legal Society of Toronto. That society comes from no less a place than Toronto, the fair city that houses the provincial government of Ontario. That revision is almost identical with the new draft legislation which is being considered now in the province of Ontario. No doubt every member of this House who is from Ontario hopes that the Ontario government will take action on this. It is the result of more than two years of deliberation by doctors and lawyers both in government and in private practice who are concerned about the medico-legal aspects of tissue transplant. This revised act of the Conference of commissioners on uniform legislation is one of the most up-to-date of its kind to be found anywhere at present.
Thus, the present situation regarding uniform legislation is that all provinces and the territories have a model, the most recent of its kind, in their possession. Jurisdiction in this medico-legal area over-all is essentially provincial, as I think we all recognize. This topic was discussed at a meeting of health ministers in November, 1970, which was not long ago, and the advisability of a national conference was then considered. However, no express wish was forthcoming from the provincial spheres. If this debate serves no other purpose, perhaps it will serve the purpose of encouraging the provincial governments to take action on that which is already before them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to say that I regard this as a good motion.


Murray Arndell McBride: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am very close to the end of my speech and I

February 12, 1971
Human Tissue Transplants
hope the House might see its way clear to allow me a very brief extension of time. I would conclude rapidly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the House agree?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree, provided there is no arrangement whereby the few minutes the hon. member talks and the few minutes somebody else will talk will result in the motion being talked out.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish us to enter into an agreement under which the rights of some members to speak would be based on what we do at the end of the private members' hour. I think every member has the right to decide for himself what he wants to do with respect to a bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). I do not think we ought to look ahead to what may happen.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation of the interest of others. I was saying just before my time had expired that there was no unanimity, and apparently no great anxiety was expressed by officials at the meeting in November, for the provinces to move ahead in this field. I think that was unfortunate. So for reasons given previously, although it might be said that there was no active support for this kind of motion, we should support it because it has apparently become obvious that the provinces need to be goaded or encouraged into action.
The international situation needs to be made uniform, because tourism is expanding all the time. Many, many people through accident, disease or bad luck are bound to die while they are in transit in countries other than their own and therefore the matters touched on in this motion become more and more important for those reasons as well. The motion has become especially important in view of the rapid developments which have led to the creation of life in test-tubes and to the sustaining of life in incubators. Those factors make the subject matter of this motion all the more urgent.
Another matter which might be discussed at a national conference is the suggestion that uniform legislation might recognize an individual's wishes in the disposal of his own body. I am criticizing the archaic concept which says that if one dies in a hospital one's wishes will be recognized, but if one dies outside a hospital one's wishes may not be recognized. The legal right relating to the disposition of one's body after death passes to the next of kin, and that must be recognized. There ought to be some method whereby a person's wishes, made known before death, are recognized. In my professional capacity I have run into this situation many times. Sometimes an individual requests that his body be disposed of in a certain manner, yet after death the next of kin say, "No, we do not want to follow that procedure". The corpse is in their hands and they say, "We will do it another way."
The motion being considered this afternoon is important and requires the attention of members on all sides of the House. It has been a pleasure to participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I think it would be appropriate to suggest to hon. members that private members' hours are only one-hour "shots" and that hon. members might prepare their speeches, in accordance with the rules, to last 20 minutes. I would say that 15 minutes would be desirable rather than 20 for speeches during this hour.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to amend your motion and reduce the time to ten minutes. I hope that all the talk of death of the last few minutes does not foretell the death of this motion, especially at the hands of its friends. It seems to me that this is a good motion. I cannot see anything in it that would embarrass the House or the government if it were to pass. I hope that it will not be subjected to death by talking out.
If I may speak for the entire opposition-if those on my right will give me carte blanche to do so, and I am sure I can do it for all the others-we welcome the opportunity this afternoon to go a second mile and to return good for evil, or whatever you want to call it. The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), is frequently the last speaker in private members' hour. He is almost an official "talker-outer". Let me tell him that we on the opposition side will not do that to his motion. We think it is a good one. I think that the appeal he made, that the law should at least catch up with medical science, is a good one. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will have the opportunity of putting the question on this motion to the House and that it will be carried before five o'clock.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to congratulate the former speakers for their contribution to the debate on so important a motion.
I should also like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), for introducing a motion intended to arouse the awareness of all Canadians to the importance of having reserves of organs for future transplants in order to help those who might eventually need them to continue leading a more pleasant life.
Allow me also to thank my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) who, with his usual logic, gave us an extremely important lecture, from the legal point of view, and especially with regard to the difficulties that might stem from the suggestion of my friend from Algoma.
I would also like to congratulate my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who would not like to

February 12, 1971

see this motion condemned to death, as he so aptly put it. I know that, even though he has a very good heart, he would never consent to leave it for some future transplant because we need such a man as he in this House as we need all Canadians having some experience of public life.
I would also like to recall-my friend from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has pointed it out-that the matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, as does everything related to health. I attended the federal-provincial conference of health ministers, held last December 9, and the question of the motion of my hon. colleague from Algoma was brought up. After a brief discussion, the provincial ministers of health probably decided that, the area being so sensitive, it was probably useless to pursue the discussion.
At any rate, I would simply like to point out to the House that provincial ministers have been informed of the situation and that certain other matters which might result from it will certainly be discussed during future federal-provincial conferences, for he is right when he states that this is where these questions should be discussed since they are strictly provincial matters.
It is rather odd that this motion be introduced on the eve of what is known as "sweethearts' day", Saint Valentine's Day, and I am sure that tomorrow there will certainly be an exchange of hearts throughout Canada, which will perhaps not overjoy scientists, but those who are willing to open up their hearts. This is in the best interests of all Canadians.
Jean Rostand wrote a book entitled Pensees d'un biologiste. First, there are a few things I should like to say on the question of biology. Let me say them in English. They will be more readily understood. There are a few subtleties that cannot be easily translated. One may say that science has made men out of us without first having made us people worthy of the quality of human beings.
Another way of translating it into English would be: Science has made us Gods before we are even worthy of being men, which is, in my opinion, a very profound, thought-provoking sentence, considering the speedy progress of medical science in our times, which might well some day lead us to extinction.
As the hon. member for Algoma pointed out, that is why we should take action such as the motion advocates, precisely so that, in co-operation with the experts, we may restrain the present trend of scientific change.
I do not mean to say that science should be shoved into the background, but rather that it should be studied in co-operation with human beings who have lived and had experience either in the field of science or in some other field, in order that no action may be taken which might cut down the essence of human life.
Human Tissue Transplants
Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, life is so very short that we must beware of curtailing it further since, apparently, in the present world everyone hopes for more recreation, less work and increasingly high salaries.
Therefore, it might be preferable, in the light of these remarks, to refrain from over-rapid progress.
[English}
For centuries man has been searching for a way to transplant body organs from one individual to another in cases where body parts have been destroyed or damaged by disease or injury. Since World War II great advances have been made in the transplantation of skin, bone, corneas, kidneys and, more recently, hearts. Many of the surgical questions surrounding transplantation were resolved by about 1950, some of the medical questions by the mid-fifties.
As this House is aware, the problems of transplanted organ rejection are being extensively studied in many major medical centres of the world. Human organ transplantation poses many difficult technical, ethical, moral and legal problems which concern not only the physicians but also lawyers, moralists, sociologists and, indeed, the community at large. It is unfortunate that the law has not co-operated with the medical profession to the extent necessary to obviate the legal aspects of organ transplant. Although in Canada court decisions are rare, it is nevertheless the fact that in some instances medical progress is still being held back by legal constraints.
I would like to review some of the difficult decisions which face the physician who is working in the field of organ transplant surgery. First, by whom is a donor pronounced dead? In the majority of cases a patient is pronounced dead by his own physician, the man who is responsible for his well-being, or by the physician who sees the patient in an emergency room. Under normal circumstances, when a dead body is found the death certificate is signed by the legally appointed physician who takes care of such duties. As the House is aware, occasions have arisen where the moment of death has been in dispute. This has happened in the case of moribund patients and the medically accepted time of death is when there is no longer evidence of brain action, as indicated by a flat or non-reactive encephalogram.
As Your Honour is aware, the time between the death of the donor and the removal of the organs for transplant purposes is critical. This applies particularly to anatomical parts such as kidneys and hearts, etc. On the other hand, bone and corneas can be stored in anatomical banks for a considerable period of time. There is also the problem of matching the anatomical donation with the blood type of the recipient, and no organ should be transplanted unless the A, B, O red cell blood groups match. Since anatomical organs cannot yet be stored for any length of time, and therefore cannot be pooled, recipients should be pooled in such numbers that when an organ of a certain blood group becomes available the proper recipient can be selected. A system such as this is already in

February 12, 1971
Human Tissue Transplants
operation in the Netherlands and isolated examples of pooled recipients have been set up in various large cities.
I would like to return, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments to some of the moral and ethical problems which come to mind. One could ask, is it right that the hope of a patient for survival should be dependent on the expectation of death of others? Or, what are the ethics of a surgical team awaiting the death of one patient in order to save another? Or, what about the case where a healthy donor volunteers an organ such as a kidney to maintain the life of another? This latter example has occurred frequently with identical twins, usually associated with kidney malfunction. Another ethical question that is raise is, who should be selected as recipient for an anatomical donation? On what basis should such choice be made? To what extent should the medical profession choose between the risk incurred by the donor of the transplant and the value of the life of the recipient? To attempt to resolve such moral and ethical issues uniformly through legislation is almost impossible because the answers depend in many cases upon the individual's religious views, his attitude to the sanctity of the human body and his respect for the individual.
To return to some of the legal problems involved in human organ transplantation, in general these relate to live donors, cadavers, recipients, attending physicians and next of kin. I have already touched on some of the issues related to live donors. Is it legal to mutilate a healthy donor to the advantage of another person? Should the donor be allowed to consent to a serious operation upon himself for the benefit of another, especially if as a result of the removal of a donated organ the donor's health might be seriously impaired? I have already mentioned the difficulties associated with defining death. A problem associated with this definition is how long should life be maintained in a donor who has irrevocable damage to his brain? Or, for example, when does death occur if such a life is being maintained artificially?
Another issue could relate to the payment or indemnification of a donor for the donation of his organs. We are aware that blood donors may sell their blood. Should donors be allowed to sell their organs to needy recipients? Would such a sale be legal? And would the recipient pay income tax on such payment or should it be regarded as capital gain? Possibly we should consider the application of sales tax to such sales. Or, if the donation is a gift, should gift tax be paid? And finally, if a financial value is attached to useable organs from cadavers, should such items be included in the estate of the deceased?
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there are many issues involved. Perhaps these could all be summarized by the question, does a dead body have human rights which are to be protected? The problems I have identified this evening illustrate that unless there are specific statutes permitting persons to make donations of their organs or their tissues, there is a strong possibility that liability
could be imposed on the doctor or institution acting upon the wishes of the donor or even of the recipient.
You have already heard, Mr. Speaker, that many Canadian provinces and territories have laws governing donation of anatomical gifts or tissues and that these laws cover medical education, research, replacement and rehabilitation. You have also heard that the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada at their meeting in 1965 adopted and recommended for enactment the human tissues act, and that this act has been used as a model in seven provinces and the Northwest Territories. The Medico-Legal Society of Toronto has acted in an advisory role to the commissioners and their work by lawyers and doctors has been used as a model for uniform legislation.
The federal government is sympathetic to the problems associated with anatomical gifts, organ transplants, and is encouraged by the work of the Medico-Legal Society. By the same token, the fact that only seven provincial and territorial legislatures have enacted uniform legislation is disturbing. The federal government is prepared to respond to the request of the provincial governments at any time. As this House has already been informed, the question of the medico-legal aspects of organ transplants was raised at the federal-provincial conference late last year. At that time the need for such a conference was not affirmed by the provincial ministers of health. Possibly as a result of this debate provincial authorities will assume new interest in the question of uniform legislation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is always willing to respond to the consensus of provincial ministers of health in this respect.
With regard to the international aspects of the motion before the House, this is a question which has received international consideration through the World Health Organization. At this time, the European community is far ahead of the North American continent. There already exist in Europe organ exchange programs such as Euro Transplant between the Benelux countries and the federal republic of Germany, Euro Transplant Italia, Scandia Transplant between the Scandinavian countries, Euro Transplant West including France. On the North American continent there is a U.S. east coast system covering the central Atlantic coastal area and eastern United States. Los Angeles has a local system and also belongs to a more general United States system. The federal government would be willing to respond through the World Health Organization to the development of international protocols covering anatomical gifts and their transportation across international borders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. His remarks were very interesting, very anatomical-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And killed the motion.

February 12, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: -but I must point out that the hour for private members' business has now expired. Perhaps hon. members would permit me to make a few remarks since the hour has expired. 1 think it was appropriate that the four speakers who addressed the House on this very cold subject should have been two ministers, a doctor and a veterinarian. Now, if hon. members will allow me, I shall pass from the cold anatomy of the heart to the living heart and remind hon. members that Sunday the 14th-not Saturday the 13th-will be St.
Human Tissue Transplants
Valentine's Day, a day to tell our sweethearts that deep in our hearts we love them so dearly. To the ladies we say, "God bless you and thank you for everything." And to the patient members in the House, I wish you a happy and restful weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME III