1972-06-08

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
21 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, 1972, TO THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1972, INCLUSIVE

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. June 8, 1972


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 4, the tanker World Bond discharged approximately 12,000 gallons of crude oil into the sea while engaged in unloading operations at the Atlantic Richfield Refinery at Cherry Point, which is just south of the Canada-United States boundary in the State of Washington. Some of this oil quickly spread into Canadian waters.
The incident at Cherry Point is a stark reminder of what we have stated on many occasions: that far more serious spills will inevitably take place on other occasions if oil is moved by tanker through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It demonstrates that in the event of a spill on the United States side, damage will almost certainly be suffered in Canada, and this damage could be severe. Even the small quantity of oil which escaped on this occasion moved rapidly northward across the boundary and collected on some five miles of one of the finest beaches of the area.
We have, of course, registered with the United States Canada's grave concern about this ominous incident. On instructions, our embassy yesterday emphasized to the State Department that the incident confirmed our anxieties over the threat to the ecology and resources of this inland marine area from oil tankers. The embassy made clear that the Canadian government expects full and prompt compensation for all damages suffered in Canada, as well as full clean-up costs, to be paid by those responsible. The embassy restated our broader concerns about the hazards which will arise from the movement by tanker of large quantities of oil into the Cherry Point refineries. We have made repeated representations to the United States government about the proposed increase in oil tanker traffic into this area, and indeed we raised this
matter with President Nixon when he visited Canada in mid-April.
We proposed to President Nixon that the International Joint Commission should be requested by the two governments to conduct a thorough investigation of the hazards of marine transport of oil into this area. We have since made specific proposals for this investigation, and in the light of this recent incident our ambassador in Washington is pressing for an early and positive response from the United States government.
We appreciate that this particular spill was small in comparison with the magnitude of predicted spills, and that the refinery and authorities concerned on both sides took prompt action to contain the spill and minimize the damage. Consequently, the damage to Canadian waters and shoreline was less than might have otherwise resulted. We appreciate also that Atlantic Richfield Corporation has apparently recognized its obligation to meet the cost of the clean-up operations. However, the government wishes to obtain firm assurances that full compensation for all damages, as well as the cost of clean-up operations, will be paid by those legally responsible. The government is reserving all its rights in this matter and is examining all the legal options which may be available to protect Canadian interests.
We are especially concerned to ensure observance of the principle established in the 1938 Trail smelter arbitration between Canada and the United States. This has established that one country may not permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury to the territory of another and shall be responsible to pay compensation for any injury so suffered. Canada accepted this responsibility in the Trail smelter case and we would expect that the same principle would be implemented in the present situation. Indeed, this principle has already received acceptance by a considerable number of states and hopefully it will be adopted at the Stockholm conference as a fundamental rule of international environmental law.
However, even the best compensation arrangements cannot be a substitute for effective preventive measures. We shall, therefore, continue to press vigorously for measures in respect of the Juan de Fuca Strait and Puget Sound areas which will avoid the danger of spills of oil that would cause damage to Canada's waters and shoreline.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat reassuring, I suppose, to find that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has awoke several days after the incident at Cherry Point and has at least made the government of the United States aware of the views and concern of the government of Canada in

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution
connection with this spill. I assume that his statement was not ready in time for him to follow the usual courtesy of making copies available to the opposition. I do not know just what provoked this statement at this time.
As the minister has indicated, while compensation is important it is not the most important question. What the country really wants to know is how the government of Canada intends to achieve joint control over what may happen in the waters off that part of Canada and the adjoining waters of the United States.
I do not wish to be partisan in replying to a statement on motions or to provoke any kind of controversy, but I do say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Prime Minister, first of all, that the government took an interest in this problem very late in the day and that the planning of the Alyeska route was very far advanced before the government showed any interest or concern. It is only within recent times that the government of Canada has taken any direct position. Second, the government of Canada has been tardy in pursuing its investigation of any route that would be an alternative to the coastal route for transporting Alaska oil. It moved very late in the day and even now it is not in a position to know what it might do in that connection.
I simply say that, while it is all very well for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make a statement in the House, while it is all very well for him to tell us that our ambassador in Washington is pressing this matter, it seems to me, in view of the importance of the subject and the dangers to which the minister himself has referred, that this matter should be pursued at the highest level between the government of Canada and the government of the United States. The people of Canada will be satisfied with nothing less.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for the area affected by what has happened at Cherry Point I have a particular interest in speaking on this matter. First of all, I want to thank the minister for his statement. It is true that it outlines what the government has done rather than what it has not done. In my view the government could have and should have done a good deal more than it did to stop what has happened.
I think we should understand that as long as ships carry Alaska oil along the British Columbia coast to the refinery at Cherry Point, which is about 15 or 16 miles from my riding, as long as that plan continues and as long as that refinery exists for the purpose of refining that oil, we have in effect an ecological time bomb within a few miles of our shores. It is true that we should take protective measures against what has happened, and in my view the protective measures taken by the Canadian government were insufficient. After the spill took place, during the night there were 200 people with bales of hay trying to keep the oil off the beaches at Cherry Point and White Rock. With what was already known as to the likely effects if such a spill should take place, surely the government could have been in a better position to protect our people. In my opinion the contingency measures were not effective and were not properly prepared. What the government has said is all right as far as it goes, but the measures which the government is taking do not go far enough.

I think we have to realize that what the Americans are planning to do with regard to shipping oil along the British Columbia coast constitutes in effect an unfriendly act by one nation against another. We have to take that position on our own behalf and also on behalf of the Americans in the adjacent Pacific coast area. We are in fact faced with a most basic and serious situation involving pollution of the ecology in which tragedies and disasters far greater than this small spill will inevitably occur. The government's own research has established that over a period of every three or four years there is bound to be a major oil spill if these giant tankers are allowed to sail down the coast.
I draw the attention of the government to a report issued today through the office of the Minister of Transport on a study prepared by Queen's University in regard to the feasibility of transporting Alaska oil by railway from the north to the south. According to the study, it is feasible to build a railway from the north and ship over that line at least 200 million barrels of oil in a comparable period as opposed to shipment by water.
I cannot emphasize too much that we in this party, and the people of British Columbia, I am sure, regardless of their party affiliation, look to the government to take stronger and tougher measures than they have taken and to point out to the Americans, many of whom will agree with us, that the planned route for the shipment of Alaska oil will result in the degradation of our coast.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first we deeply regret-and we will never say it too often-that when the minister makes statements in the House, he informs hon. members only a few minutes ahead of time.
As to the content of his statement, it is nothing more than a stuttering which could not in any way solve the problem of pollution and protection of the environment in Canada.
The minister announced that a certain compensation would be paid, but that is a matter of very little importance as compared with the whole problem. It is again a kind of band aid treatment which will definitely not ease the pain. All that question can boil down to the nature of our relationship with our neighbour, the United States. The Canadian government has always had a shy and hesitant stand by always placing itself at the mercy of the United States as far as the protection of the environment and the fight against pollution in Canada are concerned.
The subject of particular concern to the House today, specifically the shipping of oil along our seacoast, is part of this problem.
We are led to believe that our ambassador in Washington is exerting pressures, but the problem still exists in Canada, and the minister is stuttering something or other about this problem instead of speaking up.
We urge the government to speak loud and clear to the Americans and suggest to them that, while they want to protect their own environment, their country and resources in order to develop them, we too, as Canadians, are proud of our country, and we shall take the necessary
June 8, 1972

steps to protect our environment and improve our living conditions.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce that negotiations and discussions have been successfully concluded with the provinces and producer groups and that a program designed to adjust egg production to market requirements for Canada has been developed.
As hon. members are aware, the government has been concerned that any assistance it might put into position should be of such a nature and should be coupled with such provincial programs as would bring continuing stability to the industry. I might say that we are particularly concerned that we avoid doing those things that might be counter-productive over a long period of time.
A program has been designed that will provide assistance on a sliding scale to encourage maximum removal of surplus birds within the shortest possible time. Under this formula, if the target is reached within six weeks farmers will receive approximately 90 cents per bird marketed. If the target takes eight weeks to reach, the payment would be about 75 cents per bird.
If the program falls short of the one million bird target the assistance will be less. For example, if only 500,000 extra birds are taken out of the flocks during the eight-week period, the subsidy will be about 45 cents per bird.
The program will be effective from June 5.
This program is designed to stimulate rapid adjustment in fowl numbers thus providing indirect and immediate benefits through price increases to those producers and areas that do not need to adjust fowl holdings while at the same time providing direct assistance to those that need to make adjustments. To receive assistance under the program producers will require proof of sale to a registered poultry processing plant or a recognized certificate of disposal.
Full details of the program, including the method of claiming, will be sent to the industry immediately. In the meantime I would advise that producers should retain all receipts showing the disposition of fowl removed in the period.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is in effect a fowl buying program, although he did not wish to call it that. Another fowl buying program was announced last October 29-I have that statement here, Mr. Speaker-which was to be carried out over an eight-week period. So there is a familiar ring when in the present statement the minister says that this program will be in effect for an eight-week period. Following the earlier program I asked the minister the following question on March 16, 1972, as recorded on page 889 of Hansard:
Surplus Egg Reduction Program
With regard to the fowl buying program announced by the government last year under which assistance was going to be given to producers, how much money was paid to producers under that program?
The minister's answer was:
None, Mr. Speaker.
Most of us know of the terrible situation in the egg-producing industry in Canada today. Over 202,000 30-dozen cases a week are being produced. That is about 10,000 or 15,000 too many, and there has to be a cutback in order that egg producers can make a decent living in this country. This situation has gone on too long.
I am happy to see that the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture have negotiated on a little better terms with the egg producers and the provinces than they have with the provinces in regard to the small farms development program which we heard about in committee this morning from some of the provinces. I hope the minister has listened to better advice in working out the details of this program than he did on the previous one and that the program will do some good. I do not know whether the minister is aware of the normal laying period of a hen, but I think he should suggest that all hens that have been in production for ten months or more should be marketed through this program. That might be of some assistance. More direction has to come from the minister and he should listen to people who know what they are talking about.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, it would have been helpful if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) had given us more information. We know that negotiations have been going on between the provinces and the federal Department of Agriculture to work out a program of egg marketing under Bill C-176 which was passed by the House a year ago. One question that was seriously raised in committee at that time was whether sufficient information would be provided to the producer and indeed to Parliament when national marketing programs got under way. I suggest to the minister and to the House that the information that has been given to us at this time is sketchy, to say the least.
For instance, in addition to the fowl slaughtering program, which can be only one facet of a total approach, what is going to be done about the import of eggs from other countries? The minister referred to supply management being achieved between the provinces. If this is the case, what is going to be done about imports? What is the policy? No information is given. What is the actual division between the provinces? We do not have that information. We have not been told what the formula is for distributing the money. If fewer birds are killed the price per bird goes down. One area may have fulfilled its obligation and another area that has not will suffer. There are too many unanswered questions. The minister may have the answers, and I would be pleased if he would provide them to the House at some future time.

June 8, 1972
Surplus Egg Reduction Program


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the minister began his statement with the following paragraph:
I am pleased to be able to announce that negotiations and discussions have been successfully concluded with the provinces-
That means an agreement is still possible. I continue to quote:
-and producer groups and that a program designed to adjust egg production to market requirements has been developed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the subsidy mentioned by the minister will be added to the amount received when the fowls are killed. I fear that this will be a double-edged knife considering the short delay specified. In fact, if the objective is reached in less than six weeks, I foresee the danger of having a market over-supplied with fowls and, consequently, a drop in prices which are already very low.
We read recently in a farm weekly that in the week of May 31 producers received 12 cents a pound for fowls of 7 pounds or more, 10 cents for 6-pounders, 7 cents for 5-pounders and 6 cents for fowls of 5 pounds or less. Such prices are very low. So, if the market becomes suddenly overstocked, I am afraid prices will drop and grants paid by the Department of Agriculture will accordingly lose their value.
Egg producers have been experiencing great difficulties for a very long time and it should be pointed out to the House that even in January 1972 the amount paid to them averaged 15 cents a dozen, while the production cost ranged from 30 to 32 cents. This is an interesting problem which should be considered.
If, according to the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the proposed means are such that they will make it possible to reach the objective, that is the establishment of a long term policy to stabilize the situation and to give a certain degree of satisfaction to egg producers, all the better. But right now, the situation is distressing.
Mr. Speaker, according to the price list that we have been supplied with, producers received 26 cents for Grade A eggs during the week of May 24 and 20 cents during the week of May 31. These losses are extremely high and there is real danger that many producers will very quickly be moving towards bankruptcy.
If we really have surpluses in Canada-I would not know if it is true or not, but someone must know it-it means that we have a great production capacity. On the other hand if there are people who don't have any surpluses and are hungry, we should send them our surpluses. Such a gesture would enable some human beings to consume them and satisfy an essential need.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that one day at the Committee on Agriculture I was interested to hear a good Liberal member made a statement on the planning, the orientation given to agriculture by some economists who, after having tried for 10 years, admitted that their recommendations and plannning had failed. Yet they do not give us any alternate solutions.

We have visited in Canada big egg producers which should be doing well. However, there are proofs big producers have difficulties; production is not always efficient enough to allow benefits when the production cost is higher than the sale price. What we need is a miracle and I do not think it is possible these days.



POLLUTION


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I wish to request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That in the light of the damage in Canada and the United States arising from the recent oil spill at the Cherry Point refinery this House support the urgency of a reference to the International Joint Commission of the environmental consequences of the movement of oil in the narrow waters of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait, and Puget Sound both now and in the future and of the measures necessary to minimize the hazards, and requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to immediately convey the terms of this motion to the government of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, since the hon. member for Egmont was the first to move a motion on this matter three days ago, we naturally will support this motion wholeheartedly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: This motion by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East shows that there is at least one Liberal who knows something must be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member kindly indicate who the seconder is?


M. Ervin Pringle: The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is unanimity, the motion will be put. There appears to be unanimity.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker-


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


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order that the hon. member who spoke before me raised. Not only the hon. member for Egmont-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 8, 1972


David Lewis: Just hold on for a moment-but also two members of my party moved motions under Standing Order 43 which the Liberals of this House did not permit to come before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ought to inform you and the government House leader that, so far as I am concerned, this motion is debatable and will be debated.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course all motions are debatable. The only leave the hon. member is seeking is leave for dispensation from the usual notice; if no notice is required under the terms of Standing Order 43, because of the unanimous consent granted by the House the motion will be put. However, 1 think hon. members ought to keep in mind that this is a supply day, and it has been agreed that the party to my extreme left, which is not necessarily the party to the extreme left in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -shall move a motion which is to be debated later today. Perhaps after the motion has been put, and because there appears to be unanimous consent, there might be consultation between the party representatives to try to clarify the situation so that the party which has the responsibility for moving the supply motion today will be treated fairly. All this having been said, I will put the motion because there has been unanimous consent.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am not at all anxious to interfere with the motion now on the order paper with respect to this supply day, but I want to make it clear that the Liberals cannot get away with the kind of partisanship they are trying to get away with.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have not completed my point of order. Could I have Your Honour's indulgence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Essentially the hon.
member, is repeating what he said a moment ago. The matter is clear to me. I inquired w hether there was unanimous consent, and I am prepared to put the motion.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the additional point I want to make is that if your words of advice, which I suggest with respect are very fair, are to be adopted, then your putting the motion now does not mean that either the motion will be passed without debate or that the debate is to follow immediately upon your putting the motion. That was the point.
Oil Pollution


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The terms of the Standing Order and the rules are very clear. There must be unanimous consent for the motion to be put. There is unanimous consent for the motion to be put. Of course, any motion is subject to debate, and if hon. members want to debate it all day that is up to them. I will put the motion. Mr. Pringle, seconded by Mr. Robinson, moves:
That in the light of the damage in Canada and the United States arising from the recent oil spill at the Cherry Point refinery this House support the urgency of a reference to the International Joint Commission of the environmental consequences of the movement of oil in the narrow waters of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait, and Puget Sound both now and in the future and of the measures necessary to minimize the hazards, and requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to immediately convey the terms of this motion to the government of the United States.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 have been in the House this week and I have heard motions similar in wording and almost identical in content proposed by at least one or two other members. I am asking Your Honour for some direction.
I thought there was a rule of the House that when a motion is put and disposed of it cannot be reactivated or resurrected during the same session. Is this not an attempt to bring in through the back door something that could not be brought in through the front? If that is allowed, members who are asleep at the switch day in and day out will be able to rise on the same subject matter and utilize and prostitute the same Standing Order just to show that they are half awake.
If we do not invoke the longstanding procedure of the House that when a motion has been put, even though there was not unanimous consent, the matter has in effect been disposed of for that session, the number of times that hon. members will move spurious motions will proliferate. Even though this motion has a lot in favour of it, the motions of other members earlier in the week said much more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rules. When there has been a debate on a matter and a decision has been taken by the House, the rules are that the matter should not be brought before the House a second time for consideration during the same session. Of course, when there is a denial of unanimous consent the matter cannot be said to have come before the House at all.
I bring to the attention of hon. members that the rules apply not only to the fact that a matter is debated in the House but to the fact that a decision is taken. If a decision is taken, if a vote is taken on a motion, the Standing Orders and the practices of the House are clear. The matter cannot come up for discussion a second time. At that time, of course, the point taken by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley would be well taken and would have to be taken into account.
2960

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate Your Honour's ruling to a point. This is a new Standing Order in this Parliament, and, while I have not got the Standing Order before me, I understand the wording to be "disposed of the matter". Surely when this House refuses to give unanimous consent to a similar motion two or three days or two or three weeks before, that is a form of disposition of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This Standing Order is 100 years old. It is not a new Standing Order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the House accept the proposal of Your Honour, namely, that the debate on this motion stand until representatives of the four parties have met and arranged a time when it might be debated. We might find some time later this evening or tomorrow. The House has agreed that the motion be put. The House would like to debate it. Surely we can come to an agreement when that might be done.
If necessary, I would be prepared to move that the debate be adjourned. The difficulty with that is the motion would then be put under government orders. I do not want to do that unless we have an assurance from the government House leader that the order will be called. I think the most useful thing to do at this moment is for the House to agree to let the motion stand until the House leaders have met and discussed a time when it might be debated.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the importance of the matter is obvious, and we support the proposal you have made.
As we are the hon. members who are mainly concerned today, this being an allotted day for the study of supplies for the period ending June 30, 1972, and as a motion has already been put on the order paper under the name of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), it seems to me that we cannot now start a debate on another subject. Taking the previous agreement into consideration, and unless the various parties now agree to hold an important debate at a time that is agreeable to all four parties, it seems to me priority should be given to the day allotted the opposition and that the debate held until now has unfortunately trespassed on the time that should be devoted to the important question brought up today.


Mr. Speaker:: The point again taken by the hon. member for Lotbiniere makes sense to the Chair. Obviously we might get into a difficult situation if we do not by agreement give priority to the debate which has been set aside under a supply motion. That is why I took the opportunity to suggest this originally. I hope that some agreement can be reached between the House leaders as to when this debate might be held. Perhaps we might hear from the government House leader on this point.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I agree 100 per cent with the suggestion that the normal supply day ought to go ahead. It would be unfortunate to deprive the Social Credit party of their day in the House. I also agree that we ought to meet and in the meantime stand the motion until

agreement is reached as to when it can be called. Perhaps we will have a discussion as to whether it will take place on a government day or an opposition day. I hope we can work that out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are not here to play games. The government has agreed to the motion being put. The government acknowledges that it would not be fair to the Social Credit party to debate it today. The government has set aside tomorrow for a New Democratic Party supply motion. I do not think any of us ought to interfere with that day either. Since the government has agreed to the motion being put, the government House leader should very readily agree that the motion be debated on the next day for government business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There does not appear to be agreement as to what ought to be done. I suggest that the Chair has no alternative but to recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. In the meantime, perhaps there might be consultations at the highest level to see whether we should adjourn this debate so that later this afternoon we might proceed with the consideration of the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Kamouraska.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that because of the urgency of the matter I felt that this motion should be made today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: I concur with those in the House who have stated that we should endeavour to let the day's business go forward and not interfere with the motion of the Social Credit party. I assure Your Honour that I am fully prepared at this time to discuss my reasons for moving this motion. As the mover of the motion, I am prepared to lead off the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: I am also prepared to accept a ruling that this matter be dealt with at a later date because I do not want to interfere in any way with the motion set down for debate on this opposition day. Therefore I will be brief.
I might say for the benefit of hon. members who are smirking behind me that my home is about three miles from this particular spill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where were you on Monday?


M. Ervin Pringle: In answer to the hon. gentleman, I should like to say that on Monday I landed by aeroplane at Abbotsford, British Columbia, and went fully into this problem. I should also like to point out that a senior cabinet minister from British Columbia accompanied me. We not only investigated the problem caused by this oil spill but also investigated the flood situation in British Columbia, something I have heard nothing about from the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 8, 1972


M. Ervin Pringle: Again for the benefit of members heckling me, let me tell them that at this time the flood situation in British Columbia is well in hand.


An hon. Member:: That is more than you can say for the political situation.


M. Ervin Pringle: The main problem in transporting oil, as I see it, is that there is very little possibility of our ever stopping transportation of oil on the high seas. Until such time as we are able to return to burning wood or coal in our ships, or build ships driven by nuclear energy, we will have to use oil. I am not in any way suggesting that we should support the transportation of oil from Alaska to Cherry Point. But I am suggesting that we endeavour to rationalize the problem and that we look squarely at what the problem is. In other words, I suggest we endeavour to beat pollution, not try to kill the industry in the hope that the pollution will go away.
We know that oil spills have taken place and they will continue to take place. I wish the problem were so easy that we just turn a key and say that there shall be no more oil transported on the high seas of the world. If we could do that we would never dump oil into our oceans. But the solution is not quite that simple, and for this reason. If, Mr. Speaker, you examine the oil spill situation at Cherry Point, as I have done, you will find that it is not a case of a collision occurring in the Straits of Juan de Fuca, or a boat colliding with a rock or obstruction, breaking up and spilling oil. It is a case of pure negligence in the inspection of the equipment used when unloading or loading this ship at Cherry Point. As long as there are humans involved we will have to tighten up our inspection procedures.
This is why a reference to the International Joint Commission is vital. The commission can study the problem and devise proper methods and, hopefully, solutions which they would then report back to the government. If this question is debated at a future date, I should like to deal at length with many other points relating to this subject, but my point today is there is no relationship between the transportation of oil from Alaska on the high seas and the particular oil spill from a boat at Cherry Point.
Consider the case of a boat taking on 2,000 or 3,000 thousand gallons of oil to fuel its burners in order to sail through the Straits of Juan de Fuca and down to San Francisco. If the man responsible for pumping in the oil happened to put the nozzle, instead of into the spout, accidently on one side of the spout and 3,000 gallons of oil were dumped into the sea, would this mean that we would seek to prevent the transportation of oil on the high seas? There are many aspects to this problem and I hope that the House of Commons will consider placing the problem where it belongs. Instead of dealing with it emotionally and without thought the day after a spill occurs, let us conduct a proper investigation so we are able to rationalize the problem.
It is all very well to say that the government has been taking its time, but the point is this. It is easy for members of the opposition to be irresponsible and to get up and shout, because they do not have to be responsible to the general public or for relations between the United States
Oil Pollution
and Canada, an important relationship indeed. We must first make sure that we are on solid ground. Certainly I have heard very little from the opposition apart from the cry "we have oil on our beaches". Although this is a very sad situation and cannot in any way be belittled, there is a matter here that we must investigate. I therefore present my motion to the House and I hope that all members of the House of Commons will support it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I now understand why the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) made his statement in the House today. Certainly there is no question about the seriousness of the matter raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle).


Mr. Pepin:: Has your research just arrived?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No; I have finally been able to obtain a copy of the motion. I imagine, that the hon. member who moved the motion did not expect it to be taken seriously and he had no copies. As I say, there is no question that this motion raises a very serious subject, and I am pleased that the members of the government have at least allowed one of their own supporters to get a motion before the House, though they blocked similar motions on two or three occasions earlier in the week.
As the hon. member pointed out, his motion does not strictly relate to transporting oil from Alaska, though I assume that the oil that will serve the Cherry Point refinery eventually will be transported along the tanker route from Alaska. If the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is intending to indicate that there is a spillage problem in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, that is unquestionably the case. Clearly a good deal of oil is passing through those waters already, part of which goes to this particular refinery.
There is also no doubt at all about the importance of their being some joint control on the part of the government of the United States and the government of Canada over the movement of oil and other commodities in this area. I do not think anyone has to be a Solomon to say that. Neither do I think any member from British Columbia will dispute the importance of this kind of joint control being established. As it has been put to me, while we have adopted twentieth century technology in controlling the movement of aircraft, we are still using fifteenth, sixteenth or seventeenth century techniques at best in controlling the movement of vessels in and out of our ports. There is no doubt at all about the urgency of some rational plan or joint method of controlling the movement of vessels in these waters.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have stated also that the suggestion was made during President Nixon's visit that both governments should consider placing this matter in the hands of the International Joint Commission. That seems to me to be a rational approach. The International Joint Commission could take this matter a step forward with a view to fathering, if you like, a body with joint control over the movement of vessels in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait and Puget Sound. As far as
25319-2i

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution
Canada is concerned the question really is, how energetically is the government of Canada going to move? The Prime Minister told us he made this recommendation to President Nixon, but we do not know of anything in particular having been done about it since until today in the House when the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that our ambassador in Washington was pressing the matter there.
I am going to support the motion although I doubt very much whether we can refer this matter to the International Joint Commission. I assume that anything to be referred to that commission that relates to its jurisdiction must be accomplished by agreement between the two countries. Therefore, while I am going to support the motion on the basis of moral support for the necessity of urgent action being taken on the establishment of some effective control over the movement of vessels in those waters, in my opinion the passage of this motion today will be no substitute for vigorous, determined and persistent action by the government of Canada to achieve the purpose of the motion-the establishment of this kind of control in these waters.
The most charitable thing I can say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is that the motion or the substance of it is certainly very incomplete. We in this House do not want to rest the point with the simple passage of this motion to refer the matter to the International Joint Commission, because that in itself would probably accomplish nothing. As I understand it, what we in this House want to be associated with-at least I certainly do-is a motion that will lead to effective action being taken, a motion that will bring this government or encourage it hopefully to insist on action being taken to get agreement from the United States in respect of something effective being established.
I am not going to take more time in view of the original purpose in setting this day aside. I simply indicate that the matter is of the most profound importance. Anybody in his right mind must realize that some joint control has to be established. How anybody could forgive the laxity of this government in sitting around for years without making any serious effort to secure the establishment of a joint system of control over navigation in these waters is beyond understanding. The Prime Minister has now made a request to the President of the United States, but how anybody, particularly those on the west coast of Canada, could forgive this government for such laxity is beyond my comprehension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the device that is being employed by the government makes me so angry that I do not know whether I will be able to make this speech without some strain against the limitation in the vocabulary I can use. Here we have a naked attempt on the part of the government, through a government member, to pour a lot of oil on the troubled waters of the Liberal government's sagging current popularity. It is a naked and belated attempt to make political capital out of West Coast ecological tragedy. It is interesting to note that the last time we sought a reference to the Inter-

national Joint Commission was when the government was in some trouble over flooding of the Skagit Valley.


An hon. Member:: Which government?


Mr. Dinsdale:: We haven't got much of a government so it is hard to recognize it.


Mark Willson Rose: My colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), was critical of some of us and called us irresponsible and emotional because we had the audacity to raise this matter four days ago. He said, and I paraphrase him, that the government had to have time to think.


An hon. Member:: They are slow thinkers.


Mark Willson Rose: In a matter of this importance, I suggest that if it takes the government four days to think we have reason to question the intelligence of the government.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, but the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is rising on a point of order.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, while I may have been paraphrased, I draw your attention to the fact that I never used the word "think". I realize that the hon. member's party has difficulty in that its members usually speak before they think. I usually investigate things-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order; that is debate.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, if after checking Hansard I find I have paraphrased the hon. member incorrectly, I will certainly be the first to apologize.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East made a great deal of the fact that this oil spill was within three miles of his home. I do not understand how that could be as I always understood the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was from Chilliwack. How this oil spill could occur within three miles of Chilliwack I do not know, because it was obviously in the Straits of Juan de Fuca.


An hon. Member:: He is walking on the waters.


Mark Willson Rose: Someone suggests he is walking on the waters. I suggest he has an international responsibility because his summer home happens to be located on the United States side of the gulf islands.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mark Willson Rose: If this motion is acceptable today as a matter of such urgency, I cannot understand why a similar motion was not acceptable three or four days ago unless it is because that motion emanated from the opposition side. People are disillusioned with the trickery and knavery of the political process.


Mr. Woolliams:: And the skulduggery.
June 8, 1972


Mark Willson Rose: We know that about a year ago or more the government had a member who made much capital out of the Alaska tanker route issue. He is now the Liberal party leader in British Columbia. What did they do to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich when he wanted to have his committee travel to the west coast to hold hearings? They repudiated him. Instead of sending his committee to British Colunbia they sent that member to British Columbia permanently.
Mr. Speaker, interest on this side of the House in this issue is not new. I happen to have here a list of questions and speeches directed to ministries by members of my party and other parties dating as far back as January 28, 1971. The litany of expressed concern about this problem runs through the whole period until the inevitability of the spill which occurred last weekend. Each time the government was approached on this matter it wrung its collective hands and shook its collective heads. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked what he intended to do about Amchitka he suggested we pray. Is this what his advice is on oil spill prospects? The government's own appointee, Dr. McTaggart Cowan, as engineer is respect of the Chedabucto Bay tragedy involving the Arrow said it is not a matter of "if" there are to be oil spills as a result of the location of a refinery at Cherry Point but rather a matter of "when".
In that particular part of British Columbia the track record on sea mishaps runs at about 7 per cent per year. Last Thursday, I believe, when we were privileged to hear that old smoothie, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), giving testimony before the Transport Committee on the estimates of the Ministry of Transport, he admitted that legally there was nothing Canada could do to protect itself against the transgressions in respect of the installation of this refinery in the United States. He admitted this.
After our experience with the Chedabucto Bay affair, in terms of clean-up contingency plans I am certain there could have been a little more preparatory effort beyond the provision of a couple of loads of baled hay. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) will have to petition the government once more to have the name of his riding changed to Black Rock if things like this keep up.
Something else Canadians may not be fully aware of-I am sure they may not be because the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) was not aware of it when I asked him a question earlier last fall -is whether or not oil from Alaska is already being carried down British Columbia's inside passage to Seattle. When I asked him about this the Minister of the Environment said such was not the case. When I asked the same question of the Minister of Transport, I received a long detailed letter outlining how oil is in fact being barged through the inside passage between Vancouver Island and the mainland of British Columbia bound for Seattle. This kind of transportation and ecologically risky situation has been occurring for some years, and I think shows how much one hand of the government knows what the other hand is doing.
Last weekend's oil spill must serve as a great warning to all of us. It is a relatively modest leak although tragic
Oil Pollution
enough in its consequences. The spill happened in the only really warm water or Mediterranean area which in the Pacific Northwest serves the thousands of people who live in the lower mainland of Vancouver. The ecological transgression in respect of Robert's Bank in the same area was bad enough but now the probable destruction of the recreational area and fishing industry of the Fraser Valley is too much. We must have a much more vigorous and determined government posture than we have seen so far. We debate today about a veritable squirt of oil. The amount of oil involved in the Chedabucto Bay Arrow oil spill I believe was around 10,000 tons. However, there are tankers carrying 250,000 tons of oil today and it is anticipated that those on the drawing boards will carry 500,000 tons.
What does the government intend to do about this? A couple of years ago when the Minister of Transport was introducing amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, after he had been repudiated by the oil companies at the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva, said Canada would go it alone and that we would have the toughest and most rigorous laws of any nation. What has been done? Have we demanded structural changes in respect of ships calling at our ports? Have we refused to let dock those ships- those hulks and tubs mainly of Greek origin-which fly flags of convenience mainly out of Liberia, Panama and other permissive states? In the case of the Arrow it was admitted in the House that it was absolutely impossible to trace the ownership of that vessel and therefore to nail down the responsibility for damages. I am hoping that in the course of this debate, since it has been initiated by the government, we will hear a little more about what the government intends to do in future. I certainly hope it intends to do something because it is certain and clear that it has not done anything so far.
I believe I have made my point, Mr. Speaker. I should like in conclusion to suggest that we wish to support this motion. We would have liked to do so three days ago but were not given the opportunity because our motions were voted down. I am sorry the government found itself so threatened that it thought it was necessary to use this kind of device to bring this serious problem before the people of Canada.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us is obviously important. It deals with pollution along the Pacific coast and emphasizes the lack of firm action from this government in this regard, except for lengthy high-flow statements.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is so important that we agreed, in the interest of the Canadian people, to hold a special immediate debate of about one hour on this matter. We forgot our own interest to consider that of Canadians. However, our own motion was important and today the co-operation and respect between parties has suffered a severe blow.
Mr. Speaker, our party is obviously deeply interested in safeguarding our environment as well as the living conditions of the Canadian people. We regret, as I said during the statement of the hon. Secretary of State for External

June 8, 1972
Division
Affairs (Mr. Sharp), that this government is satisfied with speeches and alleged discussion and never takes any action likely to really protect our environment.
Before resuming my seat, since all members from all parties know that we are really anxious to deal with the problem of land and water protection, I should like to say we did not appreciate very much the shady manoeuvring that was used today, at the outset of this day allotted to the business of supply for the period ending June 30.
Mr. Speaker, this is a severe blow to co-operation between parties, especially since there was no previous understanding or consultation, which we deplore.
Either it is due to bad faith on the part of some people or those people were so annoyed by the motion we are proposing today that they preferred botching the day set aside for opposition parties.
In any case, since hon. members were able to deal with the pollution problem, especially as regards oil transportation on the Pacific coast, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That this House now proceed to the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, surely by voting for the continuation of this debate the vast majority of the members of this House have indicated their concern about the critical problem of oil pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Raymond J. Perrault: There was all party unity on the matter. There was no penny ante effort on the part of government members to discredit the effort of that opposition member. We voted for his resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who had an unprecedented opportunity to bring forward rational arguments respecting oil pollution measures spent most of his time making a bitter, personal attack on the mover of the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I give up.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, we are particularly concerned about the matter of oil pollution on Canada's west coast.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see a long slick in the hon. member's speech.


Raymond J. Perrault: Regardless of our party affiliations, all of us are aware of the enormous ecological and environmental damage which could be caused by an oil spill there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't forget governmental pollution! .


Raymond J. Perrault: Having said this, I think it is distressing to learn that some members of the opposition would seize on this issue in order to engage in partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: If ever there has been an issue before Canada which required all-party unity, that issue is the fight against pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, what a contrast there is between the performance of the opposition today and the performance of government members on May 15. I am referring to page 2245 of Hansard and to the time when a member of the New Democratic Party moved the following motion:
That this House herewith declares that the movement of oil by tanker along the coast of British Columbia from Valdez in Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington is inimical to Canadian interests, especially those of an environmental nature.
And further, that this resolution be forthwith transmitted to the government of the United States of America in order that that government be apprised of the concern that the House of Commons of Canada has about the proposed movement of oil.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: He did not seize the opportunity which was presented to advance useful, rational proposals. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must say that no nation has worked more earnestly to undertake useful initiatives for protecting the world environment than has Canada. And I do not think statements attacking members who speak on the matter of oil pollution and Canada's environmental reputation abroad are useful ones in this debate. As members know, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) is in Stockholm and is working with a world conference set up to fight pollution in all forms. The chairman of the conference is Mr. Maurice Strong, another Canadian.
The United Nations report entitled "Problems of the Human Environment" reads:
Pollution of the sea is a continual threat to its future productivity. Although the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil has been in existence since 1954, oil pollution remains a major concern, and other forms of equally damaging pollution continue with little or no control.
There are no simple methods for preventing oil pollution either on Canada's west coast or east coast, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. The report continues:
The control of pollution in the marine environment raises problems of a legal nature such as measures which states can take outside their territorial seas in self-protection against pollution liabilities arising from casualties involving discharge of oil or other pollutants, powers of surveillance by coastal states to implement measures for improving the safety of navigation and controlling maritime pollution.
The entire subject of pollution is being discussed at Stockholm at present and, again, Canada is providing a great measure of leadership at that world conference. With respect to the matter under discussion, the minister responsible for environmental matters in Canada, the hon. member for Capilano, was made aware immediately of the Cherry Point oil spill and of its movement into Canadian waters. As soon as this occurred, he had immediate discussions in Stockholm with Russell Train, chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, and with William Ruckelshaus, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He discussed

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution
with them the question of reference to the International Joint Commission and he told his office here that he understood his views had been conveyed back to the United States. Some members of the International Joint Commission from both the United States and Canada are also in Stockholm at this time.
Opposition members who suggest that this government is not interested in the problem at Cherry Point and the oil pollution danger on the west coast of Canada should be made aware of the fact that not only has the recent incident been acted on immediately by the government of Canada but already, without any doubt at all, certain conversations have been undertaken in Stockholm between the responsible minister of the Canadian cabinet and representatives of the International Joint Commission from the United States.
There is grave concern by those who have seen the ecological disaster caused by oil pollution in areas such as the east coast about the possible effect of a major oil tanker disaster on the west coast. We are concerned that not only is more oil being moved by sea each year, but the size of oil tankers has also increased. The average tanker used during World War II had a capacity of 16,000 tons. By 1965 that average had risen to 27,000 tons, and a new tanker delivered in 1966 averaged 76,000 tons. A Japanese company has launched a 276,000-ton tanker. Other Japanese yards have orders for tankers as large as 312,000 tons. More than 60 tankers of 150 tons or more are on order throughout the word. Tankers of 500,000 to 800,000 tons are on the drawing board and those of more than one million tons are thought to be feasible. On the new 1,010-foot British tanker Esso Mercia two officers have been issued bicycles to help patrol the decks of the 166,890-ton vessel. If they build that million-ton tanker, undoubtedly they will be supplying the crew with automobiles to get around. I will now come to a more significant and serious point.
These supertankers require as much as 17 miles in which to come to a stop. Anyone who knows the coast of British Columbia and the navigational hazards there knows that the weather conditions, the dangerous shoals, the rock conditions, the reefs, the fog and all the other navigational problems make absolutely inevitable a major ecological disaster if oil is shipped down the coast from Valdez to Cherry Point. This is why there is virtually unanimous opposition in British Columbia to the shipping of oil by that means along Canada's west coast. The navigational problems down the west coast of Canada are bad enough, serious enough and difficult enough-but add to this the navigational chores in steering huge tankers through the Straits of Juan de Fuca and you have a situation that every expert report suggests will inevitably lead to an ecological disaster.
The size of the world tanker fleet itself is growing at a rate that rivals the growth in average size of new tankers. In 1965 it had increased to 3,500 and in 1968 it numbered 4,300 ships. In 1972 it numbers well over 5,000. At the present time nearly one ship out of every five in the world merchant fleet is engaged in transporting oil, and almost the entire fleet is powered by oil. Yet some people question why Canada is concerned about the possible move-

ment of oil tankers of vast size down the west coast of Canada. It would be inconceivable that we would not be concerned about the extent of the danger. Significant oil spills have occurred worldwide. In the United States alone they have occurred with increasing frequency-180 in 1968; 192 in 1969; 61 to March 1, 1970, and a great many more in 1971. Those who suggest there is any fail-safe system to prevent oil spills along Canada's west coast simply have not been reading expert testimony; they do not know what they are talking about.
What should be done about this? First, members of all parties in this House of Commons, without partisan disputation, should continue their efforts to oppose the establishment of a U.S. tanker route from Valdez to Cherry Point. We should opt in favour of a pipeline to transport northern oil to Canada and to the continental United States. Second, we need improved facilities to ensure immediate and adequate action in the case of major oil spills. We have taken some action at the federal level to enable this country to fight serious oil spills when they occur. As well, in March, 1971, we passed an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
However, as a member from British Columbia I am not satisfied that we have done enough. I ask myself what would happen this evening if a 200,000 ton tanker broke up on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Do we have the facilities to do a proper clean up job? I think not.
Members of this House now have a certain number of opportunities to travel to all parts of Canada. I hope some will use their travel privileges to come to the west coast of Canada to see what concerns British Columbia members. I would like them to see the west coast dangers to navigation there which have established many ship "graveyards" up and down our coast and have led to the loss of hundreds of lives since British Columbia entered confederation and before then. The concern of British Columbians, regardless of whether they are Liberal, NDP, Social Credit or Conservative, must be seen to be believed.
We cannot allow the establishment of an oil tanker route along our west coast. Pressure must be exerted at every conceivable level. That is why the opposition received the unanimous consent of the House of Commons the other day. We wanted to add our names to the protest being forwarded to the United States at the congressional level. We need continuing action to persuade U.S. authorities to abandon any idea of shipping oil by tanker along the west coast. And we have to make it impossible for any substandard ships that are clearly marginal in construction to ply our coasts.
I was one of a group of Members of Parliament who visited Chedabucto Bay on the east coast where there was a relatively small tanker disaster. I saw, as did members of the opposition, the effect that one small tanker accident had on one of the most beautiful environments in this country. To this time, the cost of cleaning-up Chedabucto Bay has been assumed mostly by the Canadian government. To my knowledge the owners of that ship have yet to pay one cent.


An hon. Member:: One million dollars!


Raymond J. Perrault: I may stand corrected. Perhaps we have now received some money. However, it has been difficult
June 8, 1972

to obtain the kind of financial recompense we should have received soon after the disaster occurred.
I was in New York when the tanker Manhattan returned from its supposedly successful Arctic voyage. When the Manhattan was put in dry dock, two huge holes were found in its storage tanks. Under normal conditions those tanks would have been loaded with oil. That voyage would have been an ecological disaster for the Arctic. One hole was so large you could drive a truck through it, yet many people hailed the trip of the Manhattan as a success. It is one of the largest tankers in existence today. It has very thick plates. However, it returned from this Arctic safari with two serious gashes in its hull. This would have been disastrous had the ship been conveying oil.
I shall not continue any longer. I know that other members, particularly from the west coast, want to speak on this issue. I appeal to all members of the House of Commons, and through them to the Canadian people, to recognize the ecological and environmental disaster facing the west coast of Canada if we fail to act. Any measure which is going to stop, halt or hinder the possibility of a tanker accident along Canada's west coast, indeed the east coast and any coast because we are all Canadians and all interested in this problem wherever it exists in Canada, deserves the support of Members of Parliament and the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, what a spectacle we have been treated to today; a government in disarray! The speech made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) reeked of phoniness and hypocrisy. He appealed to this House to do something about the disaster on the west coast. He is a member of the government that is not doing anything about this problem. On the basis of a deal with the Social Credit party no doubt, the government today staged a play with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) making a statement of which no copies were provided in advance. We now know the reason for that. This was immediately followed by a motion moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Pringle). The same motion was made twice on Tuesday and once more on Wednesday.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not so.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says that is not so. Let me refer to Hansard, page 2879, June 6.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lot-biniere is rising on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: We, Creditistes, have been accused by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) of plotting something in co-operation with the Liberal party in connection with this motion.
Oil Pollution
Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight immediately and I ask the hon. member to withdraw his words because this accusation is utterly dishonest and I should even say a blow below the belt.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the Creditistes are now the victims of people who abuse a stupid provision of our rules, namely Standing Order 43. It is also known that this is a misuse of our rules and perhaps Your Honour might allow me to guess what you think of it. We are the first victims of this ridiculous provision and we agreed that this motion be debated because of its urgency. We demanded that our motion be studied because it is important and included in the orders of the day.
Consequently, we cannot tolerate such language from the member for Yukon, or any member, accusing us of utterly ridiculous and alleged plots-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Dishonest.


André-Gilles Fortin: -and I respectfully request through Your Honour that this member withdraw his words immediately.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member's statement that there is no deal between the Liberal party and the Social Credit party. I am bound to do that under the rules of the House. But one can only speculate as to what goes on. If the hon. member opposite has something to say, then let him stand up and say it instead of interjecting cowardly from his seat.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that I am mistaken that two motions were made last Tuesday. As reported at page 2879 of Hansard, we find the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) rising under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The subject matter had to do with the oil spill that occurred last Sunday at the ARCO oil refinery at Cherry Point, Washington, which he said is now being carried by the tides and currents into Canadian waters and polluting Canadian shores south of Vancouver. He requested unanimous consent to move as follows:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to examine and inquire into the oil spill at Cherry Point and the consequent infringement of Canadian sea and territorial sovereignty; and to relate its findings to studies on public hearings conducted on the west coast into the TAPS oil tanker route and oil transfer and refinery terminals; and to have power to travel from place to place both in Canada and elsewhere.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on that occasion he drew the attention of the House to the fact that the standing committee was on the west coast at the time. It was the Liberals on the other side of the House who denied the hon. member for Egmont debate on a motion that now, suddenly on Thursday, is considered a matter of urgent and pressing public necessity.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is not the same motion at all, not the same substance.


Erik Nielsen: Why is there not that same denial forthcoming from the other side today? The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that the substance of that

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution
motion is not the same as the one now before us, but let me continue because that was not the only motion moved last Tuesday. As recorded at the same page of Hansard, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) moved the following motion:
(a) That this House approve immediate federal action to help clean up and protect the affected area; (b) to provide that no economic loss be suffered by the people of that area; and (c) that what has happened be drawn forcefully to the attention of the government of the United States as constituting a small sample of the inevitable ecological dangers and disasters that will follow the transportation of oil by tanker along our western coast.
Again, when unanimous consent was requested by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to put the motion, Liberals members denied the unanimous consent that was necessary. We do not stop there, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday, June 7, a further motion was made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), who as reported at page 2924 of Hansard moved:
That a message be sent to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence requesting it to proceed forthwith to the west coast to carry out an investigation of the oil spill at Cherry Point and to report back to the House.
Again the same thing: the motion was not urgent and it was not of pressing public necessity at that time, at least to the Liberals.


Mr. Peters:: There is another one just above that.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; it has been drawn to my attention that there is another motion, again moved by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, to the following effect:
That this House invite the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Rogers Morton and the director of the U.S. National Environmental Control Program, Mr. William Richelshaus, to visit the afflicted area and to see, at first hand, a small sample of the inevitable desecration of the west coast which will result from the proposed shipment of Alaska oil by tankers to Cherry Point.
I have referred to four motions made on two successive days which the Liberal government, including the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, did not consider urgent. Then suddenly they do consider the motion urgent today. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour sheds crocodile tears and hurls charges across the House of political partisanship entering into this debate. Of what use is rule 43? We on this side of the House are denied unanimous consent to use rule 43 to bring a matter such as this repeatedly to the attention of the government. Yet is it for lack of partisanship that the government permits the hon. member for Fraser Valley East to bring his motion today? Or is it because of some deal that exists between the government and B.C. members as a whole?
I suggest that, as it is, rule 43 has become a farce. It is absolutely useless. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East moves this innocuous motion, following upon the heels of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The hon. member moves:
That in the light of the damage in Canada and the UNited States arising from the recent oil spill at the Cherry Point refinery this House support the urgency of a reference to the International Joint Commission of the environmental consequences of the movement of oil in the narrow waters of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait, and Puget Sound both now and in the future and of the measures necessary to minimize the hazards, and 
requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to immediately convey the terms of this motion to the government of the United States.
All of this has been said in the four previous motions, if they are taken collectively. All these urgings have been made to the Secretary of State for Extenal Affairs by members of the opposition. Indeed, the very substance of the motion by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was contained in the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs made just a few minutes before the motion-yet hon. members on the other side speak about political partisanship!


Mitchell William Sharp: We want the support of the whole House to what I said.


Erik Nielsen: It is sheer hypocrisy, and the minister knows that what happened today has reduced the proceedings of this House to a mere sham, a mere mockery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is why I say this is a government in disarray. If the truth were known, the government House leader had his own cleverness backfire on him. Obviously, there is not going to be a motion under Standing Order 43 accepted in this House unless the government House leader gives the green light, and no one is going to deny the probability or inevitability of such a motion being agreed to by the government before it is even put. The minister outsmarted himself, because he did not figure the Social Credit party would react in the way it did, by attempting to get us back to orders of the day. This government, in order to be consistent, had to vote against that motion though it dearly would have loved to get back to orders. The government found itself in a box.


Mitchell William Sharp: So did you.


Erik Nielsen: At least we were consistent: we voted for the urgency of the subject matter of the debate, just as the government did and, incidentally, just as the Social Credit party did. For them to move a motion that would get back to orders of the day after having agreed with the urgency of the debate was just as inconsistent as what the government did. The government has embarrassed itself: it was caught up in its own cleverness in its attempt to manoeuvre and use this House for its own political purposes. That is exactly what it was doing because its B.C. members were on the hook. The government is making a caricature of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, they laugh; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) laughs at this.


Mr. Hogarth:: Coming from you, I laugh at it.


Erik Nielsen: Let the hon. member laugh at this. Here we have a government that says it is doing everything possible about the oil spill on the west coast. It says it is being vigorous in making representations to the United States, yet one of its own B.C. members, the hon. member for
June 8, 1972

Fraser Valley East, found it necessary to move a motion urging the government to do more.


Mitchell William Sharp: To get the support of the House of Commons.


Erik Nielsen: This was a piece of staged showmanship because the B.C. members were in trouble. The whole thing was set up to give them some favourable publicity in a province where their fortunes are going down rather rapidly.


Mr. Basford:: Why don't you have a B.C. member speak on the matter? I suggest it is because you do not have any.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Wait until after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I want to tell hon. members opposite, in the event they have forgotten their geography, that I come from the most westerly city in Canada, so I have an interest in this too. I consider this matter serious. I have spoken many times before about the seriousness of these spills and of having a tanker route down the west coast, as has our leader.
Because there is no real substance in the motion that has been proposed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the following amendment to the motion:
That this motion be amended by adding at the end thereof:
"and that the International Joint Commission have a mandate to utilize and requisition such financial and other resources of Canada and the United States as will best and soonest restore the ecology and environment on the west coast to pre-spill conditions."
Perhaps the acceptance of that amendment will commend itself to all hon. members of this House, especially members from British Columbia and particularly the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, because it puts some teeth into what otherwise is a poor piece of cosmetic surgery in order to get them out of the political embarrassment they face in the province of British Columbia.
I condemn hon. members opposite for the shallow device used in an attempt to use this House for their own pure political advantage in coping with a situation for which they are being criticized for not doing enough. If the ministers responsible had a little backbone and did something about confronting the United States on this matter, we would be much happier.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I take it that I can speak on the motion and the amendment in the course of this debate. I will be very short in what I have to say because I recognize how deeply indebted we are to members of the Ralliement Creditiste-


An hon. Member:: You mean the Social Credit party.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I prefer the old name, because we have Social Crediters at home and I get along much better with them. We are indebted to them for the time provided to debate this subject today. In speaking on this matter I must confess that, like many other persons who do not
Oil Pollution
have a certain amount of expertise in this matter, it is not within my ken to judge or determine whether there should be a pipeline through the central part of Canada to remove Alaskan and northern oil or whether there should be a tanker route on the west coast. I can say, however, without doubt or qualification that to my mind a tanker route on the west coast which takes large vessels through the Juan de Fuca Strait will mean that a disaster will [DOT] occur somewhere along the route. I should like to emphasize that statement because some people on the North American continent will not accept the fact that a disaster will occur.
Recently we have witnessed the disaster of the Torrey Canyon in the English Channel and the Arrow in Cheda-bucto Bay, Nova Scotia. I assure the House that in terms of land value and value of the environment, those disasters are nothing compared to what will happen when one of these large tankers breaks up in Juan de Fuca Strait, or Georgia Strait in the vicinity of the lower mainland of British Columbia.
This and other governments have had many warnings and a great deal of time in which to take very firm action.
I should like to reiterate the many remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) about a situation so serious that he felt he had to go to Washington in an endeavour to prevent this sort of thing happening. I quite frankly admit that many members on the opposition side, members on this side from British Columbia, members of the cabinet and people from other parts of Canada have viewed this matter with great concern. I do not think it behooves anyone to suggest that anyone is taking political advantage by referring to the matter again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the personal attack made on the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) today. He has been accused of being a government dupe. He has even been accused of protecting his own property! There is not a person in this House of Commons who would ever question that hon. member's motives concerning anything in the course of his parliamentary duties.
I should like to point out to the member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), that if the hon. member should happen to own property in the United States in the vicinity of the Cherry Point oil refinery, there are also hundreds of Canadians who own property at Birch Bay, Point Robert, San Juan Island and Boundary Bay who would be affected by a disaster at Cherry Point. I say to those hon. members who suggest that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East moved a motion to protect his own property that there are many Canadians who have thousands of dollars invested in that area who wish to protect their investment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) is rising on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out to my hon. friend from New

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution
Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) that I did not raise the matter of the cottage of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle); the hon. member for Fraser Valley East raised it himself. I do not have the record before me, but I believe the hon. member suggested in his speech that he had a personal interest in this matter. I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that a number of Canadians with cottages on the United States side of the border certainly are concerned. Why should they not be concerned, as no doubt are many American cottage owners? The hon. member for Fraser Valley East is doubly concerned because he happens to be one of them.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I accept that, if it is a retraction of the inference left in this House that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was protecting his own property when he moved this motion. I should like to get off these silly and interpolitical things and say that what we are all concerned about is one of the most beautiful parts of Canada which will be destroyed unless firm action is taken.
The damage involved could be irreparable. I am fed up with the apparent influence which large United States oil companies appear to have on all governments concerned with this matter. I do not exclude the government with which we in this House are concerned; I refer to all governments. I am fed up with the obvious delay in doing something in respect of the matter of safety which is involved.
I think rather than refer this matter to the IJC, which of course is a good idea, in addition all tanker movement should be stopped, except those which are required for local purposes, until the appropriate governments have evolved the appropriate regulations and treaties and until the people of British Columbia can be assured that they will be fairly well protected from such a disaster. I say "fairly well protected" because they can never be completely protected.
All members from British Columbia are concerned: I include members of the opposition. All of us on this side are concerned. No one can take any great amount of credit, but I should like to point out that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich certainly deserves the most credit. All of us support him in everything he has done. I also support the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis).
The problem about being a backbencher is that one does not always have the whole picture before him or the big decisions to make. It is easy for members on the backbenches and in the opposition to make wild suggestions concerning what should be done, when we do not have the expertise to deal with these questions.
However, I am not saying that the government has gone far enough with regard to protecting the interests of the people of British Columbia. With the greatest respect for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Sharp) I remember how difficult it was some years ago in this House to get the government to do something about the Arctic. Had it not been for a group of us who constantly prodded the government, I do not think the Arctic pollution legislation would have been passed. Certainly that is a mark for this government in the field of pollution. It was a mark for the government to have passed the clean air

act and the Canada Water Act which we have in this country today. These are good steps, but I urge the government to go further than this motion contemplates. I cannot understand why the government could not take the firmest stand with the United States government in respect of this problem.
It is not good enough for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to discuss this matter with the President of the United States without immediate action flowing from that discussion in respect of the problem not only on the west coast but on the east coast. I am not suggesting that the government is not acting or will not act. I know the reference of the matter to the IJC will have some effect. However, while this reference is being held, while the endless diplomatic processes are going on, and while the IJC is considering the matter, what will happen if a disaster should take place? As much as we support this motion and the motive of the government, what answer will many of us have for the people of British Columbia if a disaster should take place in the interim?
It is my suggestion that the government should consider moving ahead with the American government with immediate, emergency legislation pertaining to the shipments and unloading of oil in the area. We are concerned about the Cherry Point disaster. In this way some assurance could be given that immediate and appropriate steps would be taken to prevent its recurrence.


An hon. Member:: Do you support the amendment?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I see nothing wrong with the amendment. I thank the House for its attention. I think we should get on with the motion right away and pass it.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion before the House dealing with the oil spill in British Columbia and the ecological damage which will arise from it. Before beginning the main portion of my comments I should like to record my opposition of the statement of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) who indicated that opposition members have been using this particular pollution problem in a political way. That statement does not represent the fact. I shall not outline the motions which have been moved every day this week because this was ably done by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who pointed out that the members of the various opposition parties in this House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) is rising on a point of order.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege simply to clarify what I said. I was referring to the preceding remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. Many sincere efforts are being made by opposition members in this area of pollution, and I acknowledge them.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member for Yukon had outlined the areas of concern which have been brought before this House by members of the opposition every day since this oil spill became apparent. It seems
June 8, 1972

rather odd to me that for three days prior to today the plea from members on this side of the House has been ignored by the government.


Erik Nielsen: And denied by the government.


Randolph Harding: Yes, and denied by the government. There are several points which I think we should discuss in this debate. I certainly welcome the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth). I agree with the majority of his remarks.
This is a serious problem and it is of grave concern to every resident of British Columbia. I think it is time we did some pretty plain speaking and some pretty plain questioning of the government as to their tactics in dealing with pollution problems.
One of the first points I raise is that of contingency plans. Almost two years ago we dealt both in committee and in the House with contingency measures for handling oil spills. What was the result? We were supposed to have these measures implemented and supplies made available in every part of Canada to handle an oil spill if it occurred. What has happened in the case of this rather minor oil spill which took place on the west coast but which has caused immense damage? Precious few contingency measures were taken. This is why we asked for an investigation by the committee on external affairs, because this is an international problem.
The motion I moved yesterday requested that the committee go out to the west coast to look into the problem and to find out what happened. Were we able to move contingency supplies into the area and contain the oil before damage was done to the beach? The answer is no. We have every right to ask the government what their contingency plans are and what they have done in this regard in other parts of Canada.
If we have to cope with a major oil spill in the Great Lakes-and we might have had one in respect of the ship that was wrecked in the St. Clair River-or if we had a major oil spill in the north, what will the government do? Are supplies available to handle such cases? Again, the answer is no. The job has not been done over the last year and a half to adequately carry out the measures needed to implement our contingency plans. We have every right to question the government on this and other matters.
There is another point which I wish to bring to the attention of the House. I revert to the oil problem. Sometimes one wonders to what extent politics are involved in pollution legislation put before the House. Over two years ago we passed the Arctic pollution bill. We have set a 100-mile radius in the Arctic to keep ships from the area and to protect the delicate Arctic ecology from pollution. But that act has not yet been proclaimed although more than two years have elapsed since it was passed by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Randolph Harding: I say that this is a phony issue which the government is always dragging out before the public. Not only has the bill not been proclaimed, but regulations have not yet been drafted. This government, the cabinet
Oil Pollution
members and the party in power in Canada today has been using this issue to say to the people, "Look what we did in the Arctic". Legislation is sitting on the statute books of Canada, legislation which has not even been proclaimed, and the government wonders why people interested in ecological problems are angry with their performance.
We also have the inland waters act respecting the north. Although it has been proclaimed, regulations have not been brought down. Therefore it is useless. We passed this act over two years ago, but the legislation is useless without regulations. If we examine the list of legislation which deals with pollution problems in this nation, we find that the government has only been playing around with it. In effect, it has been misleading the Canadian public. Frankly, we are fed up with this approach to the problem.
There is another matter that I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members. We fought for it in committee and we have raised it in the House. Under the Arctic Waters Prevention Pollution Act we have set a 100-mile radius of protection. There is nothing wrong with it; I endorse it. But why do we not have the courage to set a 100-mile pollution control zone on the east and west coasts of Canada? We have been urging the government to set up such a zone. This does not mean that we will have complete control in the zone, but we will have the right to control shipping there.
Just a few weeks ago we had a serious wreck on the southeastern coast of Vancouver Island. A ship with a Japanese cargo thought it was 70 miles to the south: it was wrecked and as a result we had another oil spill. The ship came in without radar and without proper compasses. We should have an opportunity to check these ships sailing under flags of convenience. These ships are in the registry of a foreign country and are often inadequately built and equipped with inadequate instruments. They are certainly not safe for navigating on the west coast, down the Straits of Juan de Fuca and up the Strait of Georgia.
What is the government doing about this problem? There is every chance in the world of the TAPS pipeline coming from Prudhoe Bay to the west coast. Perhaps we will see a million barrels of oil per day shipped down the coast. Much of it will travel up the Straits of Juan de Fuca, one of the most dangerous straits in the world for ships. We will not see a small oil spill of a 1,000 gallons or so, because there is danger of tankers coming in there with 100,000 tons of oil. If there is one calamity, one wreck, immense damage will result from one end of the B.C. coast to the other.
What has this government done? We have made some amendments to the shipping act, and we have set up a fund. We will charge so much per ton of oil coming into our refineries and our ports until the fund is built up to a certain level. Recently, demands have been made by Nova Scotian oil companies that the rate of 15 cents per ton be reduced because they cannot handle it. I understand that the government is making some adjustment in this regard. The people of this nation have a right to demand protection of our shores from oil spillage. It is amazing to me that with all these dangers facing us, so little has been done.

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution
I should like to get back to the matter of the oil tanker route on the west coast, the problem which we are discussing now. For a year and a half our committee has been trying to obtain permission from the government to visit the west coast to look into this problem. The chairman of the committee was the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) who was recently elected leader of the provincial Liberal party in British Columbia. He moved a motion in this House. Some of the members of the cabinet disliked the manner in which it was raised, so the committee was denied the right to travel and investigate.
We tried to get a similar motion through the national resources committee, but it went the same way. Members of the cabinet collectively were not interested in having a committee of the House of Commons conduct a thorough investigation of the oil tanker route along the west coast. No one held up this motion except the cabinet ministers who are sitting in the chamber right now. We have every right to condemn them for the action they took last year.
I endorse the motion that is before the House, Mr. Speaker. I will be happy to see it forwarded to the International Joint Commission and I hope some action will result from it. However, just last week in answer to a question which I posed in the House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) indicated that a letter he had written to his counterpart in the United States, suggesting joint action by the IJC on the west coast of Canada, had not been answered. I certainly hope we have more luck with this motion.


Mr.   Bastard@: Let's pass it, then.


Randolph Harding: There are several other points I would like to make before I sit down. However, I know that a number of hon. members wish to take part in this debate. I believe that major changes must be made in our shipping act if we are to bring about the type of controls that I am sure most members of the House want. We should bar from Canadian ports any ships which cannot meet the standards on which we as Canadians insist, particularly if those ships are to travel waterways such as the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Straits of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia. If we do not do this, Canadians will be the losers in the long run. We will lose because of the immense ecological damage which is bound to be done to our coasts, to our fisheries, to our tourist industry and to the living which people enjoy in the coastal areas.
It is not as if these things had not been brought to the attention of the government. Here I wish to quote from a brief which was presented to the government and, I believe, to most members of this House in May, 1971, by the Canadian Scientific Society for Pollution and Environmental Control in British Columbia, which organization we call SPEC. Some interesting points are made in the brief. It deals with the size of tankers, and says:
The size of the tankers involved in this oil movement means that any mishap or spillage will be a catastrophe. A tanker such as the Universe Ireland-not necessarily the largest to be used-carries 300,000 tons. If this were spilled and washed up on shore it would make a blanket one inch thick, 30 feet wide and 3,000 miles long.

This is the problem that we are worried about in British Columbia. With just one major mishap in 25 or 30 years there would be a catastrophe so far as the entire coastline is concerned. This is why we are pressing this issue and urging that every pressure be put on the United States to stop the shipment of oil through the Straits of Jaun de Fuca. I quote further from the brief as follows:
In an affidavit prepared in March, 1970, Mr. J. T. Galvin, coauthor of the well known book on Pacific marine life, "Between Pacific Tides," said this about the effects of a spill from this tanker traffic:
"The effect of the oil spills which must be expected as a result of the proposed pipeline tanker operation will be grim. Oil spilled at Prince William Sound or at sea in that area will be carried down the coast by the Japanese Current, perhaps having its major effect in the first thousand miles, but certainly making a major contribution to the fouling of the shoreline all the way to Point Conception in California, where the Japanese Current swings seaward away from the coast.
"Not only will the oil move down the coast with the ocean current, but it will be carried by the flowing and ebbing tides into every bay, inlet and salt lagoon. And in the cold waters of the North Pacific oil degrades very slowly. In short, the effect of the inevitable spills will be catastrophic and irreversible.
This organization, SPEC, made a number of recommendations. However, it seems to me that the government has totally ignored this top-notch environmental organization which has done so much work in this field. For that reason I think the government should be condemned. I quote again from the brief:
Because of our great concern for the damage to our environment which is sure to result from present plans for increased tanker traffic along the west coast of Canada, and the various proposals for pipe lines in the Arctic, we urge:
1. The Canadian government holds hearings in western Canada
regarding the proposed tanker/pipeline movement of oil, so that
Canadians in the area most directly affected will be able to
make their views known to the government.
That recommendation was ignored last year. I have already indicated the trouble we had in trying to get a committee out to the west coast. Yesterday I moved a motion asking that the external affairs committee go out to investigate the present Cherry Point oil spill. That motion was turned down. SPEC also recommended as follows:
That a joint Canadian/United States committee be appointed to hold hearings and to report to our governments on the many aspects of transporting oil from the Arctic which are still matters of controversy. The committee should have at least five members from each of our countries, and these five would include an economist, an engineer, a lawyer and a representative of a conser-vation/anti-pollution group.
We believe that most of the decisions concerning the Trans-Alaska pipeline were made in haste, or from a narrow point of view. They have not properly considered long-term effects on economics, petroleum usage and markets, or environmental damage, and we fear that these long-term decisions are being made in haste, under both political and economic pressure.
We suggest that a committee embracing both Canadians and Americans be appointed to hold public hearings, to publish their recommendations, and to open to public debate and consideration the many aspects of the development of the northern petroleum resources. This committee should also have conducted a thorough study of the ecological effects of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route.
June 8, 1972

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to talk about, so many problems to deal with as far as an oil tanker route along the west coast of Canada is concerned, that late as it is I think the government would be wise to move now for some type of public hearing and try to gather information. If we cannot stop the building of the TAPS pipeline and the tanker route down the west coast, then at least we should know what we are up against should an oil spill occur. At least let us ensure that contingency measures are available to handle all oil spills, large and small.
It is with this in mind that I urge the government not to wait any longer, to move now. We have had one small spill from this refinery. One only has to examine the reports of oil spills which occur when tankers are loading and unloading at any port in the world to find that the spillage of oil is a great hazard. There is no doubt that when tankers start unloading at Cherry Point we shall see a large number of oil spills, and the current flowing north will sweep it up the British Columbia coast and do irreparable harm to the ecology and the beaches there.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I trust we will not leave it to the International Joint Commission to do all the investigating. Let an all-party group conduct hearings and bring in recommendations to this government which I hope will be accepted.
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President oi the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I must say I have found the afternoon quite interesting.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should think you would.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is nothing more revealing than to observe the House of Commons when it is not moving in its normal measured way and when there is the interposition of a motion or an activity that will derange the normal business of the House.


David Lewis: You mean, when we have important matters to discuss?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have had an example in the very important motion put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Rose), who deserves to be congratulated for taking the initiative in bringing this motion before the House.


David Lewis: At least you have the decency to smile.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In addition, he is to be congratulated for gaining unanimity in the House for having the motion put, and in the debate for securing unanimous support for the motion from every member who spoke. That is a rather important achievement.


Randolph Harding: We have been trying to get it all week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is not the first motion of this type that has been put in this session. Just the other day we carried a motion, without debate, put under the Standing Order by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); and earlier we carried, without, debate a motion put by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Earlier still I believe we had a debate on a motion put under the Standing Order by the Leader of the Opposition
Oil Pollution
(Mr. Stanfield) on, if I recollect, the subject of Biafra. So this is not a totally novel procedure, Mr. Speaker.
It makes matters difficult for all parties, however, when a motion is put quickly and we are launched on a course which was not anticipated when the House opened. Since that time, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has offered an amendment to the motion which introduces some new material and deserves consideration. Earlier today the House defeated a motion to proceed to orders of the day. I am not reflecting on the vote in any way except to indicate that if that motion had been accepted it would have supplanted totally the motion before the House and the House would not have had an opportunity to continue the debate and, more important, it would not have had an opportunity today or later to come to a conclusion on the subject matter itself. For that reason, it was not possible to support the motion.
In view of the fact that we have had a very extensive discussion this afternoon-quite a number of hon. members from British Columbia have spoken, some on this side of the House and several on the other side-not much difference of opinion has been exhibited with respect to the motion itself, so that the debate accomplished the purpose of focusing the support of the House on the motion. For that reason I believe it might be possible now to feel that we have accomplished the main purpose that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East had in mind, and draw the debate to a conclusion.
I realize that other hon. members, including the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) might wish to add comments, but with all due respect I believe the subject has been fully and ably covered by those hon. members who have spoken. Probably it would be wise at this point for the House to return-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister will realize that I am asking him this question before he makes a motion that might not be debatable. Has he given consideration to the fact that if this debate were now terminated, it would mean that the Social Credit party would be cut off with only about two hours available of what should have been a full day's debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that, and I would co-operate in any way with every other hon. member of the House to provide additional time either today or on another day so that the Social Credit party would have the full benefit of the period that would normally be allocated to them. I take that into account in considering bringing the debate to a close, fully aware of the importance which the Social Credit party has attached to their debate today and their wish to have full play. Certainly the government will co-operate either today or on another day to give them additional time if indeed we get to their motion today.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Sharp, that the debate be adjourned.

June 8, 1972
Oil Pollution


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is rising on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of privilege before the minister introduces a non-debatable motion.
In introducing that motion, the minister is restricting the debate of the Social Credit party without giving the guarantee that it will be a normal day. I therefore wish to protest and point out that in my opinion it is not only an interference with my personal privileges but with those of all other members of our party.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to raise a question of privilege.
I should like to remind the hon. minister that we just voted to debate the problem of pollution and that so far no member of our group has had the opportunity of stating his views. The minister seems to be under the impression that all parties have been heard on pollution and since he is so eager for it to be discussed we also should like to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) rising to ask a question of the minister?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen)? Before he puts any motion he may have in mind for adjourning the debate, is he prepared to give the House an assurance as to when this question will be brought on again and allowed to proceed to conclusion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), may I say that I would undertake to discuss with the other House leaders the question of how we can bring this matter forward at another time. I would undertake to do that and hope we can reach some satisfactory conclusion. I think we can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about Saturday?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Privy Council prepared to assure the House that the matter will be brought forward on Monday, in view of its urgency?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had not realized that the minister had put the motion. I received it at the table. If the motion has been moved-


David Lewis: No, it has not been moved, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect, Your Honour recognized the hon. member of the Social Credit party before the minister had finished reading the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member on a question of privilege. I was speaking in French; perhaps the hon. member did not hear me.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? Would the minister mind explaining to the House why, since the subject in question is now before the House and other members wish to speak on it, and since no assurances on his part can possibly give the Social Credit party a full, continuous day in which to exercise the privilege that is theirs as a party in this House, he seeks to adjourn the debate? Despite any assurances he may give, he knows perfectly well that a full day cannot be given to that party. If they are given two hours today and a couple of hours some other day, that is not the same as being given a full day when all their members can take part in the debate and when others are present to hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: In view of these facts, and since it is now 5.15 p.m., why cannot the minister be gracious enough.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I finish my question to the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering on what ground the hon. member may have the floor at this time. He said he would ask a question, but the minister has the floor.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member is asking a question. He has been speaking for three or four minutes and what he has said does not sound like a question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I had taken three or four minutes. I tried to make my point. Would the minister explain to the House why he wants to apply something or other-a motion to adjourn the debate, the axe, or whatever it may be-at this time, instead of allowing the debate to continue to conclusion so that we can vote on the motion tonight and adopt it unanimously.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained why I am putting the motion. I remind my hon. friend that we probably would have adopted the motion instantly if he had not insisted on a debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Of course I insisted on a debate. There ought to be a full debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that this is really debate. The motion has been proposed by the minister and I must put it to the House. Hon. members may consider the matter again after this motion has been decided on. Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Sharp, moves:
That this debate be now adjourned.
June 8, 1972

Division
The House divided on the motion (Mr. MacEachen) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 27)
YEAS Messrs:
Andras
Barrett
Basford
Rechard
Beer
Blair
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Chretien
Clermont
Cobbe
Corriveau
C6te (Longueuil)
Cullen
Cyr
Danson
Deachman
Deakon
De Band
Drury
Dubd
Forget
Foster
Francis
Gillespie
Goyer
Gray
Guay (St. Boniface)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Hogarth
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Hymmen Jamieson Kaplan Laflamme Laing
(Vancouver South) Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
Mahoney
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo) Morison Munro Murphy O'Connell Orange Osier Pelletier Penner Pepin Perrault Portelance Pringle Richard Richardson Roberts Robinson Rochon Roy (Laval)
Sharp
Smerchanski
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) Trudeau Trudel
Turner (London East)
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whiting
Yanakis-85.
Messrs:
Howe
Knight
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) Lewis
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
McCleave
McKinley
McQuaid
Mather
Mazankowski
Moore
Muir
Nesbitt
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Paproski
Peters
Ricard
Ritchie
Rose
Schumacher
Scott
Skoberg
Skoreyko
Southam
Stanfield
Thomas (Moncton) Winch
Woolliams-49.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


M. Ervin Pringle: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I want to record why, as the mover of the original motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. member that it is not a question of privilege to rise to explain how a member has voted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin).


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we did not
vote because we were compelled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

++NAYS
Messrs:
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Alexander
Bell
Benjamin
Bigg
Blackburn
Broadbent
Burton
Cadieu
Coates
Danforth
Dinsdale
Flemming
Gilbert
Gleave
Grills
Hales
Harding
Homer


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be

June 8, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe)-St. Lawrence Seaway-Reimbursement of debt; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Immigration-Suicide of Alicia Wiercioch-Request for Investigation; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-Pensions-Old Age Security-Alleged intention of Quebec government to profit by part of recent increase-Request for statement from minister.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights of all members of the House and involves the responsibilities of the government to this House in relation to the spending of money. I raise this question of privilege at the first opportunity, this matter just having come to my attention this afternoon as a result of a press report in an Ottawa paper, and I have given Your Honour the one hour prescribed notice that I intended to raise this question of privilege.
The basis for my question of privilege first of all rests on the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act, section 5, which prescribes the types of development incentive grants that may be paid to industries or to firms which apply for such a grant. Section 5 (2) reads:
The amount of a secondary development incentive shall be based on the approved capital costs of establishing or expanding the facility in respect of which the secondary development incentive is authorized and on the number of jobs created directly in the operation and shall not exceed
(a)	5 per cent of those approved capital costs, plus
(b)	$5,000 for each job determined by the minister to have been
created directly in the operation.
There are other provisions in that section but this is the relevant one. That was amended later by Bill C-205, in the session of 1970-71, when provision was made for another type of special development incentive grant that also included a provision for a grant of $2,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member should indicate as quickly as possible what the question of privilege is. I suggest that the hon. member cannot take the time of the House to make a long speech. He has to indicate as quickly as possible what the question of privilege might be, and the Chair will indicate whether in its view there is a prima facie case. The hon. member cannot, under the guise of an alleged question of privilege, make a lengthy presentation.


John Stratford Burton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to establish the statutory basis upon which I raise this matter. The cause of the question of privilege was an announcement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on June 6 of some regional development incentives grants in the province of Quebec, and the one in particular to which I wish to make reference involves the

Maniwaki Forest Products Limited of Montreal which has accepted an offer of approximately $181,000 for a new veneer facility at Maniwaki. The project is expected to create an estimated 74 jobs, and the incentive grant is in the range of 15 per cent of the approved capital cost estimated at $472,000 plus $1,500 for each job created. That is the information which was provided to members. This information also has to be provided to members in regular reports under the provisions of section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act which specifies that there shall be a monthly report on the operations of that act.
In the Ottawa Journal of today's date, it was reported that the Maniwaki mayor welcomed the announcement of this grant, but then it was also reported that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that so far as I can gather, up until this moment there has been nothing that has even remotely resembled a question of privilege. The hon. member should indicate clearly how he feels that the privileges of the House have been abused. He should know, as we all do, that a dispute as to facts or the failure of the minister to give information or the allegation that information given by the minister is incorrect has nothing to do with privilege and cannot be raised by way of a question of privilege. Until now, this is all the hon. member has indicated. He should try as quickly as possible to indicate what the question of privilege is.


John Stratford Burton: I was just at the point of pointing out that the plant manager stated that the number of employees would not be increased. This statement indicates a direct contravention of the legislation which has been passed by the House and would result in a misuse of public funds. Also, false information has been provided to members of the House, information which it is required should be placed before the House under the terms of section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act. The plant manager in this case is quoted as saying:
We'll replace our outdated machinery and we'll still operate on a one shift basis with our 74 employees.
There is no increase in the number of jobs created. This is not in accordance with the minister's statement, on the basis on which he is expected to report to the House, so a contravention of the legislation involving an expenditure of public funds has been revealed, and he is guilty of false reporting on this matter in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that there should not be a debate on this question. This is clearly not a question of privilege; it is a dispute as to facts. I indicated a moment ago why a grievance of this kind cannot be considered by the House under the guise of a question of privilege. The hon. member may have a grievance; he may be right in his contention, but certainly a debate, if there were going to be one on the hon. member's representation or grievance, should not be entered upon in the House by way of a question of privilege.
June 8, 1972



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the course which this afternoon's proceedings took, and in fairness to the members of the Social Credit Party who have given notice today that they would like to debate a question pursuant to Standing Order 58, I wonder if the House would be agreeable to extending the time of sitting today so that they would have full opportunity to debate the question which obviously was of primary interest to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In other words, I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the House would be agreeable, by unanimous consent, to extending the time for today's sitting beyond the ordinary time of adjournment so as to permit those hon. gentlemen a maximum of four hours' debate on their motion. In that way they would be able to air the question which they gave notice of last night.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, despite what the minister has said I would like to point out that this matter of opposition days is decided. In this case, however, the government introduced a motion-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They certainly did.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, a statement was made in the House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) concerning a matter of importance. This was followed by a motion from a government member to discuss that matter of immediate importance, and it has now been discussed. The government made a decision as to the disposition of that motion when it made a motion to adjourn the debate. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this obviously is a government day, and not an opposition member's day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rise on a point of order, but what we have before us at the present time is a request for an order of the House to be made by unanimous consent. If there is not unanimous consent, then we would not proceed further with the matter. Other hon. members may want to express their views in relation to the point raised by the minister, but I do not think we should debate the matter. I believe there should be an indication of whether there is going to be unanimous consent or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the request for this is made under Standing Order 43?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Obviously not. On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should have known that this is the customary request by
Business of the House
the acting House leader on a procedural basis. If some hon. members are not prepared to extend to hon. members in the Social Credit Party the courtesy of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, we are not going to proceed very far on the basis of unanimity, and so I wonder if we might not proceed on motions, which is the item before the House now.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fully appreciate Your Honour's desire that we go on with the business of the House, but I do not think we can afford, nor is it proper or fair to let the minister get away with a canard, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: It is, Mr. Speaker, the cheap trickery of the Liberal government,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: -and not of anybody on the opposition side-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Lewis: It is the fault of the government, not of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Can we have order in the House? I wonder if I might not try to inquire if there is unanimous consent.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, as to the proposal made by the minister who was speaking on behalf of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen), I should like to say that we are sorry about the present situation in the House. Before the House disposes of this motion, hon. members on both sides should certainly stop politicizing on the backs of the members of this party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that again we are not making much progress. It would be much simpler for hon. members to indicate clearly whether there is unanimous consent; otherwise, we shall proceed with motions.


André-Gilles Fortin: This is exactly what I was about to suggest, Mr. Speaker. In a word, this is the situation: A government member has moved a motion under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
I must ask if there is unanimous consent; if not, we will go on to motions. I do not think there is any point in a debate as proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.

June 8, 1972
Business of the House


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to say that we agree to the five-hour debate suggestion as provided for in the Standing Orders. Such is our position, a fairly simple one. It was agreed to three times by the representatives of these parties and each time we have been had.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter is getting slightly more complicated from moment to moment. Already 20 minutes have gone by since we resumed our work, and we still have not agreed on anything. My understanding is that the suggestion was made that the House pursue its sitting after the hour of adjournment for an undetermined period of time. The hon. member for Lotbiniere suggests that there would be-I apologize to the House. I am now told that five hours have been suggested by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please! That is the suggestion on which the Chair has to inquire whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult for the Chair to determine this. I am not sure whether I heard any no's. I will ask again, and I wish if anyone has a nay that he make it clear enough.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. That is clear enough.


Mr. Speaker:: That clarifies the matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have checked and I find that at this moment there is a committee of the House sitting, the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. I think it is very improper that while the question period, a very important procedure of ours, is continuing a committee of the House should be sitting. I think this makes a further sham of this Parliament. They should be instructed forthwith to cease their sitting until the orders of the day are called in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Motions.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing

Order 43 to make the following motion seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to inquire into the allegation by Mr. Harold Buchwald, Chairman of the federally-appointed Canadian Consumer Council, that the government's decision to revise its proposed competition bill was an act of political expediency and that the government's decision was a result of an unbalanced dialogue since only two or three out of a total of 300 briefs represented consumer interests.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsay is put to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ALLEGED NEED FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF CANDU PROGRAM AND SHORTAGE OF HEAVY WATER-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following motion under Standing Order 43 seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works, be requested to give immediate attention to the many problems associated with the CANDU program of AECL and in particular those associated with the proposed partial shut-down of the Douglas Point Power Station, the start-up of the Pickering Three Power Station and the problems involved in the shortage of heavy water and that the committee report back to this House at the earliest possible date.


An hon. Member:: Oh-ho-heavy water!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May we have order please. This motion which is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.
June 8, 1972



AGRICULTURE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a question of an urgent nature. Considering the thousands of agricultural auction sales held every week in Canada, especially in Quebec, which means that Canada will soon become an importer of foodstuffs, while up to now it had been an agricultural producing country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That an order of the House be issued instructing the Committee on Agriculture to consider the matter of farm foodstuff supply, which is urgent for the economy of Canada and the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



POLLUTION


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion of pressing and urgent necessity under Standing Order 43 seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). At the Stockholm Environmental Conference, Canada's Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) said Canada is prepared to permit the occasional overflight of the Anglo-French supersonic aircraft for testing purposes.
Mr. Speaker, this House has had the assurance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will put the motion, we have to inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, a member usually has an opportunity to at least get into the motion itself. All I was doing was giving the reasons for the motion and I was right at the point of putting the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the precedents related to Standing Order 43 are clear. Hon. mem-
Business of the House
bers should not attempt and are not allowed to argue the motion which they propose. I would think that Standing Order 43 gives rise to enough difficulties at the present time. It will be recognized that on a number of occasions in the past I have indicated why I thought there was something wrong with the practice in which we had become involved. I am afraid that what is happening today indicates that the Chair was correct in its assessment of the situation.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


John Leroy Skoberg: A further question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It has always been my understanding that I had to lay the groundwork for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should resume his seat. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Lotbiniere.



INDUSTRY


André-Gilles Fortin: In view of the extremely difficult situation facing the footwear and textile industries in Canada which are unable to compete with massive imports, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That the problem of textile and footwear imports and their impact on our national industry, be referred forthwith to the standing committee of finance, trade and econdomic affairs, in order that efficient means could be devised to restore the competitive position of these Canadian industries and save the jobs they already provide to Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. It is moved under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


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



MEASURES TO COMBAT EFFECTS OF NON-MEDICAL USE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great use made today of Standing Order 43,1 would like to move a motion under that standing order on a pressing and urgent matter.

June 8, 1972
Business of the House
A review of present measures is urgently needed in order to fight the damages caused by the non-medical use of drugs, especially by college and university students. The use of barbiturates has tripled, as has that of hallucinatory drugs other than LSD, while it has more than doubled in the case of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 will remind the hon. member that he is clearly out of order when he tries to make a long speech in support of a motion under Standing Order 43. I suggest that even if hon. members are unhappy about the events of the day, they should still make an effort to respect the spirit of the rules of this House.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I always respect your suggestions, I will limit my explanations forthwith to the terms of Standing Order 43.1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House give immediate consideration to the problem of increase in drug abuse in order to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take the necessary steps, jointly with the provincial health ministers, to eliminate this plague.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put, as there is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like Mr. Speaker, to call through you, the attention of the House to the fact that systematic use is being made this afternoon of Standing Order 43 which provides that:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the moverand it ends as follows:
-be made by unanimous consent of the House-
I think this Standing Order has been abused and to this moment not one hon. member who has presented a motion under this rule has been able to prove its urgency. To prevent the House from wasting valuable time I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to explain this Standing Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie will appreciate, as I stated a moment ago, that on many occasions I have given my own interpretation of this Standing Order and I have never interpreted it as being a new application of Standing Order 26 which, as the House is aware, was changed in 1968. Besides, Order 43 which dates back to 1867, should allow hon. members to submit urgent motions without any previous notice as normally acquired.
It is only under such extreme circumstances that hon. members should resort to Standing Order 43. This is the way I have always interpreted it.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is happening here tonight is obvious and results from the government's own ineptness earlier in the day. Rather than prolonging the agony involved in these delays, may I suggest to the acting government House leader that, if he could guarantee the Social Credit party a full day's debate, we could get on with the business of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If he would do that, Sir, we could get on with the business of the day. It is very simple. If the government would simply admit that they goofed and give the House a guarantee, now, that the whole of Monday will be set aside for the motion of the Creditiste party, our difficulties will be solved and we will be able to get on with the business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I add further to the sadness of this day-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -by asking for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter which is urgent and pressing and which will help the government to be consistent. I therefore ask the unanimous consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House urges the government to pursue consistently its policy of purchasing railway cars for the transportation of wheat, thus relieving the railway companies of their legal responsibilities; by purchasing sufficient numbers of cars to transport cattle from Western Canada to eastern markets, as well as by purchasing sufficient numbers of refrigerator cars to handle potato movements from the Maritimes and snow from the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has very serious doubts about what is going on. There is, to my way of thinking, a rather unfortunate situation before us at the moment and I do not think that it should be allowed to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure if hon. members really want to present motions under Standing Order 43 all evening. I doubt if that is what hon. members want or if they want to place the House in that position. In any event, I am exercising all the patience at my command, because that is my duty and that is what hon. members expect of me.
June 8, 1972

Division


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: I will ask whether there is unanimous consent tor the motion proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I simply wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that I concur in what you have just said, in order to show the likely feelings of minorities which feel wronged.
Our order of business was disrupted not of our own free will but owing to circumstances on which 1 do not intend to dwell, as you are aware of them as well as I am. I wish that today's experience will be profitable for the future and that in other fields outside this House the minority rights will be respected in all parts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources rising on a point of order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to indicate that I respect the hon. member's right to put his motion. As I said, we are quite prepared to have him and his colleagues debate the matter. However, it is fair to remind him that he and his colleagues consented to the motion put by my colleague earlier today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is not helpful. That is debating, of course, the matter which was raised earlier and I have said that there should not be debate on this matter. We cannot go on eternally trying to assess blame for what has happened. I think we should try to continue with motions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if hon. members would be quiet. Surely, we have made enough noise today, and in that I include all of us. I would now ask for a little bit of sanity of prevail in this institution. Just because one mistake was made this afternoon, and I might say the mistake was made by the government and resulted from their trickery, that is no reason for hon. members tonight to attempt to move motion after motion on matters that are not urgent and not of immediate interest. I am making a special appeal through Your Honour. I agree with your words and sentiments. I make a special appeal to the House. Let us return to the course of sanity so that we may get on with our business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MOTION TO ADJOURN

William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the Chair and also the rights of Social Credit members which have not been protected in any other way, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather):
That this House do now adjourn.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Peters) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 28)
 YEAS Messrs:
Alexander	Lewis
Alkenbrack	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Bell	McCleave
Benjamin	McKinley
Bi'gg	McQuaid
Blackburn	Mather
Broadbent	Mazankowski
Burton	Moore
Cadieu	Muir
Coates	Nielsen
Dinsdale	Nowlan
Flemming	Nystrom
Gilbert	Paproski
Grills	Peters
Hales	Ricard
Harding	Ritchie
Homer	Rose
Knight	Schumacher
Knowles (Winnipeg	Scott
North Centre)	Skoberg
Knowles (Norfolk-	Skoreyko
Haldimand)	Southam
Lambert	Thomas (Moncton)
(Edmonton West)	Woolliams-45.
 NAYS Messrs:
Andras	Francis
Basford	Gillespie
Bechard	Goyer
Beer	Gray
Blair	Guay (St. Boniface)
Blouin	Guilbault
Boulanger	Haidasz
Buchanan	Hogarth
Caccia	Howard
Chretien	(Okanagan Boundary)
Clermont	Isabelle
Cobbe	Kaplan
Cullen	Laing
Deachman	(Vancouver South)
Deakon	La Salle
De Bane	Leblanc (Laurier)
Drury	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Dube	Lefebvre
Forget	Lessard
Foster	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Business of the House Messrs:

June 8, 1972
Loiselle	Richard
Macdonald (Rosedale)	Richardson
Mackasey	Roberts
Mahoney	Rochon
Major	Roy (Laval)
Marceau	Sharp
Marchand	Smerchanski
(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Stafford
Morison	Stanbury
Munro	Stewart
Murphy	(Okanagan-Kootena
O'Connell	Tnudel
Pelletier	Turner (London East)
Penner	Walker
Pepin	Watson
Perrault	Weatherhead
Portelance	Whiting
Pringle	Yanakis-71.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON STANDING ORDER 43

Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to debate the following problem: the necessity of depolluting the Standing Orders of the House, the ambiguity of which is detrimental to the smooth running of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, a stop must be put to the frustration of the freedom of representatives of the people through cumbersome and prejudicial procedures and regulations. Therefore, under Standing Order 43,1 move:
That a debate be held on Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has submitted his motion. He might want to let the Chair have a copy of it.
The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska. The motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion therefore cannot be put.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated that I sympathize with you for what has happened

today. I was glad that you mentioned in the House that Standing Order 43-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member to enable him to introduce a motion under Standing Order 43 and he should do so without making a speech.


Mr. Gauthier:: I merely wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that we were pleased to hear you say that such standing order has been in effect for 100 years. I wonder if it has always been used as today.
As you know, I have never introduced a motion under Standing Order 43, but just wait for the others. I have never proposed a motion under Standing Order 43, because I have always found it was ridiculous, but when ridicule defeats one, one uses the same weapons as other people.
That is why I ask, under Standing Order 43, unanimous consent of the House-and I trust it will be granted as it was to my liberal friends-to discuss a most pressing matter of interest to the users of the Canadian National, namely the recent increase of 40 per cent in the sleeper rates applied since June 1972. In view of the fact that services have been reduced considerably and have deteriorated over the last few years, I move-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must come to his motion, otherwise we will have to go on to another item.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House study the possibility of deferring to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the new increase of 40 per cent in sleeper and roomette accommodation on the Canadian National since June 1,1972.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the position taken by the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs and the correspondence between the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That an order be given to this House for that whole question to be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs so that it may be better understood and studied.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 8, 1972


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the motion cannot be put.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek unanimous consent to discuss the urgent matter of the relations between the province of Quebec and Ottawa.
For a few weeks, the federal administration has been under heavy attack throughout the province of Quebec.
First of all, there was the minister's tirade-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should get to the point. He seems to be launching into a speech, but he knows he cannot do so. Under the Standing Orders, he should explain the urgency of the motion he is submitting to the House.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, as clearly stated in Standing Order 43, an hon. member who moves a motion under that Standing Order must explain why it is urgent. I do not think that anyone can deny that this is an urgent matter, when it is a known fact that the very future of our country is at stake, and if we do not want, within a year or two, Canada to go back to square one-or nine as you wish-it is urgent to debate this matter today so that the atmosphere that now exists in Quebec, with all the controversies which involve our country's future itself, may not destroy Canada.	[DOT]
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue):
That this House be adjourned to discuss the pressing matter of relations between Quebec and Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's motion is out of order. Such motion should usually be introduced under Standing Order 26. The hon. member calls for the adjournment of the House, and he cannot do so under Standing Order 43. Therefore, his motion cannot be put.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Again, Sir, we are being treated to the same kind of asinine behaviour that is a complete waste of the time of the House. I again appeal to the acting House leader, who is at the moment speaking on behalf of the government, to bring some order and sanity back to these proceedings. The only way he can do it, I suggest to him in the name of sweet reason, is to assure the Social Credit party that they will get the full day's debate that they were hampered from having today.
Surely, we are entitled, not only in this country but in this House, to a modicum of leadership from the government and from the Acting House Leader in breaking this deadlock and getting down to the business of the country.
Ontario-Quebec Relations


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member what he obviously does not know: unless orders of the day are reached today, then by the operation of the rules hon. members will have an allotted day at some future date. I should also point out that if hon. members are interested in having a sensible question period, we could go ahead and have it. But if they are not interested in having that, I suppose they will continue with this charade of moving motions under Standing Order 43.


Erik Nielsen: On that point, Sir, the acting government House leader knows, as do all other hon. members, that the assurance that the Social Credit party is seeking and that other parties on this side of the House are seeking is that it will not be an opposition day that is usurped in order to come back to the motion by the Social Credit party. This is the undertaking we are seeking from the government. Surely this is not without reason.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that representatives of the government can take away opposition days that are assured by the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, having sat in this Chamber for the last few hours, I completely agree with the acting House leader that the present charade involves us all in the House of Commons. But I come back to a ruling made by Your Honour earlier today. While the rule may be 105 years old, I do not believe that in 105 years of parliamentary democracy of the British institution-or Anglo-Saxon institution, to get the two languages involved-there has been either an interpretation or an implementation of a ruling by the Chair which has brought the House into such utter confusion.
Frankly, I completely agree with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that unless the acting House leader can assure us that the Creditistes will have their opposition day, then I suppose we will have to sit out the next 20 minutes. But so far as I am concerned, after sitting here for the last three four or five hours of complete insanity, I don't see why we cannot call it ten o'clock and start fresh tomorrow.
I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been suggested that we call it ten o'clock. Is it agreed that the Chair shall call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not agreement.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are some important questions that were supposed to be asked today and we are not going to have a chance to ask them. What has happened today has brought up something that has concerned many of us for quite an extended period of time. This is the fact that hon. members who belong to the Creditiste party are situated to the left of the Speaker in the far end of the chamber. I think normal tradition was that the opposition were seated immediately to Mr. Speaker's left, and others who formed
2984

June 8, 1972
Ontario-Quebec Relations
the government majority were seated in the far end of the chamber. But this government, due to its feeling of power over and control of the people of this nation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Elgin McKinley: -have decided that those hon. members should be seated there. I think it is time this should be changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I appeal to hon. members to accept the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley that we call it ten o'clock.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the very serious nature of the situation and the dilemma in which we find ourselves, I would like to say that it is not happily that we are fighting in order to obtain respect for the rights of the minorities in the House. But we would like to have it clearly stated that, first of all, our Standing Orders give us the right to one opposition day; secondly, that this right has today been trampled underfoot by persons who have abused a provision of the Standing Orders which is ridiculous, and the first victims of such a situation are my colleagues and myself.
Mr. Speaker, we have listened to hon. members opposite all day long and I hope now that they will be kind enough to listen to us.
Finally, I should like to say that all afternoon, as leader of the House for my party, I have attempted without result to hold talks with representatives of all other parties in order that this right be respected and that we get down to serious business. I have even put a motion to this effect.
Three times, they have come to us in order to reach an agreement and three times, we have been misled. In fact, we, have been masterfully taken in by people who are more concerned with playing politics than carrying out the business of this House. The net result, Mr. Speaker, is that you have had your fill-with all due respect-and so have we. The only thing we want is the formal recognition that our party is on an equal footing with the others, and therefore entitled to an opposition day just like the other parties. When some day the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals understand this, there will be order in the House, but not before.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I suggest we might call it ten o'clock but the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) rises on a point of order.


David Lewis: I do, Mr. Speaker, on another subject and I do it on a point of order with apologies to you, Sir,

because we may not reach the question period. It is obvious that the motion that was moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) is of great importance to Canada and of great concern to this Parliament. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I should like, through you, to ask the Acting House Leader whether he would guarantee that that motion would be brought forward tomorrow for a continuance of the debate which was adjourned earlier-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Hold it a minute-just wait a minute-for the continuance of the debate which was adjourned today if our party were-and in its name I offer-to give up tomorrow, our opposition day, for the purpose of continuing that debate, understanding full well that if we do that we will lose one of our opposition days. I should like to ask the Acting House Leader, if I do that on behalf of our party, if he will guarantee to bring forward the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East tomorrow so that the debate may be completed and the motion voted on by the members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the hon. member's proposal, it is that the motion put in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Pringle) would become the subject matter, if the hon. member likes, of tomorrow's allotted day which was to be in the name of the hon. gentleman's party. In that case, if the House could perhaps recognize that the subject matter of the motion would be changed from the one he has given notice of to that of the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister obviously did not understand me, though I thought I made myself clear. It is my understanding that when a debate is adjourned the matter becomes a government order. What I am proposing is that we will give up our opposition day, not only give up tomorrow but give up one of our opposition days so that we are left with one rather than two, if the minister will agree that he, as Acting government House Leader, will bring forward that motion which is now a government order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the House is prepared to make an order this evening to reduce the number of outstanding allotted days by one, as the hon. member has suggested, that is for the balance of this part of the session, I will be quite agreeable to bringing forward the order standing in the name of my friend from Fraser Valley. If we are in agreement on the reduction of the number of allotted days by one in this case, I will be quite agreeable to calling that as the first order of business under government orders tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: That is twisted.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that was clearly what I suggested, though I did not put it quite the way the minister does because if that debate ends at two o'clock or three o'clock tomorrow, then it is possible to spend an hour or two on the motion that we now have on the order paper. I am,
June 8, 1972

and my colleagues are, anxious to have that matter debated rather than adjourned until next week. If the greed of the Acting House Leader is such that he will not agree unless we now make an order that we lose the entire day, then he can have it and I hope he gets indigestion as a result of his greed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member has such a charming manner.


David Lewis: I find it very hard to match yours.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree to that rather magnanimous offer of the New Democratic Party. We would, of course, have done the same thing had we not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: We do so on the understanding that it will not only be the motion that is now standing as a government order that will be debated tomorrow, but as well the amendment that was proposed from this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, tTranslation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the proposal made by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) and we respect it, but we would like to have the same opportunity to dispose as we wish of our opposition days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe there is obvious unanimity on this point. The understanding is that the motion which presently stands in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), and of course the amendment thereto which by the Standing Orders will tomorrow become government orders, would be the first order of business. It is also understood that if this matter is disposed of before the end of the day, the next order of business would be the motion which now stands in the name of one of the representatives of the New Democratic Party. Is this understood and agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, as the hon. Acting Government House Leader says, this would be deemed to be the supply day assigned to the New Democratic Party.


David Lewis: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


David Lewis: Perhaps we might call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette rises on a question of privilege.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Ontario-Quebec Relations


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a question of privilege.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to ask you if this change requires the unanimous consent of the House and then, with your permission, I shall explain why I rise on a question of privilege. First, I would like to know if this change requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the changes suggested can only be brought in with hon. members' consent since the measure which would be studied tomorrow has already been announced and is on the order paper. It is only by agreement between hon. members, as I have just pointed out, that it would be possible to change the order of business to be put before the House tomorrow.


Mr.   La Salle@: In that case, Mr. Speaker, considering the numerous interventions, charges and countercharges made on each side of the House, and the entertainment the parties provided for one another-I think, for instance, of the motions moved this evening, some more serious than others-considering also that at the very last minute we are trying to give the House the prestige it ought to have at all times, I don't think we can get away with it that easily and, as far as I am concerned, I don't accept these changes.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. My suggestion is that we can still call it ten o'clock. Very soon it will be ten o'clock in any event, and I would hope that there could be consultation about tomorrow.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: -on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it is probably my ignorance of the rules, but I assumed that if we offered to give up our day, the day assigned to the New Democratic Party, not only tomorrow but for good, so the government could use it as its day for the purpose mentioned, then with great respect I do not see how any other member of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I respectfully submit that no member of this House could interfere with that kind of arrangement if the government agreed with it and we offered our day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to disagree with the hon. member who puts his case so well, but I have reached the conclusion that he is not completely right. When the hon. member speaks of "his day" or of "our day" he speaks, let me remind him, of an allotted day which belongs to the House and not to any member, any number of members or any party.
If the hon. member will look at the order paper he will see a specific motion, and there is no way that we can change the order paper without unanimous consent of the House. It seems to me it would be much simpler if there were further consideration of the matter after ten o'clock,
25319-3i

June 8, 1972
Business of the House
when perhaps sweet reason might prevail. In my capacity as a member of one of the independent parties, I might have consultation with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a suggestion which I still think would solve the problem. If there is not unanimous consent to change the order, then surely tomorrow when orders of the day are called and the order in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is read, if the hon. member declines to move the motion then the day will become a government day. I suggest that the acting government House leader could call the order in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle).


Mr. Speaker:: I might agree with this, of course, but we would have to wait until tomorrow and see if the hon. member is still of the same disposition. Perhaps, in view of this possibility, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) might agree that it would be easier if we all were agreed on that point; that might facilitate matters.

The hon. member for Joliette recognizes that it is possible, even without the unanimous consent of the House, to follow the order of business which has just been announced: however, under the circumstances, it might be better for hon. members to agree to follow the order of business announced for tomorrow. I wonder if the hon. member for Joliette has reconsidered the suggestion I made a moment ago.


Mr.   La Salle@: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have reconsidered this matter; if tomorrow the House finds it possible to change the order of business without my consent, I shall ask hon. members to do so, but I will not change my mind tonight.
sje *	*



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, just before ten o'clock may I ask a question that is traditional on Thursdays. Could the
acting House leader tell us what the business of the House is to be?


Mr. McCleave:: Give us all the options.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, next Monday, if we complete routine proceedings, and indeed next Tuesday, we will take the two remaining days of the budget debate. Wednesday next and also Friday will be opposition days. On Thursday next the first order of business to be considered will be Bill C-170, the FISP bill, to be followed by Bill C-209, the financial mechanisms bill with respect to housing. That is to be followed, if the previous bill is dealt with, by Bill C-204, the Wheat Board bill. If that is dealt with, it will be followed by Bill C-203, the bill respecting the representation commissioner. This order, of course, is subject to revision on that particular day after the usual consultations between the parties.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister who acts on behalf of the President of the Privy Council could advise us whether he is waiting until he meets the house leaders before announcing the date of the next opposition day reserved for the Social Credit party.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to do so. As I indicated, there will be two opposition days next week and I think these matters should probably be discussed with my colleague, the President of the Privy Council in order to determine which opposition parties are to be allotted those days.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 9, 1972