1972-06-09

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
hon. gentleman knows, his views are not entirely in accord with those of all countries. We are not a member of the Security Council, but I can say here that if the Security Council should take this matter under advisement it would please Canada.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister not only as Acting Prime Minister but also in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a very serious question. In addition to the terms of the Tokyo, The Hague, and the Montreal conventions, would the minister advise the House what role Canada is taking m having the Security Council of the United Nations get all nations together, whether they are signatories to these conventions or not, to obtain a world-wide and universal agreement that extradition proceedings will apply to all hijackers and that no one will harbour hijackers or retain ransom money contrary to the conventions in question and the wishes of the majority of nations that want to bring an end to the ever-increasing, terrible, frightening crime of hijacking?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman. It has been the purpose of the Canadian government to make hijacking a non-profitable enterprise f/1*" to do everything possible to get universal agreement that hijackers will be brought to justice. Unfortunately, not all countries in the world are signatories to the necessary conventions. We intend to be fully participating as soon as the legislation has been approved by this session ot Parliament. We are now negotiating, for example, an agreement with Cuba, which is not a signatory to the universal conventions but has indicated an interest in having a convention with us.



IMPOSITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ON HIJACKERS WHO KILL PILOTS OF PLANES

Mr. Eldon M. Williams (Calgary North):: In view of the tact that the new amendments to the Criminal Code dealing particularly with hijacking define the pilot in command of an aircraft as a peace officer, will the government now, without evasion or equivocation, state its policy with regard to a person who is convicted of murder by due process of the law, and who has also committed the crime of hijacking a plane, so far as the application of the penalty of capital punishment is concerned7 In other words, if a hijacker kills the pilot in command of a plane will capital punishment apply to him as a fact-we know that in law it does-and will this government see that it is carried out?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am quite sure that a question like this asking for a decision on a hypothetical case is not one that I could answer at this time. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we abhor the crime of hijacking as much as he does. We are trying to take whatever action we can, and I think are as effective as any other country in the world in dealing with this question.



HIJACKING-CONSULTATION WITH CANADIAN PILOTS ASSOCIATION REGARDING POSSIBLE BOYCOTT OF NATIONS HARBOURING HIJACKERS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Can the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, say whether or not he is aware if the government has been in consultation with the Canadian Airline Pilots Association regarding a possible boycott of those nations now harbouring hijackers?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact that the pilots association, not only of Canada but of the world, has asked the United Nations Security Council to take an active part in obtaining an agreement, is Canada doing anything through the Security Council to get an agreement of those nations which are not signatories to the three conventions I mentioned in my first question? I am asking the government what action it is taking internationally in that regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: We are trying to take the most effective action we can in this respect. It is not easy because, as the


Mitchell William Sharp: I know that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has been in frequent consultation with the airline pilots, and I will ascertain whether there has been any recent discussion on this particular point.



HIJACKING-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE SECURITY MEASURES

John Leroy Skoberg: Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not the government has given high priority to the allocation of funds to provide comprehensive security measures in Canada?

Inauiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: There have been some recent increases in the surveillance and scrutiny of passengers and their baggage. We are very conscious of the growing threat to aircraft from this source and we are taking as effective measures as we can. I think the hon. member realizes, however, what an extremely difficult problem it is because no one knows where the next strike may occur. It may occur in places that appear to be very innocent and that are not involved in any particular international dispute. This is a problem that is faced not only by Canada but by all countries of the world, and we are trying to keep our security measures abreast of the threat. Needless to say, we could not guarantee, nor could anyone in the world, that there would not be another incident some place.



HIJACKING-POSSIBLE PILOTS' STRIKE-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My supplementary question is to the minister. In light of the declaration by the pilots association that they intend to have a strike on June 19 as worldwide as possible because of this problem, would the minister advise the House whether the government has taken cognizance of this fact and, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, what steps will be taken in conjunction with the Canadian Airline Pilots Association to deal with this potential strike and the problem that gives rise to it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will inform my colleague, the Minister of Transport, about these inquiries today, and I am quite sure that when he is in the House early next week he will be very happy to deal directly with them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries, including the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Skeena. For the moment the Chair will try to complete the first round of questioning and then return to this important matter in a few minutes.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the conclusion reached in four studies commissioned by Information Canada that, despite large expenditures, Canadian citizens are not receiving adequate information about government activities, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether steps are being contemplated to remedy the situation, and would he also undertake to make a statement or to have the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour make a statement to the House within the next few days as to precisely what steps are being proposed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the purpose in forming Information Canada was to try to improve the communication of government information to the public and to try to get some feedback in response. I do not think it is any surprise that we have not been wholly successful, and I am very glad to have the support of the leader of the NDP that we should try again.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let not the Acting Prime Minister conclude that I am supporting Information Canada, as he may gather from another question I shall ask. I suggest these are very serious matters. In view of the fact that the total expenditures on government information projected for the year 1972-73 are some $63 million, compared with $39 million in the previous year, an increase of over 60 per cent, would the Acting Prime Minister undertake to review on an urgent basis this huge expenditure of taxpayers' money on activities which do not seem to be justified by the results?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has these matters under review at all times. I am not prepared, however, to accept the premise of the leader of the NDP that these expenditures are unjustified. I would have thought from his previous question that he felt it was necessary to improve and to enlarge the facilities for making information available.


David Lewis: My question implied nothing of the sort, certainly not an enlargement. My question was based on conclusions which show that these heavy expenditures of taxpayers' money are useless so far as Canadian citizens are concerned. In view of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister himself admitted that the purpose of Information Canada was to improve government services and also admitted it has not been successful, may I ask him whether the government is giving serious consideration to dismantling Information Canada which is proving to be a totally useless agency in the expenditure of taxpayers' money?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that that is argument, debate or a representation rather than a question, especially in view of the form in which it was placed. Perhaps the Chair might recognize a supplementary.


David Lewis: May I rephrase my supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for that purpose, and then the hon. member for Peace River on a supplementary.


David Lewis: I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in view of his admission that Information Canada has not served the purpose that was intended for it, the government intends to dismantle that organization that is not serving the people of Canada and is spending considerable amounts of money?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that we had not achieved the purpose we had in mind and that we had the matter under review. I hope Information Canada will still

June 9, 1972
justify its existence by improving the flow of information from the government to the people and vice versa.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to introducing measures that will provide for greater freedom of information, as was at one time proposed by the Minister of Finance and as I proposed in a private member's bill? Also, would such measures include steps to provide for a greater, franker and fuller flow of information in reply to both written and oral questions in this House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I have been a member of this House for quite some time-


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and I have never seen more questions asked, more questions answered, nor more information provided by the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: That illustrates my point.


Mr. Bell:: Where were you yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I now recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Champlain.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Would it be possible to bring this information department to a peak of efficiency so that it could provide us with copies of the publication on pensions and welfare?
*
*



INDUSTRY


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Does the minister intend to meet his Quebec counterpart, Mr. Saint-Pierre, in order to discuss the policy which seems at present the subject of another litigation between Quebec and Ottawa?


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have met Mr. Saint-Pierre, as I had met his predecessor, on a number of occasions. I think the suggestion is valid. I had thought of it myself and I intend to meet Mr. Saint-Pierre again soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
As the minister indicated that he was willing to revise the policy concerning the matter in which the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce is interested, I should like to ask him whether the government is still willing to do so?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, before meeting Mr. Saint-Pierre, I shall naturally consult with the federal ministers who are either interested in or responsible for sectors related to that of the petrochemical industry.
* *
*



FINANCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister because of the absence of the Minister of Finance for several days, which must have some significance. In view of the fact that foreign investors are unloading United States dollars and that the soaring Canadian dollar is hurting the export market, would the government let the Canadian people know something of the mess in which the finances of the country are by revealing at once-I would suggest on Monday-the total amount expended each day by the Canadian government in the purchase of American dollars? During the last year the increase in American dollars has been about $100 million a month and apparently there has been an increase in the last two weeks. Would the minister provide that information in order that Canadians may understand what the situation is instead of the matter being entirely concealed from the people as a whole?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman himself prefaced his question, we are facing a very difficult and worldwise situation arising out of the weakness of the American dollar, which is reflected in the values of all currencies the world over, and the rising price of gold. As far as the operations of the Canadian government in the exchange market are concerned, this is not a matter that the Minister of Finance discusses on a daily basis. I will bring the attention of the minister to this question, and I am sure he will be able to satisfy the right hon. gentleman when he returns to the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Ask Ben; he had all the answers last year.


John George Diefenbaker: I should also like to know whether the minister recalls that the former secretary of the treasury of the United States, Mr. Connally, prophesied what the effects would be on the Canadian dollar although the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Kingston, said that he did not fear any increase in the level of the dollar. Has the government now changed its views in that regard, having changed ministers of finance?

June 9, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that former Secretary of the Treasury Connally would not have forecast such weakness in the American dollar.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister did not read what Connally said. I will place that on the record when the opportunity comes. I proceed to the next question in connection with finance. In view of what has been described by financial men across Canada in the current issue of the Financial Post as the seriousness of inflation-indeed, they say that the greatest danger to Canada now is from inflation-is the government now giving consideration to bringing in some form of price and wage control?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister has said on that subject-


John George Diefenbaker: He did not say anything.


Mitchell William Sharp: -when he was questioned on it last week. The matter has been under review. The government does not say that it may not be necessary at some time, but these circumstances have not yet arisen. I would be very interested at some time to know whether the right hon. gentleman is advocating these measures.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not answer questions here, but I would be glad to give the government a little advice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair interrupted a series of questions a moment ago and undertook to return to them for one or two supplementaries. The hon. member for Moose Jaw.



AIR TRANSPORT


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister with regard to the hijackings that have been going on. If all reasonable efforts fail-and I mean reasonable efforts because Canada is recognized by the world's nations as being reasonable-in reaching agreements with other countries now harbouring hijackers, can the minister say if Canada would consider cancelling the landing rights of aircraft originating from countries that are not prepared to return hijackers immediately?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious suggestion that has been made. It is one with very broad implications and it is not one on which I would want to give an offhand opinion.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l



HIJACKING-NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN TO MAKE HIJACKING EXTRADITABLE OFFENCE

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since Canada is a signatory to extradition treaties with the United States and Great Britain, and since those two countries have amended their treaties with each other so as to include hijacking as an extraditable offence, is the government negotiating now with Great Britain and the United States with a view to Canada making a similar move?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may have forgotten that I signed such an amended agreement with the Secretary of State of the United States, but I understand the hon. member is probably not as familiar with these things as I am.


Erik Nielsen: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has not answered my question with respect to the inclusion of hijacking as an extraditable offence in the extradition treaty with Great Britain.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain what the state of law is between the United Kingdom and Canada, but no problems would in fact arise under such circumstances. I know the hon. member believes that, too.



HIJACKING-REPRESENTATIONS TO ALGERIA FOR RETURN OF HIJACKERS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of Canada's very friendly and close relationship with the government of Algeria, as evidenced a week or two ago by the government lending the government of Algeria half a million dollars to build a fish processing plant, without interest, incidentally-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if this giggling would stop perhaps I could ask my question. In light of this close relationship, can the minister say whether the government of Canada will or has made representations to the government of Algeria for the return of the two American citizens who are being harboured in Algeria as hijackers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Canadians are involved in this, and our general position on hijacking is well known to the government of Algeria. Therefore I do not think there would be any reason for us to make bilateral representations.



IMPOSITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ON HIJACKERS WHO KILL PILOTS OF PLANES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to another question I asked previously. Since the law calls for capital punishment of a person convicted of murdering police officers, and since
June 9, 1972

the new bill that the government has brought in classifies the commanding officer or pilot of a commercial airliner as a peace officer, I now put my question to the minister once again and I hope I do not get an evasive answer. Will the government carry out the law in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada always carries out the law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the right to rise on a question of privilege, but we will then try to go on to the next question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it is surely a question of privilege when a member receives an answer like that. In all cases where police officers have been murdered and the accused have been convicted of murder by due process of law, the sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment. I do not want evasion and equivocation from the minister. I want him to carry out the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North rose on a question of privilege, not a supplementary. We might try to go on to the next subject. If hon. members want to ask further supplementaries, later, we will return to this subject if there is time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Several times in the last few weeks questions have been asked in the minister's absence about a change in the basic disability pension rate, with the request that this matter be sent to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs with a special reference to study it and bring back recommendations to the House of Commons. Is the minister prepared to reply to that suggestion?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister oi Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is now under study in my department by my officials. If members of the groups concerned would care to appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I would have no objection.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-PRESENT POSITION-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour with regard to the strike in Montreal. In light of the fact the Minister of Labour indicated that he had sent telegrams to both the employers and the longshoremen asking them to submit the dispute to immediate arbitration, and in light of the fact the longshoremen have indicated that they have not received such a telegram, is the acting minister in a position to advise just what the situation is regarding this conflict?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot add anything to what the hon. member has just stated. He will have to wait until Monday for the Minister of Labour to comment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact I have been informed that a telegram has been sent to the effect that the longshoremen are not interested in arbitration, nor will they hold to any arbitration award, can the acting minister advise what the next step of the government is in view of the very serious implications this strike has on the economy of the country?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, that is definitely up to the Minister of Labour.



SUBMISSION TO UNITED STATES ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL RESPECTING MICHELIN TIRE COMPANY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OR STATEMENT

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the House whether he has prepared a submission on the Michelin case to put before the anti-dumping tribunal in the United States? If so, has that submission actually been presented?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Strike one, Mr. Speaker. I know it is being prepared, but I do not know whether it has been sent. I will find out and answer on Monday.


John Edward Broadbent: When the minister finds out what his department is doing in this regard, will he consider tabling the submission or at least making the essence of the submission known to the House by way of a statement on motions on Monday?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will consider that, Mr. Speaker.
2992

June 9, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



DEFERRAL OF MORTGAGE PAYMENTS FOR KAMLOOPS RESIDENTS AFFECTED BY FLOOD

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister advise the House whether he has yet received confirmation from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the 60 home owners who were victims of a serious flood in Kamloops last weekend have had their payments deferred for three months? I believe the minister made representations to this effect yesterday.


Hon. Hon Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to arrange with the approved lenders for the deferral of such payments for three months. I understand they are having a meeting with the approved lenders on Monday in Vancouver to arrange this. I expect the approved lenders will comply with the request being made of them in order to assist the home owners in Kamloops who have been flooded.



REQUEST THAT CMHC LOANS NOT BE MADE IN AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING

Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It has to do with flooding not only in British Columbia but also in Quebec at Laval and Chateauguay. Will the minister request his officials to examine all areas that were flooded in order that in the future no CMHC loans or NHA guarantees will be allowed on homes in areas subject to flooding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. The hon. member is making a representation and doing so in a very clear way.



PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF NUCLEAR PLANT ON STODDART ISLAND, NOVA SCOTIA, BY PRIVATE COMPANY-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of negotiations presently under way between a private group of individuals and the government of Nova Scotia with regard to the possible location of a nuclear power station on Stoddart Island, Nova Scotia, is the government in a position to indicate whether it has a policy with regard to the construction and operation of nuclear power stations by private concerns anywhere in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are two government agencies that would be involved here, the Atomic Energy Control Board and the National Energy Board. The Atomic Energy Control Board is responsible for the safety of reactors. I understand that the proposed reactor
[Mr. Pepin.l
would be a light water reactor of the American type which at the moment has not been authorized for use in Canada. It would either require a change in those criteria or a refusal of the application. At the moment, neither of the two federal agencies has received an application with regard to the proposal the hon. member has mentioned.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has the application of the new Unemployment Insurance Act increased the number of recipients?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for statistics. In my opinion, such a question should be put on the order paper. However, if the hon. member prefers, it could be discussed at the time of adjournment.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Accepting the fact of poor attendance on both sides of the House in this fading Parliament, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, after yesterday, the Prime Minister has gone to see the Governor General, is in Washington looking into the oil spill, or is his absence just due to Friday politics?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Where is Bob?


Thomas Miller Bell: We know where he is.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Algoma in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In view of the answer given a few minutes ago by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), will the hon. member consult with the government House leader concerning the possibility of getting a term of reference from the House so that the standing committee can discuss the question of revising the basic rates of veterans pensions?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be pleased to do this. As soon as a reference is made by
June 9, 1972

the government and the House leader, we would be very pleased to study the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact negotiations are almost completed between his department and the city of Guelph for the sale of the armouries which have been there for 61 years and will be demolished, can the minister explain why as late as last week a large sign which is reported to have cost $500 and contains nothing more than "Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Armouries, Guelph" was erected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that is a proper question. It should be placed on the order paper. The hon. member will agree that his question is more in the form of a grievance. It is not a question that can be accepted at this time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
# * *



IMMIGRATION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Bearing in mind the serious problems which have been created by the existing provisions of the Immigration Act and the regulations governing immigration, would the minister urge his colleagues to arrange for the appointment of a parliamentary committee as soon as possible to look into this whole question and make recommendations? I shall not refer to the many cases, but in light of facts of which I am sure the minister is aware would the hon. gentleman consider the appointment of such a committee?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that hearings were completed before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration not more than a week ago, at which hearings his party was very adequately represented.



SUICIDE OF ALICIA WIERCIOCH-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a supplementary question either to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or to the Acting Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Because Canada's international reputation is involved, and because draft dodgers are greeted with open arms and political assassins are allowed to remain here while hardworking people whose only desire is freedom commit suicide-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question? That is not a question; it is an argument or a speech. He should ask a question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: These are facts, Mr. Speaker, because they are treated like criminals by reason of the inhumane and ruthless bureaucratic regulations. I ask this question-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, I suggest to the hon. member, is not in accordance with the rules. He is really making a speech. If every member took advantage of the rules in this way there would not be many questions asked during the question period. I think there is a responsibility resting on all members to abide by the rules.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the minister, or the Acting Prime Minister, tell us whether the government is conducting a special inquiry into the tragic death of Alicia Wiercioch who loved Canada so much that she killed herself to stay here?


Mr. Speaker:: This question has, of course, been asked before. But the minister might have additional information and he might wish to reply at this time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did ask for an inquiry in the light of what appeared to be circumstances concerning my department. I might say that the lady in question was not ordered deported on the ground that she was working illegally in Canada, as reported in the press. She obtained the right to work in 1970. She was not ordered deported before she came to the end of her appeal procedure. In fact, her lawyer had indicated her case would be resubmitted for appeal some time in the future and had asked permission to have the normal period of time for appeals to the Federal Court extended. Also, there was still the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court. Thus, although the circumstances are very tragic, they can hardly be linked to any rights which this person was denied.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can the minister report to the House on the number of deportations to countries behind the Iron Curtain in the last six months?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking, I suggest, for statistical information, and questions of that kind should be placed on the order paper.



REQUEST THAT ALL PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE APPEAL BOARD BE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL

Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Will the minister assure the House that all persons appearing
25319-4S

June 9, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
before the Immigration Appeal Board will be entitled to be represented by counsel whether on an original application for deportation or on any subsequent reconsideration?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to take this matter up with the chairman of the Appeal Board this very day.



MEASURES TO SPEED UP DISPOSITION OF APPEALS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact that I was a member of the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration when the minister indicated he had in mind a procedure for speeding up appeals which would alleviate many of the difficulties, could the hon. gentleman now give us a definite idea of these proposals and tell us when he expects to implement this new procedure?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker I think that at one of the few meetings of the committee that the hon. member missed I explained in detail the proposals for speeding up the appeal procedure. For example, I mentioned that as of July 1 we would be adding, in the Toronto area, an additional staff of 100 to deal with appeal procedure problems, with greater emphasis on appeal procedure at the special inquiry officer stage-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is now giving information which I suggest to him is so detailed that it ought to be given on motions. Perhaps the matter could be pursued on Monday, but we are running short of time now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I say I know something of these arrangements because members of the committee were advised as to the procedure the minister has in mind, but would the minister make a statement on Monday informing us in detail as to what he intends to do? I might add that I am presently involved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appeal to hon. members to ask short questions and to ministers to give short answers, because we now have only three minutes left in the question period.



REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER FOR DEPORTATION OF TUAN VU

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I ask the
Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question concerning the case of Tuan Vu against whom a deportation order has been issued and whose appeal has been denied by the Immigration Appeal Board. He will almost certainly be executed if he is returned to South Viet Nam. Would the minister ask the Immigration Appeal Board to reconsider the case and cancel the deportation order issued against this person?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This case is presently before the Federal Court. I

would not wish to comment on whether or not this man's life would or would not be in jeopardy because the matter is sub judice. I would have to wait until the Federal Court has disposed of the case.



SUICIDE OF ALICIA WIERCIOCH-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether in view of the circumstances surrounding the suicide of Alicia Wiercioch the hon. gentleman will make public the proceedings of the appeal case on March 15 before the Immigration Appeal Board which ordered her deported?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As the hon. member should know, or does know, the Immigration Appeal Board is independent of the minister and of the department as well as of Parliament. I can only make such a representation to the board and the board will have to judge whether it is in the public interest to reveal that information or not.



RAPESEED-THREATENING INFESTATION BY BERTHA BUG-REQUEST FOR ACTION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to ask would ordinarily be directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I discussed it with that hon. gentleman yesterday but because of the debacle in the House no attention could be given to it. It has to do with a matter of very deep concern, namely, the threatening infestation by the Bertha bug of the rapeseed areas in northeastern Saskatchewan, particularly in the districts of Melford, Nipawin, Tisdale and the like. While it will not be until the middle of next week that the moths commence to fly, the fact is that the infestation appears to be more serious today than it was last year. Would the Acting Prime Minister do what he can to have the Department of Agriculture look into this matter over the weekend, because if the situation becomes more serious than it was last year it will constitute a serious threat to the meeting of contracts for rapeseed and, in addition, of course, the income of farmers would be greatly reduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can
assure the right hon. gentleman of our concern. The answer to the question is yes.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-NUMBER OF AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the House whether the number of United States corporations that have made
June 9, 1972

applications under DISC has now stabilized or whether it is still increasing? Is the minister now in a position to tell us the number of DISC applications and also disclose their names?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have some very fat figures somewhere. I will give them to the hon. member after the question period. At the end of April it was somewhere around 2,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair expressed the opinion in respect of a similar question a moment ago seeking statistical information that this kind of question ought normally to be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister say whether the number of applications has now stabilized or is it growing? I think this is important to Canadians.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to remember, but my impression is that it was about 1,700 at the end of the previous month and 2,000 at the end of last month, which is an increase of about 300 to 400 a month.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and deals with the recommendation of the Public Service Alliance of Canada that pay zones be scrapped. Will the minister now consider having equal pay rates for federal employees across the country?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the formal representations from the Public Service Alliance on regional pay rates do not exactly jibe with the statement the hon. member has just made.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Consideration of the Business of Supply.
Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that perhaps the best way to proceed, in view of the discussions last night, would be to call the two supply motions one after the other. I believe there in an understanding that if they are not proceeded with we would then, according to the Standing Orders, revert to government business.


Mr. Gauthier:: Stand.
Oil Pollution


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons given last night by my leader and our House leader, I do not wish to proceed with our motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Pringle):
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.
And on the amendment thereto of Mr. Nielsen (p. 2969). [Translation]
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to ask you further information. I would like to know whether the House still needs the unanimous consent to resume consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle).


Mr. Speaker:: Not today.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word about the reasons for giving up our opposition day today. It is clear to me and to my colleagues that if the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) was serious and considered to be serious by the government, and if the Liberal party in this House was not merely playing politics but was concerned about the motion having the support of this Parliament, then it was wrong and undesirable for the government to have adjourned the debate yesterday so the motion would hang on the order paper for God knows how long. If, on the other hand, the government members as well as all of us in the opposition considered the matter raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East to be serious, and that a unanimous approach by this Parliament to the government of the United States would be useful, necessary and desirable, then the debate on that motion ought to have been completed as soon as possible. The vote on the motion should have been taken as soon as possible,

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
since we know it would be a unanimous vote, in order that the motion and any amendment adopted might find its course to the government of the United States, because that is where it was intended to go.
We in my party were not prepared to see this very important matter dealt with in the cavalier and irresponsible way in which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the Liberal majority in this House dealt with it yesterday. This is a serious matter and it is literally not only distressing but disgusting to note how this government deals with important matters, totally insensitive to the needs of the country and the people. It is playing games all the time and we were not prepared to see that happen. Since it could not be completed yesterday, because of the action of the government, we were determined that if the government would agree, as it did, the matter would be completed today. It is our hope that before this day ends this debate, hon. members having been given an opportunity to participate therein, will conclude and a vote will be taken, a voice vote or any other kind, in order that what the motion requests will happen. It will then go forward as the unanimous wish of this Parliament.
As has been said by speakers who preceded me, the little spill at Cherry Point, which has poisoned a large part of the beach area of our western coast, is an ominous warning of what faces Canada if any kind of oil tanker route is developed along the Pacific coast of this country. This government ought to have acted, as it was requested by us to act a long time ago, when the decision to build a refinery at Cherry Point was first made. People who know about these matters warned at that time that a refinery at Cherry Point was an ecological time bomb for the west coast of Canada as well as the west coast of the United States surrounding that area. People who know about these matters, and I can only go by what they tell me as I do not myself know, are aware that the currents and the winds are northward, that the dangers to shipping are very great in that area, and that the building of a refinery only 15 or 16 miles south of the Canadian border, right on the coast, not inland, was an act of reckless disregard for the ecological welfare of the people on the west coast of the North American continent, not only of Canada. This government ought to have protested at that time about that refinery being built there.
While I have not made a close study of this matter, it seems obvious to me that the Atlantic-Richfield Corporation built that refinery where it is for purely economic reasons. It was the most northern point on the United States coast, right on the coast at a point as close as possible to Alaska for tankers coming down south. As I have often said about corporations, this corporation was concerned merely about the efficiency of the operation, the profitability of the operation and the convenience of the operation; it was not concerned at all with the ecological dangers of the operation. This is what happens all the time across this continent because we permit these corporations to make decisions purely in terms of the economy with which they are concerned. They took a reckless step that endangered the future as well as the present of society in this country and, indeed, in the United States at the time the proposal was made to build a large refinery at Cherry Point. This government on behalf of Canada

should have raised Cain with the United States authorities and demanded that this plan not be carried out.
Because of the importance of this matter we felt that the motion should be debated today. I want to make it clear that although we will give our support to the motion we will also support the amendment by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), because that amendment adds some teeth to the proposal we want to make to the International Joint Commission.
I am of the opinion that motions moved earlier this week, on one occasion by a member of the Conservative Party and on three occasions by members of my party, were much more relevant and much more important proposals to deal with this problem than the proposal that the matter merely be sent to the IJC. I think also that we ought to have had before us something concerned not only with this minimal spill at Cherry Point but concerned with a total plan about moving oil from Alaska down the waters of our western coast. We should have had a motion, that would have the unanimous approval of this House, that we should go to the government of the United States and say that this country will not stand for large oil tankers going down the Pacific waters. That is the motion we ought to be debating. I shall say a few words about that.
Obviously, there has been collusion between the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement that the government of Canada has asked that this matter go to the IJC and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East replied by moving the motion. That is okay. I suppose it is understandable that this kind of politics might have happened. We could have done the same kind of thing. I do not want to sound self-righteous, but I wish to underline this. I could have accepted the offer of the Acting House Leader, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), last night that we deal with this matter on our opposition day. I could have placed a motion of this nature on the order paper before six o'clock yesterday precisely for that purpose. May I say I gave it some consideration but it seemed to me that that would be crude enough, partisan enough and cheap enough to qualify me to become a member of the Liberal party and that I could not contemplate.


Mitchell William Sharp: We have not invited you.


David Lewis: On this motion, we must consider the matter in two areas. One is the area of national action and the other is the area of international action, because it must be an area in which the United States and Canada work together. I wish very briefly to go over the government's record in terms of legislation, in terms of regulations and in terms of any kind of really positive action. It will not take me very long to do so. However, it is a very dismal story which ought to be placed on the record.
Two years ago we passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. This act has not even been proclaimed. No regulations have been prepared. The government goes around the country saying: "Look at what we did about
June 9, 1972

the Arctic. We have a 100-mile zone which we have claimed for the purpose of pollution control". Members of the government point to the law which is on the statute books. An old friend of mine, a Newfoundlander, many years now dead, originally a leader of a trade union, used to say to me that gentleman's agreements "ain't worth the paper they are writ on". A law which is not proclaimed ain't worth the paper it is writ on either. A law of that sort which does not have the regulations proclaimed is not worth having on the statute books because most of the powers are left to the regulations.
Then, two years ago we passed the Canada Water Act. As yet there is not a single water quality management area established in this country. There are no national standards established in this country, and we are faced with something on the statute books which is merely another dead law. Then, we had the land use regulations for the north, but we find as usual that the government yielded to the pressure of the large corporations, their dear close friends, with the result that those regulations were watered down. As a result of this they do not cover the whole Arctic, but deal only with a select area in the Mackenzie River Basin and do not cover the matter of control over the Islands or other Arctic areas. Then, we have the Northern Inland Waters Act which was passed two years ago and proclaimed only a few weeks ago. Under that act we do not have the regulations, either. Not one of these acts is of very much value without such regulations. Then, finally, we have the James Bay development in northern Quebec which apparently is going ahead without ecological surveys having been made which are effective, adequate and conclusive. We will be faced with more ecological damage in that part of the country.
I find that this record is a dismal one. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) is now in Stockholm. He can make the finest speeches he likes and take admirable steps there. But I must say, from what I read-and I will know more when the conference is over-that I do not find much to criticize in the attitude of our delegation at Stockholm. If he can do that in Stockholm it seems to me he ought to be burying his head in shame because of the total inactivity of the government in the area of ecology, despite the laws it has placed on the statute books. Ecology is now like motherhood. Everybody talks about it. All of us talk about the dangers to the environment. All of us make fine speeches about the quality of life. It is only the government of this country which can do anything really effective about it and the government of this country has done very little-if you can call it even "little"-in the national sphere. In the international situation, in respect of these oil spills, we are in the same dead alley, in the same cul-de-sac, as we are in respect of all international measures.
According to the Secretary of State for External Affairs we have not yet received from the United States any reply even to the request that the matter be sent to the IJC. The TAPS route and the tanker route, which is connected with the TAPS route, apparently has been approved in Washington. I suggest the government is merely bleating pleas all the time like wounded sheep. And, like wounded sheep, they just bleat all the time and do nothing worthwhile about it. I say, appreciating the seriousness of the words I
Oil Pollution
use, that the decision of the authorities in Washington to approve the TAPS route and the tanker route is an unfriendly act against the interests of the people of this country. In our modern world it is not only guns, rifles, canon and bombs which can do damage. In our modern world, I think ecological damage is almost as serious. It is not as quick. It takes longer. The threat to human existence for decades to come is just as great from ecological damage as it is from outright war so long as this war is with conventional arms and not with nuclear arms. It is just as important.
For a powerful neighbour of Canada to disregard- there is no other way to put it-the interests of the people of Canada on the west coast and indeed all the people of Canada, despite requests from us, and to approve the TAPS and tanker routes is almost the equivalent of an act of war. It is almost the equivalent of an act of war. It is an unfriendly act, and I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is in his seat today as Acting Prime Minister, to stop bleating and to start speaking firmly and loudly on behalf of the people of Canada so that Washington's ears may at last be opened to the rights and interests of the Canadian people.
As I have said, the very building of the refinery at Cherry Point was an affront to Canada and Canada's interests. As I was preparing a few notes for my remarks this morning I could not but recall the statement of the President of the United States when he was in this chamber. I admit that I did not greet him with the enthusiasm that some others in this House did, but I could not help but recall the sweet words of reason and the expressions of friendliness as well as the assurance of our independence that the head of government of our great neighbour uttered in this House. I want to say that as far as the members of my party are concerned, we want friendship with the United States.
However, we say to the president and his advisers in Washington that one of the ways in which that friendship can be made real, practical and relevant for the people of Canada is for the government of the United States to join us in stopping the TAPS route and the tanker route down the Pacific along our west coast. No general words of friendship will hide the unfriendliness if the president and his advisers permit that ecological threat to the wellbeing of the Canadian west coast to take place. I suggest to you, Sir, that this is the kind of approach that this country should take with the administration of the United States.
What we obviously need on this issue is to mobilize the wishes, the desires and the protests of all the people of Canada, and that is what this government should be doing. That is why the motion before us now to send the matter to the International Joint Commission is a petty step, and that is why the suggestions made by the Conservative and NDP members in their motions would have been much more useful. That is why it was shameful of the government to refuse to allow the Committee on the Environment, chaired by a member of the Liberal party who is now the provincial leader in British Columbia, to travel to the west coast to hold hearings, and more recently to refuse a motion requesting unanimous consent that the Committee on External Affairs, which was in the west

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
at that time, should also hold hearings with regard to the ecological dangers on the west coast.
Those hearings of the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on External Affairs, either or both, would have been a platform and a forum for all the organizations dealing with environment, such as SPEC and other organizations on the west coast as well as representatives of all political parties and trade unions, of farm organizations, of fruit growers, of all the people in British Columbia, of wildlife organizations, of conservationist organizations and of all those deeply concerned with this matter. Hearings held by these parliamentary committees would have given all these organizations an opportunity to appear, to present briefs, and to show their concern, and the inevitable result would have been that the voice of the Canadian people on the west coast would have reached at least the west coast of the United States and also the authorities in Washington.
I suggest that it was thoughtless of the government of Canada not to see the value of that kind of popular support for the position that the Secretary of State for External Affairs boasts about taking with respect to the TAPS and the tanker route. It would surely have helped him in his negotiations with Washington if there were a widespread and loud demand by the people of Canada that the authorities in Washington cease their dangerous and reckless course in this respect. None of these things has happened. The laws are on the statute books but are either unproclaimed or without regulations. The government bleats, as I said, about the tanker route but does nothing serious about it and refuses to give an opportunity for the expression of the popular will in Canada on that subject.
I suggest that this is the reason why we are where we are on this motion. The shipping act and the shipping regulations have not been enforced. They are not strong enough. We do not insist that every vessel, every barge and every tanker that goes down that coast, whether carrying oil or anything else, have the necessary protective equipment and the necessary trained crews on those ships. We let things happen, and as a result spills occur. But worst of all-and I left it for my last point quite deliberately-the government has entirely failed to produce and to develop the contingency plan that we were promised more than two years ago.
I have in my hands a publication of the marine operations of the Ministry of Transport of about a year ago which speaks in general terms about the fact that there are internal federal contingency plans for combatting oil and toxic material spills. But nothing has really happened. The contingency plans have not been put into effect. We have not been told about the existence of any equipment for cleaning up spills that might be in place at Vancouver, at all the ports and all the points along the Pacific coast, and if they are in place we would like to hear about it today. I have not seen any reference to the fact that there is any really modern clean up equipment along the Pacific coast of Canada where it should be. When this small accident involving only 12,000 barrels of oil occurred we had literally nothing ready and available to deal with the mishap and people had to carry bales of straw in order to try to protect their beaches.

All the other things I have mentioned are serious enough, but it seems to me that the failure to develop contingency plans of any worth and the failure to place the necessary protective and clean up equipment along the points where they should be placed, as well as the failure to train the necessary personnel to deal with the mishap, is perhaps the most disastrous and the most indefensible failure of all.
In the document which I mentioned, I notice a reference to a manual of counter measure technology which is being prepared and will be issued in support of the contingency plan. I made inquiries about it this morning. Perhaps I did not go to the right place, but no one was able to tell me that the manual of counter measure technology has already been prepared to go along with the contingency plan. It seems to me that in every one of the areas which concern this life and death matter of ecological quality for the Canadian people the government has been limping instead of taking the steps that the situation required.
I wish to say finally that I and my colleagues appreciate the fact that we are dealing with an issue that is not easy to solve, an issue that is partly international in character, and that therefore we must rely on the willingness of other nations, as well as on our own, in order to do the job as thoroughly as all of us would want to see it done. I am not suggesting that this is a problem that can be solved overnight, or that there is a wand that somebody can wave and end it. I appreciate it will take a great deal of pressure, a great deal of work, a great deal of determination to do some of the things that obviously need to be done. I would not be critical of the government if I saw any evidence of that work having been started, if I saw any evidence of the determination being there. But when I look at this situation both with respect to legislation on the statute books and with respect to the kind of representations the government has made to Washington, I must conclude that there simply is not the determination, that it is in most cases a specious kind of window dressing, the kind of easy going assurance that usually follows the complacency for which the government is now famous.
We shall vote for the motion and the amendment. However, I hope that the government does not think that dealing with this narrow motion, improved by the amendment, but still in a narrow area, ends the concern of the Members of this Parliament about the inadequate activity of the government in the ecological field.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should indicate to hon. members that the intention of the Chair at the moment would be to recognize the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), and afterwards the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) because, as yet, a representative of his party has not taken part in this debate. In any event, we shall cross the bridge when we reach it. I thought hon. members might want to take this into consideration in organizing their work for the next hour or so. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Stay for the debate, David.


David Lewis: I will be back in a few minutes.
June 9, 1972


Mr.   Bastard@: You might learn something.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member of the House welcomed the motion that is before us today, proposed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). When he put that motion forward on a subject that we thought would command the full support of every member of the House, we felt there would be a disposition, as there had been in the past, to accept the motion, to get it approved and to transmit it immediately to Washington, where it was intended to show the full support this House has for the reference to the IJC, and to show also the expression of concern of all members of this House over the consequences of the oil spill on the Pacific coast.
Of course, the result of initiating debate unfortunately has been to change the allotted days, and this particularly affected the Social Credit party. I know this consequence was not in the mind of the member for Fraser Valley East, but it arose because of the insistence upon debating a proposition that I would have thought could have been passed, approved, and sent to Washington immediately, just as other motions of this kind had been dealt with when there was a unanimous feeling of the whole House. However, I should add that even though this has been unfortunate from the point of view of the proceedings of the House, as Secretary of State for External Affairs I rather welcome the views that have been expressed by various members, which show just how deep is the concern about the possible damage to the environment on the Pacific coast.
Many hon. members who have spoken have made very valid points. These, I am sure, will have come to the attention of the United States administration and will help to support the efforts that the government has been making to try to prevent further damage and to deal with crises when they arise. The concern that has been expressed in this House yesterday and today has been growing for several years. Canada has now had direct experience on both coasts of the damage that can be done by relatively small spills or by the wreck of relatively small tankers. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to the leader of the NDP, I think we probably know more, and have had more experience and done more effective work in clearing up oil spills than any other country in the world. Indeed, it is our experience that is serving as a model for many other countries. So, I deny the major premise of the leader of the NDP that Canada has been ineffective. This is simply not so.
Our legislation is a model for other countries, and more than that the action we have taken has served as a model. This is one of the reasons that at Stockholm today it is not only the eloquence of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), nor the laws we have on our books, which are so progressive, but the effective action that has been taken by Canada in the whole field of the environment that has given us a position of leadership at that conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Everyone is aware that these incidents may be the foreshadowing of something far worse. The size of
Oil Pollution
modern tankers has seized the public's imagination. Some dramatic figures on the growth in the number and tonnage of supertankers were given to the House in the debate yesterday.
These tankers are already by far the largest vessels man has ever sent to sea, and all of us think with horror of what might happen if one of these enormous tankers were to break up on our coasts. This is a universal concern. It is not only ours alone. This is not anything that is nationalistic or parochial. We are expressing our concern on behalf of all the people of the world. Already these tankers are delivering massive quantities of oil through or near Canadian waters on both coasts. I understand the concern of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and of others from British Columbia who have spoken in this debate, but we in the government, while we are concerned particularly about the movement of oil through these narrow waters, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait and Puget Sound, recognize, as does the United States government, that there are other parts of our countries, of the United States and Canada, in which we are jointly concerned, where there could be the break up of a tanker that would cause great damage to the people of the area affected.
We all know that the demand for oil in North American is growing. We accept new refineries and new transportation routes for ever larger volumes of oil as the pattern of the present and the future. There is very little we will be able to do except to provide for moving that oil on the safest routes, and making provision for dealing with spills which will inevitably occur some time in the future. These are the lines upon which we must take practical action, and these are the lines upon which the government is taking practical action.
The statisticians have given us sober warning of just how often we must expect that this growth will bring trouble in its wake. It does not matter how many precautions are taken, inevitably there is going to be a break up somewhere. This has been the experience in the past; this will be our experience in the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the minister permit a question at this stage?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the minister yielding the floor so that I may put a question. Has the minister or his government ever taken a position, previous to the United States decision to go ahead with TAPS and the tanker route, that we approved a pipeline in the Mackenzie delta area, down North America into western Canada, into the industrial sections of Canada and the United States? Have you got that far, and prepared an agreement for negotiation with the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) will be taking part in this debate. I hope the hon. member will stay around and hear what he has to say. He has taken very constructive action in a way that is responsible to the environmentalists of Canada, and that recognizes the problems that have emerged. Every day it seems we hear new threats to the environment. We are unceasingly

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
reminded by environmentalists of the fragile balance of nature. So much so that the mind becomes saturated. We find the human tendency to close our minds to this bombardment and to look upon it as an expression of the equally human tendency to delight in making people's hair stand on end. I do not think we can afford to get into this frame of mind. These are very real dangers to the environment and we must take the matter seriously.
We are told that the valve which broke on the World Bond at Cherry Point on June 4 was open for only four seconds, yet look at the damage that resulted from that three or four second break in the oil line. No wonder the government has repeated over and over again to the United States its concern at the growing risk to the environment of both countries which results from the arrival of large tankers at the Cherry Point refinery.
This concern has been expressed publicly and privately, officially and unofficially, at all levels of the United States government up to and including President Nixon himself. As I told the House in my statement yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) discussed the problem with the president during the president's visit in April. At the same time, Secretary Rogers had an opportunity to feel the strength of Canadian concern during a meeting with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and myself. Indeed, we gathered together for a special meeting to acquaint Secretary Rogers with the depth of the concern about the possible damage to the ecology on the Pacific coast. We held a special meeting for that purpose alone, so that he would be in no doubt that this was not just a formal representation but that this represented the very serious and deep concern which we had expressed at other levels to the United States government from time to time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow a question for information? What is the basis of the objection of both Great Britain and the United States to the ideas placed before the conference in Stockholm by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis)? What are they opposed to and what will they not accept?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have to await the return of the minister, but may I offer a comment on what I understand to be the situation? This is the traditional and long-standing difference of view between countries that have ships and countries that have long coastlines. This is the great contribution that Canada has made-


John George Diefenbaker: Having no ships?


Mitchell William Sharp: -in the development of the law of the sea, to take the lead on behalf of coastal countries to get the law of the sea modified. At Stockholm and everywhere else we are making progress. I am happy that the right hon. gentleman has seen the progress we are making and how we have brought this issue into the open, showing the world that this is a cause in which we are going to succeed.


John George Diefenbaker: Progress in crab fashion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know the right hon. gentleman very well and I watched the manoeuvres of his government when he had the responsibility. If we are moving sideways he moved backwards.


John George Diefenbaker: I might say something, about the manoeuvres of the hon. member when he was a deputy minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you tell us about pegging the dollar?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will proceed with my remarks. The government proposed to President Nixon that the International Joint Commission be requested by Canada and the United States to conduct an investigation into all aspects of the problem. On May 4 and again on May 19 the Canadian Embassy in Washington followed up this proposal in specific terms. Our anxiety on this subject was increased by the announcement at more or less the same time that Secretary Morton had decided to authorize the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The resolution unanimously adopted by this House on May 15 which declared that movements of large tankers in the narrow straits of our Pacific coast would be inimical to Canadian interests-which I might add was not the subject of a prolonged debate because we on this side agreed that this should be transmitted to the United States government- was conveyed to the United States government the next day. On June 7, as I reported to the House yesterday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington took up with the state department the Cherry Point incident, including both the immediate questions of compensation and clean-up and the larger questions which we want referred to the International Joint Commission. I am confident that we will receive the official response of the United States soon. Indeed, one of the reasons why I expect that we will is that this very tragic incident has occurred on the Pacific coast.
The actual terms of the reference to the International Joint Commission could be discussed. Should the study be confined to the problem on the west coast, for example, or should it deal with the question of oil shipments to east coast refineries as well? That is a very important point in the reference and it is one I know that would be concurred in by all sides of this House. If we are going to be able to persuade the United States, and this will take some doing, to ask the International Joint Commission to look into the problems arising from the movement of oil on the Pacific coast and those narrow waters, then the United States will also ask that in other parts of Canada and the United States in which Canadian oil moves, the same problems be considered. These are matters of detail. We are prepared to discuss them with the United States in a spirit of accommodation. It would take a certain time to frame the reference to the International Joint Commission properly. This is not surprising if it is to be a serious, thorough study.
What we want, of course, is the whole problem; the problem arising now where there is movement of oil and, for the future, while consideration is being given to moving big tankers into these narrow waters. We would hope that the International Joint Commission would agree with the views expressed in this House that this is
June 9, 1972

indeed a very stupid thing to do. We believe that the Cherry Point refinery can be serviced from the land. It is not the building of the Cherry Point refinery that is the trouble, it is how it has been supplied. It has been our contention to the United States government that the refinery can be supplied from the land just as effectively as from the sea. The commission will not be helped, nor will the two governments, if its task is badly defined. But proper regard for precision should not be a cause for delay. What we have been trying to impress on the United States is our sense of the urgency and importance of the question.
We can be confident, too, that an investigation by the International Joint Commission will be constructive. We have only to look at the excellent work done by the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes where the report it made has been accepted by both governments and where machinery has been established for clean-up. Indeed, we have a case at the present time of the break-up of a tanker on the Great Lakes, the Sydney E. Smith which is being handled in accordance with the procedures agreed to by our two governments. The vessel is in American waters and we can see that the Americans are observing the agreements that have been made for dealing with emergencies like this.
We can be confident that an investigation by the International Joint Commission will be constructive. It has been our experience in these matters that we can persuade the United States to go along. The International Joint Commission is a valuable international instrument. It has proven its worth over half a century in a series of cases that have been valuable to Canada and the United States. If these relations between our two countries are to be dealt with we need permanent machinery of this kind. I hope there is no suggestion in this debate, and I have heard very little, that reference to the International Joint Commission is not one of the most useful and constructive things that can be done. That is why I was happy to see the hon. member for Fraser Valley East pinpoint his suggestion on reference to the International Joint Commission. I have looked at the other motions that have been put before this House and I suggest that this is the most effective action that this House could take in supporting the concern-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will permit a question, I should like to ask whether the next time he drafts an appropriate motion he might hand it to somebody else in the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no one more suitable than the hon. member for Fraser Valley East who feels the interests of British Columbia more effectively than any of the NDP members from British Columbia.


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East rises on a point of order.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny the statement made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I wrote the motion in pencil first, and had it typed.
Oil Pollution


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the superior literacy of the members of the Liberal back benches. Apparently, in the NDP all these things are inspired from the top. We have some grass roots movement of which we are very proud.
The government is conscious of the growing number of environmental problems Canada shares with the United States. Many of these will have to be attacked from a new angle. We are fortunate, however, in that a certain range of these problems having to do especially with pollution of boundary waters can be effectively tackled by an experienced yet adaptable body, the International Joint Commission. For this reason the government foresees a growing role for the IJC in future.
If I may digress for a moment, may I talk about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and make some further comments on it. I think I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been put forward. It seeks to support the IJC and make sure that it has the necessary resources with which to carry on its valuable work. This motion, of course, cannot add to the powers of the IJC; nor can it instruct the United States government to make resources available. As the House no doubt understands, the IJC must work on a joint reference and not on a single, unilateral reference. So far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for the members of the government in the House, we will not oppose this amendment. We will support it in the interests of unanimity, which I know hon. members of the House would like to see.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What a sacrifice!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what one might call sweet reasoning.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, you know, we are approaching this in a spirit of non-controversiality and in the spirit of trying to treat this problem as a serious, national problem; we do not want to introduce political overtones such as have been introduced by those on the other side of the House on many occasions. We want this resolution to be approved unanimously. I want this IJC reference to be supported by all members of the House. It is in that spirit that I support the amendment, even though I did not have a chance to draft it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fold your wings, Mitch.


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may speak for Canada, we have made provision to put greater Canadian resources at the disposal of the commission. We have urged upon the United States the good sense of building upon the commission's previous work on pollution in internal boundary waters by a reference which would deal with the pollution danger for the first time in coastal waters. This is the first time that a reference of this kind has been attempted, and we are putting all our persuasive powers behind it in an effort to make the United States recognize that this area in future will be just as important as the Great Lakes have

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
been in the past. Meanwhile, the work that the two governments have undertaken in contingency planning in improving navigation systems will be vigorously pursued.
Nothing could be more useful in lending weight and conviction to the Canadian case than that I should be able to convey to the United States government the unanimous wish of the House that this study should be undertaken.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder who wrote that.


Mitchell William Sharp: This House does not often express its unanimous view in this way. Actually, on three occasions, recently, has the House supported the government in its representations to the United States; that is a clear indication, I think, of the way in which our foreign policy and relations with the United States are being handled, because we have been able to obtain the support of all parties in this House. It is striking to note that the resolutions we sent to the United States on Amchitka and the resolution of three weeks ago which dealt with the risk of oil pollution from tankers were unanimously approved by this House. I believe that this will indicate to the United States government that the government of Canada is speaking not only as a government party, but that it is speaking for the whole country, and is speaking with the support of all political parties in this country. It is interesting to note that all three of these resolutions have been directed to the same subject. That fact will help to support the position we are taking.
The conviction with which British Columbia members on both sides of the House have spoken in the present debate demonstrates that this is not an issue on which opinion on the west coast is divided. However, the conviction with which members from other provinces have spoken demonstrates equally that Canadians see this as a national, not a regional issue. It is in this sense that I would like to be authorized to speak to the United States government on behalf of the House. Therefore, I urge the unanimous adoption of the motion, as amended.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words on the motion under review because we are in favour of it, even if it gave rise yesterday to some disagreement. We consider that it is important and, therefore, must be debated.
Mr. Speaker, this is an international problem which cannot easily be solved. Moreover, this already complicated question has been further aggravated by the recent accident which launched a wave of protests from the citizens of British Columbia. We cannot blame them because we are all duly concerned with the protection of our waters and want to fight pollution with every means at our disposal.
However, we wonder if the government had indeed taken all necessary precautions to prevent this accident.
We deplore today an accident that concerns all Canadians, especially the citizens of British Columbia, for it is said that it will cause irretrievable damage to the environment.
As a matter of fact, it is always the same thing. Surely there must be a way to solve that problem which the government has been considering for a long time. Indeed, it created a committee for that purpose. There were also many discussions about it but nothing has been accomplished yet.
The government and the international body concerned are studying the pipeline question. I believe this will be a means of controlling pollution and preventing the danger we are exposing ourselves to by letting big tankers in our waters for if there has been one accident, there could be others, liable to cause irretrievable damage. That is why we were willing to have the hon. member put his motion. In fact, we hope the discussion can take place because we too believe that the motion was a very important one and should be the subject of a debate.
When it comes to water pollution, air pollution or pollution of the general environment by cities discharging their sewage into waterways, we must be prepared to spend a great deal of money to cope with such a disaster. Therefore we ask the government to take the proper measures to protect the public.
If the government or international organizations are delaying the building of pipelines for the movement of oil, it is because the financial question is not settled yet. Therefore, since the opportunity arises, we ask once more that the necessary steps be taken to issue credits at low interest rate in order that these works may be carried out.
If these projects are physically possible I can't see why the government would not make them financially feasible. All delays in building and improving houses that should be done in Canada are due to financial difficulties. As a matter of fact, if we have the engineers, the building materials and all other necessary elements to proceed with these improvements, we can assuredly find ways of financing them.
There are references to improvements, pipeline construction and various other means likely to better the situation, but nobody dares deal with the financial issue since nothing is possible without the necessary funds.
Since it is a financial matter, the government should appoint an ad hoc committee that would seek to find the financial means needed to realize such projects. If such projects were feasible, it should certainly be possible to finance them with means others than those we are using today.
For instance, let us consider the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority which cannot pay back its debt or the interest on it. Yet it should be a profitable enterprise, as any other public undertaking for that matter. When an enterprise is not profitable, it means that other organizations are taking advantage of that fact.
Some projects that could provide jobs without anyone getting saddled with debts that cannot be repaid on account of exorbitant interests on capital, are postponed. If investment funds were provided interest-free, we could realize any project useful to this country and to foreign countries as well since quite often international matters are involved.

June 9, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak this afternoon on a subject as serious as the one before us, it is not my intention to engage in reproaches and recriminations in connection with procedural matters. I say this at the outset, because wherever I have gone in the last few years, young people, young men and women everywhere, are concerned about the dangers of pollution, whether pollution of our waters, of our land or of the air. Then, too, there is noise pollution to be considered. As I say, young men and women everywhere are concerned about this issue and they want us to be concerned, too. Sometimes these young people have hangups. They take tough positions and act with some degree of violence in an attempt to get us to do the job we should be doing here in the House of Commons.
Before I get into the meat of my address, I should like to refer specifically to the motion before us. This is the motion moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle)-he was originally an Albertan and this, of course, does a little for his character and his calibre:


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The motion reads:
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 the 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, George 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.
Then, there was an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), which I had the pleasure of seconding. It read as follows:
That the 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".
Once again, we have seen evidence of the serious consequences of an oil spill in waters near the Canadian coast. It seems to me that the young people have put their finger on one of the great dangers facing mankind. I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) when he says that man, having invented and developed nuclear weap-
Oil Pollution
ons of all kinds, is now in a position, by pressing buttons, to destroy his own species. However, I agree also with this young generation which has reminded us so forcefully that if we do nothing to control pollution, for example, pollution of the sea itself, so rich in resources of every kind, we shall face a danger equally great. We shall, in fact, be sounding the death knell of humanity on this earth. If I might be personal at this point, may I say this is one of the concerns of my son, Brian Woolliams, 16 years of age, who often discusses it with me and other members of the family. He, and others like him, are deeply concerned. We must all be concerned about this issue.
I listened today with great interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). He said the government was looking into the situation. I hope they will not continue to "look into it" much longer. In 1968 they were given a mandate. We want doers, not lookers. It is time for action rather than words and inertia. This is why we have been asking questions continually over a period of years. We want to come to grips with this subject. We have been exploring for oil and gas in Canada's north for 15 to 20 years, and we know from reports from the United States and Canada that vast discoveries of crude petroleum and natural gas have been made in the Arctic. We have known for some time that in this modern world, with its automation, there is a great demand for energy in every country, including the United States, Canada, Britain and France.
I do not intend to present any recriminations today because this is too serious a subject to become involved in procedure. This is probably the most serious subject I have ever discussed in the House of Commons, and I refer to pollution. We had our procedural wrangle yesterday. It is not now time for another such discussion. It is not time for the government to play tricks, it is time for serious thinking.
Let me now come to grips with the subject I wish to discuss this afternoon. We know there have been discoveries of crude petroleum and natural gas in Alaska and in Canada's north. We know that the United States, with its industrial might, will demand and will get this potential energy. This government has known since it came into power in 1968 about these discoveries in the north, and must have realized that this energy would have to be moved through some media, by pipeline, tanker, airplane or train. This government has known for a considerable length of time of vast crude petroleum discoveries in Alaska and that it was necessary to move that oil from Prudhoe Bay to Anchorage or Valdez. The United States has had this problem on the tracing board for some time. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that expression in view of the fact that when I used it this week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he did not know of the board to which I was referring. This is a term used by engineers. They put their ideas on paper and then transfer them into plans for pipelines, and building of roads and so on.
I am glad to see that the right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is here, because it was his government that gave us the great vision of the north. His government started that great development now taking place in the north. Many people

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
laughed, including a former Prime Minister, Mr. Chevrier and Mr. Pickersgill. They all laughed about that vision which has brought about this great development. This government has known for a long time that we must move these vast quantities of crude oil from Prudhoe Bay down to Anchorage, and from there by some other means to Seattle and other places in the United States. Many speakers have pointed out that this is one of the most dangerous shipping areas to be found. It is very dangerous in the area of Cherry Point where this leakage occurred.
I come from a province whose economic foundation has been based on energy since the 1940's. Agriculture is an important industry in that province, probably the primary one, but natural gas and oil have lead to the building of urban centres. Many young men and women are leaving the farms to find employment in these large cities built from the material wealth of that energy. Perhaps this is why I am so concerned about this matter. I realized immediately this government was elected that the time had come to find out whether this government had a plan for moving this energy. There is no point in ciriticizing or being worried about the ecology of the sea because of potential spills or leakages unless you are in possession of scientific fact. We have spent a great deal of money on many ridiculous things when we should have been taking advantage of the human resource of this country, putting university graduates to work on finding answers. Had this been done the government would not be floundering today without answers.
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) whether he had suggested to United States authorities that instead of using a tanker route down the B.C. coast they would consider an inland pipeline route. I asked* whether he had come to any conclusion based on scientific fact that it would be better to pipe that crude petroleum and natural gas out of the north than ship it by tanker. I asked whether he had scientific information showing that a pipeline would be safer than the use of tankers. Let us remember that one of these methods will be used. That energy will be moved out of the north and the United States is going to move it to its industrial centres. Regardless of what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) says, the United States needs that energy. Canada is a fast-growing industrial nation and it will require this energy in the very near future.
On April 27, 1971 I directed this question to the Prime Minister as recorded at page 5258 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, the questions directed to the Prime Minister indicate how complex and divisive this problem is. I do not mean division on the part of the government but rather the complexity resulting from the pollution factor, economic factors and the defence aspect mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. Will the government now consider setting up a feasibility study by the best experts in these fields and Members of Parliament and Senators in order that we can get together on this subject, work together as a nation and come up with the right answers as a basis for our submissions to the United States?
This, in itself, is an indictment of this government, because it has no plan and has not even indicated that it prefers the pipeline route down the Mackenzie delta. It has not said it prefers the use of tankers down the coast of Canada. I suggest the reason the government has not said anything is that it is frightened of the electorate. The

government cannot play politics for too long with this issue, it must come to grips with it.


An hon. Member:: Do you know something?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody asked whether I know something. I hope when I have finished that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice will appreciate this problem. In answer to my question the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, we hope that in respect of all questions affecting Canada's future we can work together as a nation, but as a result of the way the parliamentary system has been set up there is one executive called upon to take its responsibilities, and that we intend to do.
In other words, the Prime Minister said this government would take a decision, but no decision has been taken as yet. No feasibility study has been carried out. Up until last week I had a question on the order paper seeking information in respect of who was the head of the task force. I wondered whether this was being left to private enterprise, or whether the task force was made up of people from private enterprise, from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wanted to know who was the head of the task force.
My first indictment of the government is that there has never been a proper task force set up or a feasibility study made so the government could make a decision. That is why this government is floundering, and that is why the Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot give answers. I do not expect to get answers in this regard from the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) as he is a new minister and has not made any speeches on the subject in the House since becoming minister. He has made his speeches on an extramural basis outside the House. I will be very surprised if he comes up with any answers today as to how this energy is to be moved; that is by pipeline, tanker, train or aircraft.
Let us see what some of the other questions are which were put. I -am referring to March 11 of the same year as recorded at page 4163 of Hansard. At that time I said:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Normally I would have put it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but he is not here.
One of the great troubles with the question period is that only half the ministers are here. I went on:
As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated that the government would entertain a United States project to build a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley through the Prairies, has the Canadian government set down terms under which Canadian labour, equipment and pipeline supplies will be used if such a project is undertaken by the United States.
Now, what was the answer by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? He said:
Mr. Speaker, I think the guidelines issued last August, which represent the government's position in respect of a pipeline, were very clear in this respect. Guideline number one, I believe, indicates there will be a clear preference for maximum Canadian
June 9, 1972

content in any application that is made in respect of the construction of a pipeline.
Then, I asked:
Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to advise us whether there have been any discussions with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan-
The answer was "No". Finally, on March 11, 1971 the Minister at that time said they did not know whether or not they were favouring a pipeline. The reason was they had no feasibility studies which the government had supported and laid before Parliament as well as the Canadian people.
Now, I shall go to the questions and answers recorded on March 5, 1971. I asked five questions on that day and received the same kind of wishy-washy answers. There was no decision. I said:
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that no decision had been made by the United States authorities in reference to the pipeline from the rich Alaska northern slopes to Valdez.
Of course, that is dealing with TAPS.
In view of the fact that a consortium of companies in the United States has already stockpiled pipe for the building of such a pipeline, is the minister aware of that and is he now aware of the decision made by U.S. government authorities to build such a pipeline in view of the stockpile?
I advised the government in that question that according to reports from official places in Washington that United States had been stockpiling the pipe to build TAPS so that the crude petroleum could be moved by tanker down the west coast of British Columbia. What was the answer? There is no point in asking questions if you do not receive information and use the information once you receive it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, then the Acting Prime Minister, more acting than Prime Minister, said:
No, Mr. Speaker. It may be that there are such stockpiles; I do not disagree with that. I do know that no decision has been made. I would like to tell the House that the United States Secretary of State has indicated to me that he now agrees to enter into consultations with us on this question. I am sure he would not have done so if a decision had already been made.
The United States had already stockpiled the pipe. The study had been completed and they had decided to build the pipeline, but they thought they would soothe the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As I listened to him, I decided that he must be the most optimistic minister I had ever heard. He reminded me of a story I was told by a fellow who said that his 85-year old father married the woman next door, who was 70 years of age, and five days later purchased a house near a school. He was very optimistic. That situation is similar to the one we face when dealing with the jurisprudence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not optimism; it is potential.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will leave it to hon. members to draw any conclusion they want from that, but it did seem to me to be optimism.


Erik Nielsen: He has no potential, so it must be optimism.
Oil Pollution


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At that point I asked the minister this question:
In light of the answer, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government has made up its own mind as to which transportation route would be the best in Canada's national interest, that is, down the Mackenzie delta or to the port of Valdez and then by tanker to the United States? What is Canada's position and how did the government arrive at it?
The minister could very briefly have said that they did not have an answer. Let us hear what he did say:
I thought the hon. gentleman would have learned by now from the repetitive statements I have made in the House that the Canadian government feels there is a very serious risk in the movement of oil by tanker down the Pacific coast, and it would not be in the interest of either of our two countries.
Well, what kind of nonsense is that! I said:
Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the minister's statements in that regard, but does the government then endorse the building of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley and through the Prairies to the industrial centres of the United States?
The minister said:
I am sure that as a member from Alberta he would wish me to be in as strong a bargaining position as possible in relation to the United States, and to ensure that if an application is made it is one that meets our requirements and not only those of the United States.
The point is that now the United States is going ahead with this project. The expression one might use would be that it is too late to close the barn door after the horse has run away. This is what the government has been doing continually.
I want to deal with some more questions I asked on this subject to show the lengths to which all of us on this side went to try to obtain an answer to a very serious problem of pollution about which all members from British Columbia and all members here were concerned. Of course, they should be concerned. They should be concerned about action on the part of the government. I do not know what hon. members opposite say to their minister in the caucus but I would sure like to be there some time.


An hon. Member:: Come on over.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says: "Come on over". I could not stand the vacillation and procrastination. We could certainly do without the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) because he got the House in such an uproar last night that the Speaker almost had to use his prerogative to adjourn the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You mean the opposition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will not become involved in an argument with the minister. On March 10, 1971, as recorded in Hansard at page 4135,1 asked this question:
The minister suggests that various departments are studying this matter. Will he at this time, or perhaps later on motions, make a statement indicating the evidence on which he bases his recommendations or his opinion of that evidence? Would he give us some indication of the type of personnel who provided the evidence on which he bases his opinion?
This is the answer of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time:

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
Mr. Speaker, we have been considering this problem for some time-
He is like the minister today, who says the government is still looking. What they are looking at is the pollution which has now occurred. He said they have been considering the problem for some time. This is a most considering government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I thought you said you would be a statesman this afternoon!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I overlooked a few remarks I could be making. I say to the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that it is difficult to be a statesman when one is involved in a problem like this and no one will come to grips with it. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said:
-I set up the first category of restrictions on construction and we said repeatedly that final instructions would be issued, we hoped, in the course of the coming months.
Coming years or coming months. So, the merry-go-round goes on. On many occasions the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replies by saying: "Let us have your viewpoint". We told him that we need a study. If the study is made, we will be able to negotiate with evidence and with wisdom with the United States, because they will not stop the tankers if the pipeline is built. All the talk in the world will not stop them. It will be too late, then. On March 19 I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can either of the ministers responsible advise whether they now have a definite assurance from the United States that the Prudhoe Bay to Valdez pipeline will not be undertaken until negotiations have been continued and furthered in relation to the Mackenzie Valley route?
The minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any such assurance. This is an internal matter for the United States of America.
Yes, but it is a very important matter to Canada because what has happened has been only a taste of what is going to happen along the British Columbia shoreline. The government's own members have said that. They agree with me. The minister went on to say:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has made Canadian concerns known in regard to marine shipping off the British Columbia Coast. I think all authorities in Washington are aware that we should like consideration to be given to the Mackenzie Valley route, subject to Canadian rules and Canadian decisions, before the Valdez decision is made, but certainly we cannot bind the United States government to await that decision.
The only binding has been that this government has ended up with no answer and no information.
On May 4, 1971,1 asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, in light of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said about the meeting in Washington between Canadian and United States officials, may I ask if the Canadian delegation in its official capacity suggested any alternative route or method for transporting this crude petroleum? If they did, on what study did they base their recommendations?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no, the Canadian government did not suggest an alternative route.

That is the answer, that the Canadian government has not suggested anything to the United States, they have stood by, doing nothing, saying nothing, making no study, knowing nothing, and of course making no decisions. The minister went on to say:
The delegation that went with the authority of the Canadian government went to discuss the ecological dangers of building the TAPS line, which I think is the correct procedure at the present time.
It does not take much training or much brains to know that. I can quote certain figures here of other spills that have affected Canada, such as the one down in California, and the one in Nova Scotia, the Arrow. We all know that it does not take much training or brains to tell the United States that it is dangerous to ship oil down the shores of British Columbia. The government sent a large staff to the United States to tell the authorities that. I imagine that the U.S. authorities listened, and I imagine that they were overwhelmed with the wisdom they received. I say that if the government had taken up our suggestion made three years ago, made a proper feasibility study and collected evidence, they could have come to a conclusion as to which route would be safer from both the ecological and economic points of view. I say to the government that they might present "their views to the U.S. authorities any way they like, but the United States will go ahead with the tanker route because they will not wait for a wishy-washy, procrastinating government of this kind.
My next question to the minister was:
Mr. Speaker , may I ask a supplementary question. What knowledge and studies did the Canadian officials use in discussing this question with the United States officials? What study did Canadians use?-
The minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has had considerable experience in cleaning up oil spills on the ocean.
Well, it will have a lot more experience because it has no solution to the problem that causes them. That is where the government has failed us to a high degree; it has failed every Canadian. The solution of this problem is not to be left to big corporations with selfish interests. Certainly, they have selfish interests when they are in business because they are in business to make profits. The government of Canada should deal with this matter because it concerns every Canadian and his welfare; it concerns the survival of mankind, not only here but throughout the world. The government should be able to tell us today without any equivocation or any evasion what route they plan to follow, what they said to the United States, and what hard bargaining occurred. No hard bargaining occurred. It is a joke.
On May 3, 1971 as recorded at page 5427 of Hansard I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs in either capacity whether the government officials at today's talks in Washington are expressing the position that Canada must be a formal party to the discussions on the initiation of the TAPS route or any other route?
At least, we should have been part of the discussions. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meetings that are being held in Washington is to discuss the "concerns that we have about the
June 9, 1972

ecological dangers that arise from the building of this pipeline, and we will be discussing with the United States how best the interests of the Pacific coast of Canada and the United States can be protected.
Did that mean that the government supported TAPS? I want the minister to tell me that this afternoon. I want him to tell the Canadian people whether he supports the TAPS line or the Mackenzie Valley line. Let us have it without any evasion or equivocation.


John George Diefenbaker: He isn't here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), who had a little argument with me a moment ago, is here. My next question was:
Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not quite get the import of my question. What I am asking is whether those officials are expressing the position that Canada must be a formal party-I mean formal party-to the discussions on the initiation of the TAPS route or any other route?
The minister answered:
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this is a decision that has to be made by the United States.
At this point he let the cat out of the bag. This decision was left to the United States. They left Canada out of it and made the decision themselves. We heard the minister say that the decision was left to the United States. If there should be a spill, the government will then make a formal protest. That will clean up a lot of White Rock, that will clean up a lot of sea, that will clean up the damages done to the birdlife, fishlife and other life along the shores.
Before I leave this point, I want to say again that for four years we have pressed the new government-because the former Pearson government did nothing about it-to make a study, to supply us with evidence, to tell us who is heading the study, to give us the facts, and to give us the decision, painful as it may be. Whatever decision is made, as somebody said earlier today, it will not be an easy decision. I will repeat that this energy will come the north whether this government wants it or not, and yet they have not even met or negotiated with the United States.
Now, I will go on to another subject which was touched upon briefly today, that is oil pollution caused by tankers carrying crude petroleum on the high seas near the shoreline of Canada. This, in conjunction with the fact the consumer faces an extensive increase in the price of his gasoline, are the two foremost problems facing the federal government today. Those were the words I used once before in this House. Neither unemployment nor the economic welfare of the nation can be separated from pollution by oil, or the cost of the product to the consumer. The point I am making there is obvious. One can take an extreme, personal stand and say that ecology is everything and that we must not move anything. If mankind had led that kind of life since the beginning of time we would not be here. There must be some development, but also there must be some rules on how the ball game is to be played. There must be a balance between pollution control, the economic welfare of the nation, consideration of the gross national product, and employment. The question is linked with the development of the north.
As I said before, in 1957 the Progressive Conservative Party created and started a northern vision which has led
Oil Pollution
to a vast energy exploration in the north, and in consequence huge discoveries of natural gas and petroleum have been made both in northern Canada and in Alaska. There is a growing demand for and a shortage of fuel energy and gasoline in the United States, and indeed in Canada. In fact the National Energy Board recently refused permission to enlarge the amount of natural gas exported, but I will not go into that matter at this point except to say that when representatives of the National Energy Board appeared before a standing committee of this House they said they were starved for staff to provide them with scientific advice. Yet when we ask the government questions, it replies, "We are leaving it to the National Energy Board." But the government will not give the National Energy Board the proper staff so that it can get the information on which to base decisions.
In the light of the hard fact that the Mid-East won an unprecedented price increase for its crude petroleum, the industrial centres of the United States and Canada have turned their thirsty oil eyes to the north for the purpose of replacing Mid-East exports. The consumers of both countries are seeking a reasonable price now and for the future, and to achieve that aim plans are being consumat-ed to transport crude petroleum reserves and other byproducts to the industrial centres of both countries. How is this to be done? There has been no study, no decision. To date the greatest proven field for crude petroleum appears to be on the northern slopes of Alaska, while an extensive find of natural gas has been located in northern Canada on Christian Island.
An early start on a pipeline in Alaska is now being planned in earnest, if not already under way, as a step to keep the United States and indeed eastern Canada, from being too heavily dependent on imports from the Mid-East and elsewhere. It is said that there is a reserve of 10 billion barrels of crude petroleum in the northern slopes of Alaska, and I might add that these statistics were given out two years ago.
There are two routes for transporting the crude petroleum to the industrial centres of North America. There are two serious problems that must be weighed carefully in the decision making on how to get this oil safely and cheaply from Alaska to the midwest of the United States. That is the decision the government will not make, and has not made for the last four years. It is a decision it will not make until it calls an election. First, the question of our economics, and still more important, the question of preservation of our northern ecology must be considered and weighed well. That is why a study is necessary.
The first method would be to build a pipeline from the northern slopes of Alaska to the port of Valdez, and then to take the oil by large tankers down the west coast of British Columbia to the United States. That seems to be what will happen at this time. The second method and route would be to build a pipeline from the Alaska slopes down the Mackenzie delta across the Prairies to the midwest, sharing the flow in the line with the oil supplied from the other proven provincial fields in Canada.

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
A massive leak from a pipeline, difficult to construct and maintain over and through the permafrost territory, could in itself destroy the northern ecology. In conjunction with the ecology problems, the two transport methods and routes would have to be weighed in light of the economics of getting the product to the consumer. In brief, which method and route would be more beneficial to Canadian consumers, and indeed to the ecology of North America? It is just that simple a question, but it requires a decision. I hope the minister will make an announcement today. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives for some time have recommended that a study be carried out.
Tanker oil pollution near the western shoreline of Canada, in conjunction with the increase in the price of gasoline, are among the foremost problems facing Canadians. You cannot divorce oil pollution from unemployment or the economic growth of the nation, but it can be done with judgment, with rules, regulations and decisions based on facts. As I said, Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing demand for fuel and gasoline throughout the world.
Now, I want to turn for a few moments to deal with the question of the dangers that have arisen simply because no decisions have been made. On February 15, 1970, the Liberian tanker Arrow was wrecked on the Cerberus Rock in Chedabucto Bay off Nova Scotia. Only 1.3 million gallons, of an estimated 2.5 million spilled into the water, were recovered. The remainder contaminated 190 miles of shoreline in the bay, miles of beaches on Sable Island 100 miles away, and 4,800 birds lost their lives. The Arrow was Canada's major oil spill disaster. What happened? Who paid the shot? Read the Henderson report. The Canadian taxpayer paid the shot. They cannot determine who owned the tanker. There has been no way of measuring the damage, and so the taxpayer has paid the shot.
At the beginning of May U.S. Interior Secretary Morton issued preliminary approval for a go ahead of the TAPS tanker system to ship oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez by pipeline and from there to the west coast by giant oil tankers. One terminus for these tankers is Cherry Point in the state of Washington, which is exactly 20 miles away from the place in Canada which is polluted today. The tanker Arrow was 18,000 tons dead weight. The tankers for the TAPS route are to be over 100,000 tons dead weight. What will our shoreline be like if one of these large tankers is wrecked? Where will the government be then? Where will its supporters in British Columbia be then? It is a sad story.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in this debate because I can put to him directly the very extensive record, which has already been outlined in this House, of work done both with regard to the question of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route and the dangers involved for Canada's west coast because of the TAPS route.
The hon. member made a number of points, saying there has been no indication on the part of the government of its views with regard to the TAPS route, that the government has not undertaken any feasibility studies with regard to the Mackenzie route, and has failed to let the United States government know its views. I am glad to have this opportunity to point out to the hon. member, from documentation tabled in the House, and from statements made in the House and outside it, that on all three points he is dead wrong and his assertions to the House Eire all false.
Dealing first with the question of feasibility studies, he said that the Conservatives for some time had recommended a feasibility study. If the hon. member was on the ball and was doing his job, Mr. Speaker, he would know that on April 18, 1972, I tabled in this House copies of documents dealing with 30 various aspects of a feasibility study preparatory to informing the two agencies of government concerned with regard to the Mackenzie valley pipe line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: These are studies that have been under way for the past three years, and that we would hope to have finished by the end of the summer season. This has been indicated repeatedly. I suppose the only way to get a message across to the hon. member would be to have a chisel, engrave the message on a tablet of stone, and hit him over the head with it, because he does not learn easily. This question has been under extensive study. Over $15 million have been expended to put the government into a position to make a judgment about the Mackenzie valley pipeline. As I have said repeatedly in this House, Mr. Speaker, at the end of this year when the companies themselves are ready to come forward, we will be in a position to evaluate proposals for a Mackenzie valley pipeline. So, on the first of the hon. member's points that there has not been any preparatory work, he is dead wrong. If there has been any lack of preparatory work it has been by the hon. member in preparing for his speech. He just has not done his homework.
The hon. member also said that I have made no speeches in the House on this question. I spoke extensively, in fact probably too extensively on it, in the Throne Speech debate. I reviewed the question extensively-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not on this.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On this and the question of energy, and I dealt at length with the matter of studies before the standing committee. Further, I dealt with the question of energy policies during an opposition day debate. Once again there is lack of preparation. Mr. Speaker, but it has been lack of preparation by the hon. member for Calgary North who has been lying down on the job.
The hon. member also suggested that members of the government have not been in the position to set before the House, the country, and the United States government its position with regard to the proposals for a tanker route and the Mackenzie valley pipeline. I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House to go through the

June 9, 1972

very extensive documentation on this point, to show just how badly informed is the hon. member.
As a start I should like to bring to his attention the statement made by my predecessor, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Greene) in a debate in this House on March 12, 1971. He said:
As I have said, the Prudhoe Bay oil discovery was disclosed in June of 1968. As early as within one month from the time of that declaration the chairman of the National Energy Board met with the presidents of the oil companies who owned that oil-Arco, Humble and BP-and pointed out to them that the Mackenzie Valley line had advantages, as an alternative and should be considered by them.
Mr. Speaker, previous to that, in a statement made to the Canadian Club in Vancouver on February 12, 1971, my predecessor also said:
The Canadian government is not opposed to the construction of oil and gas lines from Alaska through Canada to the continental United States and the government of Canada has already acted in a broad way to define the national goals of such a development. On August 13, 1970 I announced some definitive guidelines to assist industry in their planning.
He went on to say to that audience:
Personally, I think that the United States oil industry has been too hasty and too unplanned in its decision to move Alaska North Slope oil across Alaska from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and then by sea to receiving points in the U.S. northwest. Too hasty, because they did not give proper care and attention to the problems of the physical security of the oil line, the security of the environment in Alaska, the protection of the Alaska, British Columbia and Washington coastlines from sea-going tanker disasters, and to the question of the long term economics of the operation of such a line-
Once again, Mr. Speaker, my predecessor the hon. member for Niagara Falls made the government's concern about the risks to the coast amply clear. He also made it clear that the government was taking careful steps to make certain that it knew all about Arctic ecology and the impact of a pipeline in northern Canada before going ahead to issue permits.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), made reference to a series of meetings he had with officials of the United States government. To the hon. member who asserted that no attempt had been made to bring to the attention of the United States government the views of the Canadian government, I would refer an aide memoire delivered by the Canadian Embassy in Washington to the United States authorities on June 29, 1971, precisely on this issue, which reads in part:
At a meeting in Washington, D.C., on June 10 the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment expressed to the U.S. Secretary of State, the great concern of the Canadian government regarding proposals to move oil by tanker along Canada's Pacific coast and to the Puget Sound area. The Canadian ministers held the view that because of the virtual certainty that oil spills would occur if the proposed tanker movements were permitted in these confined coastal waters, present plans should be reviewed with the objective of diverting these oil shipments to destinations other than Puget Sound.
The aide memoire continues:
The Canadian ministers drew attention to the widespread public concern in Canada about the environmental risks involved in the proposed Alaska oil movements. This concern has been expressed by the unanimous approval given in the Canadian House of Corn-
Oil Pollution
mons on June 21 for the adoption of the third report of the special committee on environmental pollution. A copy of this report is attached.
That unanimous approval, Mr. Speaker, must have been in the absence of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) or maybe he was here and as usual did not know what was going on. The aide memoire goes on to indicate to the United States government the proposed line of discussions to deal with the oil tanker problem and to carry out additional research into the possible damage to fish and bird life, the question of monetary damages, the question of shipping control-all proposals that dealt with these questions long before the United States government had made its decision to go on with this route.
The aide memoire of June 29 was followed by an aide memoire to the United States government on August 20, 1971, in the following terms:
The great concern of the Canadian government regarding proposals to transport oil by tanker from Alaska to the Puget Sound area has been made known to the United States government on a number of occasions during the course of this year. This concern is based upon the certainty that any movement of oil by tanker on the scale which has been proposed will eventually result in oil spills. The most recent occasion was at a meeting of United States and Canadian officials in Washington on June 29. At that meeting a proposal was elaborated in an aide memoire for detailed consultations to be held as soon as possible,-
The aide memoire goes on to say:
In general terms, as outlined on earlier occasions, the Canadian government is convinced that if the full economic costs of the substantial environmental risks are taken into account it will be found desirable to avoid introducing large and hazardous tanker movements into the inner waters of the Pacific Coast. The Canadian government is concerned, however, that there has so far been no indication of sources of oil supply for the States in the Pacific northwest. In order to explore this aspect of the question the competent Canadian authorities would be prepared to discuss the technical and other factors which might affect the continuing contribution to the oil needs of the region from Canadian sources.
Mr. Speaker, coupled with my responsibilities as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I had the opportunity to meet with the United States Secretary of the Interior, under whose jurisdiction this comes, on March 30 of this year and to point out to him the great concern of Canadians as echoed unanimously by this House with respect to the danger of heavy movements of oil in the northwest Pacific coast area, particularly Puget Sound, the progress that has been made by the Canadian government in the studies I have referred to, the progress that has been made in defining the area for a Mackenzie Valley pipeline-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Whom did you meet with?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The United States Secretary of the Interior, the member of the United States government responsible for the pipeline.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What was his name?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Rogers Morton. The hon. member seems to be as ignorant of that as he is-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wanted to find out if you knew.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What is your name, do you know?

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution Mr. Nielsen: Who the hell are you?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In my letter to Secretary Morton of May 4 this year, I said:	..
I found most useful my meeting with you in your office in Washington on March 30 last, and appreciate greatly your courtesy in discussing with me certain aspects of the interesting decision you have under consideration in connection with an application for a permit to construct an oil pipeline in Alaska.
At the time of our conversation, you suggested that you would like to have more insights and information into the Canadian Interest in having such an oil pipeline constructed through Canada from Prudhoe Bay.
In four pages, the letter goes on to cite in detail the arguments in favour in moving the oil down through the Mackenzie Valley rather than through Alaskan waters. The document has been made public, but of course one cannot make documents like that public for the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) because he is too idle to do his homework on these important questions.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said that the government has done no feasibility studies. I pointed out by a document laid before this House, and it must have been available to the hon. member, that there has been an expenditure of $15 million over the last three years for defining the problems involved in building a Mackenzie Valley pipeline and for the purpose-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have listened to the argument and-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Ask your question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will ask my question if you will be patient. Have you then concluded, and have you reached a decision or made an ageeement with the United States government that TAPS in fact will not be built, that the crude petroleum and natural gas will be carried by pipeline down the Mackenzie Delta? Answer that question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course there is no agreement because the American administration has decided that they are going to move American oil through American territory and international waters down to the American markets. The hon. member, who is supposed to be a lawyer, should know that there is no legal action that the government of Canada can take to prevent that.


Erik Nielsen: The government has not decided that, industry has. The government gave a permit.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If Secretary Morton is not the government, who is?


Erik Nielsen: All he did was issue the permit; industry moves it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He issued the permit to build the line. The hon. member knows better than that. The hon. member for Calgary North has suggested that our position has not been made clear to the United States government. I pointed out that repeatedly in personal

meetings between various members of this government and members of the American administration, and in aides memoire placed before that government and, as long ago as 1968 within a month of the time that the Prudhoe Bay field was disclosed to the public, representatives of this government already proposed the Mackenzie route as a favourable one for bringing the oil to market. It seems to me that little more need be said about the contribution of the hon. member for Calgary North in this debate.
Several points raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) require a reply. The hon. member said, raising the same rather incredible proposition put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North, that in some way we should get inside the American jurisdiction and the Canadian government should prevent that government from making a decision with regard to oil coming from within its territory and going to its markets.
The hon. member for York South said-and I appreciate his courtesy in indicating why he would not be present when I spoke-that we should have protested the construction of refining facilities in Puget Sound at the time they came into being. Mr. Speaker, the refining facilities in Puget Sound have been in operation at least since 1961. Ninety per cent of the oil used in those refining facilities in use comes not from overseas but is Canadian oil, Alberta oil that travels via the Trans-Mountain pipeline overland from Canada. The hon. member is really suggesting that the government of Canada should have protested the construction of oil refineries in Puget Sound built expressly to take advantage of hydrocarbons coming from Alberta. I can say one thing for the hon. member for Calgary North; at least that is one objection he did not raise.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the minister for his generosity.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to take this opportunity to repeat an offer I made in the House of Commons on April 19, 1972, as reported at page 1440 of Hansards-the offer was repeated, as I have indicated, to the United States government-namely, that we are prepared to put the United States in the position, with regard to the Puget Sound refineries, where not one ounce of oil need be brought by seaborne traffic to those refineries. Once they had established oil supplies which would come via the Trans-Mountain route and provided the oil requirements of those refineries, there would be no need to bring seaborne oil into that area. We are prepared to make that undertaking. We hope the United States government, which of course will have to seek and obtain approval of the courts with respect to these proposals, will take advantage of that offer and will meet the particular problem we face by using Canadian oil that is available via overland routes, thereby making it unnecessary for oil to be brought by sea which is the problem involved in this debate.
The government of Canada in the last four years has been active in this area. Commencing, as I said, immediately with the discovery of Prudhoe Bay oil, the government has indicated to American companies Canada's will-
June 9, 1972

ingness to consider the Mackenzie Valley route and has set up the extensive feasibility studies necessary to determine whether a Mackenzie Valley pipeline for oil and gas can be constructed to transport these products through our country to the markets of the central continent.
Furthermore, the government has been active in putting forward, by diplomatic memoire, by personal contact and by public statement both in this House and otherwise, the danger to Canada and to the American west coast which would result from the TAPS route. Of course we are disappointed. We regret that the American government, notwithstanding this, has decided to go ahead with the TAPS route. We must acknowledge, however, that it is their decision and they have the right to do this. I would not go so far as the hon. member for York South and suggest that this is an unfriendly act.
Even now it is not too late for the United States administration, as an act of comity, to reverse its decision, to be prepared to halt construction of the TAPS pipeline and come forward with a new proposal; that is, to participate with the companies which probably today or early next week will be announcing their intention to go ahead with a Mackenzie Valley route. On that basis we could be assured that in future the kind of damage which occurred in Puget Sound and which has been experienced in Canada will not be caused to the west coast.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means.


Erik Nielsen: The day before yesterday I asked the minister whether he had received an application from any company or consortium for the construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and he answered that no formal application had been received.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: What he has just said comes as a startling revelation. He has indicated that he expects applications to be made some time next week for the construction of a pipeline.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said, as the hon. member will see if he reads Hansard. I said previously that we have received no formal application. However, we have received an indication that consortiums are getting together with regard to making an application. So my statement stands that no formal application has been made.


Erik Nielsen: The minister said, "Next week." He suggested there would be an application next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I expect that next week or, shall we say, in the very near future there may be such application. There have been a number of indications to suggest that applications will be coming to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to the land route. In large measure he and I will have to wait for those submissions to be made. We have reason to believe, from certain statements-the hon. member has had as much opportunity as I have had to gather this
Oil Pollution
impression from news reports-that the consortiums expect to get together and make an application.
Therefore, it would be constructive and would help the proposal made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, and supported by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if we put under the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission the resolution of the problem regarding tanker shipments both in the east and in the west, both in the waters of Puget Sound and in the international waters of eastern Canada. I would therefore hope we might have the support of the whole House, not only for the resolution but for the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad that I was present today to hear the speech delivered by the minister, for it represented 30 minutes of exculpation without information. What it lacked in common sense is made up in vociferous delivery. I have always liked listening to the hon. member because one has no difficulty hearing what he has to say.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am very glad to hear that.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an occasion that illustrates exactly the degree to which this House has been made to look ridiculous. The government either has not come with information or it has provided information that is not in accordance with the facts.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister laughs because he has been one of the main destroyers of this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have heard enough.


Mr. Crouse:: The minister cannot take it.


John George Diefenbaker: His leaving is in keeping with the courage he has always displayed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He makes a speech, we listen to him, he realizes it is foolish, ridiculous and full of incongruous statements, and away he goes because he does not want to be present when one reveals his total lack of consideration for the rights of Parliament. He does not want to hear what one says and thinks, apparently, that no one else will hear it. His leaving means that two ministers out of 30 remain in the House. Ministers of the Crown have responsibilities, but they are not held although this is supposed to be a most serious debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They will be here for the vote.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no question about that. Those automatons who are controlled by the government will be here for the vote. I am glad to receive that admission from the hon. gentleman. That is a most irresponsible statement and shows the degree to which this government has polluted Parliament. In other words, debate is no longer important. Ministers come in and deliver speeches which

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
have been written elsewhere and then leave, satisfied with their capacity of being able to read that which others had prepared.
The minister, in order to show the celerity, assiduity and dedication of the government, said, in effect, "Do not say we have not done anything." Then he said, "Why, last June 10, one year ago tomorrow, we sent a memo to the government of the United States." The minister then said, "We were not satisfied with that." Apparently they received no reply. On August 29 this was followed by another memo.
Apparently the United States government paid no attention whatsoever to the representations of the Canadian government which today is not very highly regarded by the administration of the United States.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) wants to interrupt, I will have a message for him. I do not want to deliver it because I do not feel this is the afternoon when I should. However, if he starts dancing around, as he does from time to time when problems are placed before him, I shall have to deal with him. I would not disturb the equanimity of the minister, but his record in the past few months in connection with United States trade matters has been so completely devoid of any effective action that I am surprised he even makes an appearance here as one of the two ministers present. He is 50 per cent of the government now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will discuss that record with you at any time.


John George Diefenbaker: I do want to hear his words of wisdom. On march 20 there was a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior of the United States. All that the minister who just finished speaking did was prove that this government writes notes but does not do anything effectively beyond that. Indeed, some of those notes were stated to have been very effective, and in the month of February the Prime Minister, speaking of the dangers of pollution, said Canada has contingency plans ready for anything. Today we find there were no contingency plans. All we have had is a series of letters to Washington; they call them aides memoire-to aid the memory of the United States with regard to Canada's position, with no action being taken.
We then had the visit of the President of the United States and the United States Secretary of State. They came to Ottawa. They heard, they listened, they saw, they went back to Washington, and nothing was done. Warnings have been given over and over again in this House with regard to the dangers of oil pollution, but in Your Honour's independent position as Acting Speaker of the House you must have recognized the dilatory manner in which this government carries out its responsibilities. Naturally, I do not expect from Your Honour an answer to that suggestion.
I have very high regard for the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). Mind you, I do not suspect in the slightest that what he produced had been worked out

across the way by the government. Not at all. He is a man who has a feel for what the government is thinking: this results in his being able to achieve something that no member on this side of the House has been able to achieve.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: There was just one case. I am referring to moving adjournments under Standing Order 43 for the purpose of discussing matters of signal importance. The hon. member has a 1,000 per cent record. No other member of this House has that. He moved a motion to provide for some words that had allegedly been spoken by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and it received unanimous support.


Erik Nielsen: Immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: When he brought forward that motion, it received unanimous support.


Erik Nielsen: Immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to enlist the hon. member. He is sitting on the other side of the House; he is not with us but he is of us. From now on, when we have a motion that is serious in its import and ought to be considered, may we count on him as an ally to move it? That is the only way in which members of the opposition can bring anything before Parliament under Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He is powerful, and I believe in paying tribute where it is due. On June 6 a similar motion was moved by the hon. member for Egmont. That is recorded at page 2879 of Hansard. When that motion was moved, Mr. Speaker said that the motion required unanimous consent. When he asked if there was unanimous consent, the Hallelujah chorus opposite said no. A little later the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) moved a motion. The speaker said:
There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
Again the Hallelujah chorus of members supporting the government said no. On June 7 the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock again introduced a motion. Again there was no unanimity.


Erik Nielsen: The Liberals refused it.


John George Diefenbaker: On the same day, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) moved a motion, with the same result.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Don't interrupt him.


John George Diefenbaker: That shows the cruel farce of the new rules. Some hon. members sitting around me thought I was mistaken when I told them that if the rule changes were accepted, such rules would stultify the House of Commons and crucify Parliament. That is what has happened.
Can you imagine the House of Commons dealing with one of the most serious matters facing this country with
June 9, 1972

only two ministers being in the House? The minister responsible beat a retreat. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) read an essay to the House.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It at least said something.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) is in a particularly vulnerable position. I do not want to bring him into this. There will be no oil poured out if I start on him. Can you imagine these two ministers speaking in the House and then leaving? They do not want to listen to argument. They have every reason to feel that way as this place has become a sepulchre of freedom. Almost every vestige of freedom that existed in the House when this government came into power has been destroyed by the rules which have been brought into effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing that we can bring before the House of immediate importance unless we secure unanimity, and unanimity is never given. I do not intend to deal particularly with the oil situation; it has been dealt with at great length. Having seen this House in the last few weeks, I can say it is unbelievable to those who saw Parliament in the days of King and St. Laurent.


Stanley Ronald Basford: And Diefenbaker.


John George Diefenbaker: It is unbelievable that a House of Commons should be reduced to innocuousness because a government, having secured rule changes, a portion by agreement and a major portion by closure, has been able completely to emasculate this institution. The two ministers laugh. They laugh as freedom is destroyed. They ridicule the idea because, after all, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once said, "We are your masters". That attitude toward Parliament is apparent at all times and it has been intensified recently.
I had hoped an election would not have been long delayed so that as a result of this government being defeated, Parliament might have freedom restored to it. But 1 am not hopeful now. I must admit that I made a serious mistake in predicting that the election would be in the late part of June. Something happened. Something occurred to hon. gentlemen over there. I would not be surprised if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs from British Columbia had been in conversation with his hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and had learned how dangerous it would be to go to the country.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We would sweep it.


Erik Nielsen: Sweep what?


Mr. Dinsdale:: Sweep too much under the rug.


John George Diefenbaker: I have had admiration for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton ever since the days at Saskatchewan University when he was president of our party at that university.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oil Pollution


John George Diefenbaker: I do not say that disdainfully at all. When I read recently what he found as a result of a poll, I can only conclude there were good reasons for the postponement of the election. If they take a few more polls, I do not think I would be venturing into the field of prophecy were I to say that it appears clear now that there will be no election until 1973. There are great difficulties ahead for the government. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is simply wallowing in difficulties. And while he wallows, Canada's trade is being lost.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will meet you on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: Export trade is being lost as a result of the failure of the Department of Finance to take action.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Wait until Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I have heard similar statistics. The minister is very happy about what is happening. Now we understand why the administration of the United States is so firm. They realize that whatever stands they take, the minister will approve regardless of the effect upon our trade.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Fifteen per cent up!


John George Diefenbaker: This is one reason we are afraid to speak out to the United States.


An hon. Member:: It is better than you did in 1962.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not talking about backbenchers. I should like to know who that hon. member is. Many of the backbenchers over there feel very much as I do, but they dare not say so, Mr. Speaker. One hundred and ten posts of the 150 available to backbenchers have been filled. There are 40 dangling plums, and the reward for silence is a prospective plum.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Is that how you ran your government?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman from British Columbia makes some of his finest contributions from a seated position. Once he gets up, he reads. I do not want to say anything more about him because he is not in my field of operation today. Although he is from British Columbia, he has not been able to get his government to do one single thing to protect the waters of British Columbia and the Pacific coast from oil pollution and the potential danger to that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The only one who did anything was the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson).


Jean-Luc Pepin: Istanbul!


John George Diefenbaker: His reward was to be shipped out. They would not listen to him. He was not as successful as the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. When he made a motion on this subject, the government turned it down. He found he could do nothing, so he went out to British Columbia to tell the people there that he could not do

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
anything while he was in Ottawa because of the attitude of the government toward that province.
I speak with a deep sense of feeling with regard to this institution. It has become a puppet in the hands of this government as far as the majority is concerned. It has become a memory of what a House of Commons should be. What do government members say? Apparently they agree with the Prime Minister that Members of Parliament are nobodies. Certainly that appellation reflects the attitude of the government toward them.
I pass to the next matter, Canada's natural resources. Where do we stand in relation to the United States? We send them notes. The air is full of notes-going one way! What are the replies? I remember the days of the First World War when Woodrow Wilson said, in effect; "We send notes because we are too proud to stand." Apparently that is the attitude today. Mention has been made of the possibility of an offer to build a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. The government found this out only yesterday, apparently. Yet a few weeks ago in Edmonton the Prime Minister announced in stentorian tones the building of a Mackenzie highway to extend 1,000 miles. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) said a pipeline could be built over the highway.
Did the United States agree, before that announcement was made, that it would build such a pipeline? The Prime Minister estimated it would cost $100 million. According to the estimate given to me, it would cost five or six times that amount. It is simply a means of befogging the thinking of the electors in Alberta and the Northwest Territories by pretending that something will be done.
What about our resources? We are today a "have" nation; the United States is a "have not" nation of those things required in the modern technological age. Imagine the position of affairs as revealed recently by Dr. Preston Cloud, Professor of geology at the University of California: he says that the world will run out of natural gas, zinc, tin, gold, silver and platinum in 20 years. He went on to say:
In 30 years there willl be no uranium 235, the basic atomic fuel. In about 50 years, oil will have ceased to gush from the last well. In less than a century we will have used up all our supplies of nickel, minerals are in similar danger. Only iron has a life expectancy of 400 years.
We have these elements to a degree that the United States has not, but needs. Surely the government, instead of sending notes, should be endeavouring to bring about agreement on the basis that we in Canada have these assets and they have not. The President of the United States made a statement after he was here, part of which apparently was written by one Head. It has the earmarks of such production. That is one Canadian production but the words used were obviously not written in Washington. He said, in effect, "We are going to get along very well." Earlier the Prime Minister spoke about a breakthrough. What about the great industrial concerns of the United States? The president of the United States National Coal Association, when giving evidence to the United States Senate, said:
[Mr. Diefenbaker.J
Our government considers Canada our own for energy purposes.
Surely a government of Canada that is worth its salt will, instead of making roseate statements such as those by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and others, stand up for Canada and assure us that this nation shall receive the fairness and consideration it deserves. There is no use trying to press this government to do anything. It just will not act. It is self-satisfied and secure with its majority. It continues its course, which already has had the effect of seriously weakening the Canadian economy.
Northern development was mentioned in the most admirable speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I have listened to him on many occasions, but his speech today was a mine of information concerning oil and Canada's problems arising therefrom. I congratulate him. I think this is the first time I have ever done that to anyone, but it was a speech worthy of the House. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was reading while the speech was being delivered. That is the interest he showed in this admirable speech which was worthy of the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I have never been able to compete with the terpsichorean way the minister has of dancing with his hands.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I learned that from you.


John George Diefenbaker: What of our northern resources? When I decided to bring before the people of Canada a plan for the development of the north, it was ridiculed. Liberal members, including Mr. Pearson the then leader of that party, said we were going to build roads and railroads from igloo to igloo. Apparently he had been reading what was said in 1874 regarding Macdonald's plan to support the building of the CPR: the Minister of Finance of that day suggested that Macdonald was endeavouring to build railroads from wigwam to wigwam.
We opened up the north and provided $7.5 million to each province in Canada for the construction of roads. I remember when we decided to support the building of the railway to Pine Point. Liberal members then jeered and said it was ridiculous. It was a nightmare to them. But today it is the best paying railroad in any part of Canada. This has been the attitude of the Liberal party throughout the years from the time of Macdonald right through to the present. It is always speaking about development, but has failed to act.
We now have this danger to our shores, and what action do we get from the government? None. We receive the same interest which the government shows in respect of our other resources. It is dumping them in the United States. Mention has been made of exports. Let us look at our record of exports, in large measure contributed to by raw materials sent out of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is absolutely wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister wants to speak and give us the facts, which he cannot do and does not dare to, I
June 9, 1972

would be glad to hear him. Let us consider the latest example in British Columbia, in connection with the railway, to supply coal to Japan, some five million tons a year. What is this government doing about that? Is this coal going to travel over Canadian railroads? I suggest it will do nothing of the kind. A United States outfit will carry the coal from the coalbeds, through the U.S.A. to dock facilities furnished by the people of Canada at tremendous expense, and in this way export thousands of Canadian jobs.
When I asked for some action what answer did I get? I was told the government was looking into it, giving it consideration. While they are considering it, we are disposing of our resources of coal and losing jobs for Canadians. I do not want to say anything more about the oil situation because I am in entire agreement with what has been said by my colleagues. What I have tried to do is see whether it would be possible to dislodge this government from its inertia and from its sitting position, from where it makes its greatest contribution, and get it to act for Canada.
The speech just concluded by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the former minister of defence, was one of defeatism and fear. He said the things he wanted to say in order to evade what should have been said. I am sorry if the election is to be postponed until 1973 because the time has come for Canadians, if they would preserve our heritage, to have a change of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I join the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) by complimenting him for introducing a tremendously important motion which has occasioned this important debate. Any motion which draws the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) into debate is one worth making. The House always enjoys his pungent comments whether or not one agrees with them. We listened with great interest and amusement to the right hon. gentleman.
Yesterday and today the leader of the NDP described the proposing of this motion and the debate thereon as a game, as trickery. I will come back to that matter in a minute. The right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert said we were playing politics, that we have lost the freedom of the House and that motions under Standing Order 43 amount to nothing, are never consented to and never reach the stage of debate.
Let me place on the record the fact that motions under Standing Order 43 moved by the opposition have been debated in the House and voted on. There was one by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the Public Service Commission's annual report. There was one from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) under Standing Order 43 which was voted on by this House. Unanimous consent was given by the government to its presentation to the House. It was on a somewhat related subject, the west coast tanker route.
A motion under Standing Order 43 was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who is not in his
Oil Pollution
place today, relating to Biafra. It was presented to the House and voted on. I appreciate why the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert would be unaware of motions made by the leader of the Conservative party. I understand neither of them pays too much attention to what the other is doing. That motion of the Leader of the Opposition was moved and voted on. What the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert says is really not correct. When a motion is well put and well directed, the government consents to its presentation to the House and supports it.


John George Diefenbaker: When the discussion will not be embarrassing to the government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Members of the opposition say that motions presented on this subject were not allowed. Let us look at those motions. On Tuesday, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) presented a motion to the effect that a committee look at the oil spill. I do not think we need another committee looking at it. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) presented a motion on Tuesday relating to federal action to clean up the spill. Action had been taken. Anything provided for in the motion was being deal with. On Wednesday another motion was presented under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, inviting the United States Secretary of the Interior to look at the oil spill. I am not sure that would have been very useful. Let us get something going, rather than just travelling around looking at things.
Again, on Wednesday the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) presented a motion to the effect that another committee should look at the oil spill and report back to the House. In my view that would not be of much use. Then on Thursday along came the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) who for the first time presented a motion that the matter relating to the international aspect of the problem be dealt with by the IJC. This was a very positive and useful type of motion. If some member of the opposition had moved a similar type of motion on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday there would have been no withholding of consent from this side. It would have been presented to the House and, I am sure, carried.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seeks the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of asking a question. Would the minister permit a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he overlooking the fact that on Tuesday, when the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) presented his motion, he asked as point (c) that what has happened be drawn forcefully to the attention of the government of the United States. What was wrong with that? How does it differ from what is now before the House?
3016

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is quite easy to answer. It was made clear yesterday, in the report given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), that this had been done, that our embassy in Washington had already brought the matter forcefully to the attention of the United States authorities.
Then on Thursday along came the hon. member for Fraser Valley East with a motion relating to the international aspects of this matter, aspects beyond the territory and jurisdiction of Canada, asking that the United States join with us in a reference to the IJC to look at these situations. That, of course, is a useful motion which this House should have before it, as it has now. I hope it will be carried unanimously when the vote is taken.
The government previously declared itself on this question. As was made clear yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and again last evening by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), the government at every point of contact with the United States government, from the President down, had urged this course of action. The government had declared itself and had made its position clear. The time had arrived when it would be helpful and appropriate if the House of Commons called upon the United States government for a response to the request of the Canadian government.
That is the type of motion which should have been put. Had it been put before, it would have been agreed to on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. It does not seem to me that the presentation of a motion of the type that would ask the United States government to respond to our suggestion that the IJC be called in to deal with certain international aspects beyond our territorial waters could be termed as trickery or playing games. It is a disappointment to me that the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) would describe such reasonable initiative as trickery.
In listening to members of the New Democratic Party and to some opposition spokesmen it would seem that they overstate their case to the extent that they lose credibility. They state that this government has a record of non-performance in this area and is not concerned with environmental issues. The fact is that this government is doing more in terms of protection, preservation and conservation of the environment than any other government in the world.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Perhaps we might look at a few things this Parliament has done. This Parliament has passed the Canada Water Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Northern Inland Waters Act, the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, major extensions of Canada's territorial seas, major extensions in respect of the preservation of our fishing resource and important amendments to the Fisheries Act relating to any waters frequented by fish, to ensure they are protected.
This Parliament, through the initiative of the government, passed major amendments to the Oil and Gas Pro-

duction and Conservation Act relating to water pollution and to the protection of our water environment and the resources of our waters and seas. We have taken action relative to the Clean Air Act concerning the protection of our air. There have been amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act relative to exhaust emissions. Many important pieces of legislation have been passed. The leader of the New Democratic Party described these as pieces of paper. That is an insult to Parliament.
I think in this Parliament we have passed very important pieces of environmental protection legislation at the initiative and with the leadership of this government. Within the government we have taken action, for example, to reduce the phosphate level of detergents. Measures have been passed under the Pest Control Products Act to deal with DDT and other pesticides. Extremely generous tax incentives have been given to industry respecting devices and anti-pollution measures to reduce air and water pollution resulting from industrial processes. We have been providing over $500 million through one of my own agencies, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for the construction of sewage disposal plants to reduce the demands on our clean waters. Those are things which we have been doing within our own territory, under our own jurisdiction.
We have also been taking positions internationally and have been at the forefront of international action. We are one of the leaders at the environmental conference which is now being held at Stockholm. If the official opposition want to, they can belittle the importance of our efforts, but let us look at the record.


Gerald William Baldwin: There is so much to belittle.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We read such headlines from Stockholm as "Canadians break stalemate at environmental conference".


Gerald William Baldwin: After first reversing their position.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Let us not forget the work of my colleague from British Columbia, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). Another headline about the Stockholm conference which appeared in one of the Vancouver papers today reads, "Canada wins day in ocean pollution law". Further action is being taken in Stockholm at the international level to ensure tough, tight and proper environmental protection action in areas that are beyond our territorial seas and beyond our immediate national jurisdiction.
The concern of this government is precisely the reason why we are playing a leading role at that United Nations conference on the environment. Surely hon. members know the very strong stand that we have taken there regarding oil pollution. When my colleague from British Columbia returns from Stockholm, where he is leading the Canadian delegation, he will undoubtedly report to the House in detail on the success of the leading role Canada has played at the conference. Canada has been supporting and has worked effectively at that conference to win support for a multinational declaration of principles which will go a long way toward keeping clean our air, our water and our beaches.
June 9, 1972

We said we will give our support-these are our instructions to our delegation-with significant amounts of money on a continuing basis. It is not too much to say that we have assumed an extremely important leadership role at that conference and that it is being generally recognized, a recognition which never comes from the official opposition.
I am delighted, particularly because of the portfolio which I now hold in this government, that the conference has at least passed through the preliminary committee stage. Yesterday the Canadian delegation suggested that Canada host an international human settlements conference in 1975. I hope this will be passed by the plenary session at Stockholm. This is not simply another conference relating to the environment; it is designed to be a demonstration project on Canadian sites in Canadian cities of experiments that have been made in the world as to how people can get the best urban environment while living in cities. That is the kind of thing that Canada will be showing the world at that demonstration project which, hopefully, it will be agreed will be hosted by Canada.
Some comments have been made in this debate about British Columbians in the House and I want to mention a few of them. First, we have the motion moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. It is a useful initiative at this time, calling upon Americans to respond to our request that certain matters relative to the Cherry Point refinery and to the shipping of oil through those waters be dealt with by the International Joint Commission. We have the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos), who is in his riding today, who has four private member's bills on the order paper, some of which are being reflected in regulations and in the proposals which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) announced today. We have the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) who as a member of this House has played an important role in environmental matters and on the whole subject of the carriage of oil by sea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look what happened to him!


Stanley Ronald Basford: That hon. member is so well regarded that we all joined in supporting him for the leadership of our party in British Columbia.


John George Diefenbaker: He was banished.


Thomas Miller Bell: You threw him out.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Those of us who are Liberals in British Columbia are proud of his leadership, and whether we are members of the cabinet or Members of Parliament we are determined to give him every support to become the next premier of British Columbia. This morning we received a telegram from the Premier of British Columbia on this oil spill. All the matters mentioned in the wire are being dealt with. I am sure that Mr. Anderson, the leader of the provincial Liberal party in B.C., will be happy the premier of B.C. is supporting the position for which he has been fighting for so long.
Oil Pollution


John George Diefenbaker: But the government did not support him.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sure that he welcomes the support of the Premier of British Columbia.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You scuttled the poor member.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I could mention the work that hon. members from the interior of B.C., the hon. member for Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard), are doing in terms of preservation of the recreational waters of the Okanagan. I am sorry that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, cannot participate in this debate as he is out of the city on government business. However, three ministers have spoken in the debate and have indicated the importance that we place on the matter. The fourth minister is leading our delegation in Stockholm.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where is the Prime Minister?


Stanley Ronald Basford: May I say for the Minister of Transport, relative to the Transport Act and the work of his department, that as has been mentioned in this debate ever since concern has been expressed about oil spills, about the ecological damage that can be caused, and ever since this problem came to public attention with the sinking of the Torrey Canyon in the English Channel, attention has been focused on the need, to which this government has been responding, for proper, effective transport laws, marine laws and shipping laws to protect the waters of our coasts from the kind of accidents that can occur.
The Brussels conference of 1969 dealt with two international conventions related to oil pollution. While in some respects we did not get all that we wanted from that conference, we did bring about important revisions of those conventions and from that flowed a revision of the Canada Shipping Act which was reflected in Bill C-2 which was dealt with by this parliament. The grounding of the tanker Arrow on the east coast in 1970 gave further impetus to those projects of revising the Canada Shipping Act and putting in place what is now part XIX of the Canada Shipping Act which was proclaimed on July 1, 1971.
The introduction of anti-pollution regulations under part XIX of the Canada Shipping Act is progressing and new oil pollution regulations and garbage pollution regulations have been made. Traffic control and traffic separation schemes have been introduced and are being continually developed. These are the kind of measures we need if we are to protect our coasts. Regulations establishing the maritime pollution claims fund were made on February 3, 1972, and further regulations relating to ships' navigating appliances, watchkeeping personnel and nonCanadian ships' compliance certificates are in the final stages of drafting.
Arctic shipping pollution regulations made under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act are also in the final stages of drafting. Being announced today by the Minister of Transport, effective July 1, 1972, is the institution of a marine navigation information service in the
25319-5J

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
waters of British Columbia. This service will be effective in Canadian waters between Vancouver Island and the mainland including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia including Burrard Inlet, Howe Sound, Malas-pina Strait, Johnstone Strait, Broughton Strait, Queen Charlotte Strait including the Gordon and Goletas channels.
This marine navigation information service is designed to cover all vessels of 100 gross tons and over, and all tugs with tows which measure, from the stern of the towing vessel to the stern of the last vessel or object towed, 100 feet or over. The service is based upon each vessel transmitting a message containing basic navigation information at designated points along her route. Masters or pilots of other vessels in the area, by monitoring these broadcasts will have the positions and intended movements of all other vessels which are within a given sector. Steps are being taken in a constructive positive way to ensure that the possibilities of marine accident, particularly involving tankers, are reduced to the minimum which adequate protection measures can provide.
The leader of the New Democratic Party said we were not ready if there was an oil spill. We pray that there will never be a major oil spill. Let us hope that we can have tough and effective international regulations governing the transportation of oil at sea, but we ourselves must be ready in the event that there is some accident, some hazard, some oil spill. The Minister of Transport's efforts in this regard were ridiculed by the NDP. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministry of Transport has a contingency plan. The ministry has the nucleus of a team of experts at headquarters which provides for the central purchasing of equipment, training, evaluation and planning whenever a situation is serious enough to warrant the use of such group. Regional structures have been established under the authority of the federal contingency plan which provide for a local responsibility and planning structure throughout the country. A great deal of effort has been provided by the petroleum and associated industries to assure that this contingency plan is well established.
The program involves the expenditure of approximately $4 million, which will include the provision of 27 slick-lick-ers. Possibly that would be a job for the leader of the NDP when he is out of office after the next election. As I say, it includes the provision of 27 slick-lickers and their associated vehicles, 42,000 feet of inshore booming and the other equipment which is needed in order to provide a reasonable capability to meet the challenge of an oil spill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Now tell us about the toilet-rolls.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I can hear ridicule from the opposition. It just shows what little they know of this subject. Such a machine has been located at Victoria. This equipment can be moved on short notice to points on the west coast to cope with possible oil pollution incidents.


An hon. Member:: You are reading too fast.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then why did they have to get hay?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, all this heckling from the opposition shows that they do not want the facts. They do

not want to see that we are prepared, that we have contingency plans and that we have the situation under control. This kind of equipment was used, for example, in connection with the grounding of the freighter Vanlene off Austin Island in mid-March of this year, and the same equipment is now being used to cope with the oil spill at White Rock which came from Cherry Point refinery.
Slick-lickers have been built for Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert, and 2,000 foot inshore booms will be located at Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert. As part of the over-all contingency planning structure for the west coast, readily available sources of sorbants have been identified throughout British Columbia for emergency use in case of oil spills. The hon. member for Calgary North ridicules this kind of planning. So does the leader of the NDP. We all hope there will not be any accident. We all hope there will not be ecological damage. But the government must have a contingency plan to minimize the damage from an accident should one occur.
Within our own legislative jurisdiction and within our own territorial waters we have taken every possible effective step that we could take. We are prepared to carry out whatever constructive suggestions are made, but our problem is that much of the potential damage can come from the carriage of oil on the international high seas or in the U.S. territorial waters. Within our own territorial jurisdiction we have our own powers and tough legislation. We have contingency plans. But of course we are limited when it comes to dealing with the high seas, U.S. territorial waters or U.S. refineries. This is why we are calling in this motion, and the government has called at every point in our contact with the United States, for them to-


Erik Nielsen: You are admitting it is your motion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Parliament is calling for it in this motion and that is why we want the motion passed by Parliament. That is why we are joining the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, so that there may be an expression by the representatives of the Canadian people of their wish that the United States respond to the government's invitation to bring the International Joint Commission into this matter and design meaningful rules relative to U.S. waters. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this and other action taken by Parliament, by government and by the people of Canada, and the representations made by the politicians of this country and those of the U.S. Pacific northwest, will lead to an early and favourable response from the U.S. government.
It is plain that the problem of pollution is international. Each time a river flows from one land to another, each time foul air blows from one country to another, and each time an oil tanker pollutes the high seas or ravages a coastline, it is essential that we act, and that internationally we impose very stringent requirements on international oil and shipping companies which fail to take adequate precautions and endanger the life that is dependent on our oceans.
Relative to the west coast, Mr. Speaker, we think the Pacific northwest, be it British Columbia, Oregon or Washington, has some of the most beautiful water and recreational areas on the North American continent.
June 9, 1972

Members from British Columbia have asked the Canadian government to do all that it can to protect us, and speaking as a member of that government, we are doing that. We are calling upon the citizens of the United States to ask their government to do the same.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East, who moved this motion, is to be complimented on having the Canadian House of Commons put on record this request to the United States government to respond to our initiative and involve the IJC in this important role. I think the member for Fraser Valley East will want to speak again on the amendment and indicate the response to conversations with politicians, governors and senators of the Pacific northwest who we hope will urge the United States government to do what we are urging them to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if I might review the situation. We have about 45 minutes left in this debate and I know many hon. members would like to contribute to this important matter. I suggest that I call next upon the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), then the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) and then the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). I suggest to hon. members that if they would take 15 minutes each, that might be fair. If this suggestion is acceptable, we could give these three hon. members a chance to make their contribution. Without asking that it be made a formal order, I make this suggestion.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will the procedure followed in this debate be such that the question will be put? Is that the intention?


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, I think there is probably a disposition among hon. members on all sides that when we come to the end of the debate we carry the motion and the amendment without their being put to a formal vote.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not talking about a recorded vote, but at least the question should be put. I mention this because after the speech of the minister I think it is necessary to get back to the business of the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is our understanding, that at five o'clock today the question on the motion as amended will be put and we hope it will be carried unanimously.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, we have just watched a very interesting performance indeed. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has given a performance as smooth as silk. In this case it needed to be very smooth indeed. He has papered over the cracks in the record of the government, practically turning himself into an oil slick licker in order to show his anxiety and to cover up the long months of neglect when this government turned a deaf ear to pleas from this side of the House for something to be done in order to avoid a disaster such as has taken place at Cherry Point.
Earlier speakers have documented what happened in these long months. I refer specifically to those occasions
Oil Pollution
since January, 1971, when the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and one or two members of the official opposition begged that something be done about this matter. It was not done, Mr. Speaker.
Anyone who has visited the west coast recently knows that even this government has to make a show of interest and anxiety at this time because feelings there are running very high-feelings of indignation, of outrage, of fear for the future. The people of British Columbia are deeply concerned about what is happening to the province, and not only in the matter of this oil slick, although that is a taste of what is to come. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to Canada as being a "have" country. We realize that the time is not far distant, if we keep a government of this kind, when we shall be joining the "have nots".


An hon. Member:: Have nuts.


Winona Grace MacInnis: We have the nuts right now, but we will be "have nots" before too long if we let this go on. It is not only oil, it is not only environment, it is not only fish, it is not only minerals, it is not only forest-in every one of these cases the federal government is demonstrating less than tokenism in trying to save and protect our resources which were among the richest in the world.
I am convinced, as this House is gradually becoming convinced because British Columbia members are doing their best, that this problem is not going to blow over. The people of British Columbia are becoming thoroughly aroused about this oil spill problem because they have seen what happens here. The age of gumshoe diplomacy is not dead in this government.
This morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said that we have been trying to persuade the United States government to do this and that. Those of us who have read history remember when Canadian governments adopted much more vigorous methods of persuasion in order to get the United States government to realize that there was a border and that we wanted to run our own show. This has not been the case with the present government.
It would be nice to believe that in this House we are all equally concerned about the disaster that has taken place at Cherry Point and that we are equally concerned to see that it does not happen again. Much as I would like to believe that, I cannot. It may be true of individual members, and most who come from British Columbia sense the feelings of the people there. But it just is not true of this government which is torn in its loyalties and has already made up its mind on which side it stands.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning. He accepts the inevitability of the destruction of the environment because he accepts the inevitability of tankers coming down the west coast. His whole speech was predicated on the fact that tankers will come down the west coast. I am not sure that they need be allowed to do so. I would much prefer the attitude of the leader of our party, who said

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
that it was time the government of this country and an aroused people behind it took the position that Canada will not stand for tankers coming through Pacific waters. It may be said that we are just battling against shadows and that the United States will not pay any attention. But if some of us and the government would start doing this sort of thing, we might be joined by other governments. Some have shown that they have a little backbone even against the great United States.
I noticed in yesterday's newspapers a report that the Swedish prime minister, at the environmental meeting in Stockholm, without naming the United States had made abundantly clear where he stood on the outrage and the immense destruction brought about by indiscriminate bombing and the large-scale use of bulldozers and herbicides. He said it was of paramount importance that ecological warfare cease immediately. The United States recognized that the cap fitted and were enraged diplomatically because the prime minister of a little country like Sweden had dared make remarks which could refer only to them.
If Sweden could be joined by Canada and one or two other countries who pride themselves on being international powers, if our minister who is in Sweden now told some of the things that should be told about oil slicks and urged that the environment is more important than the provision of additional facilities for corporations to bring oil down the west coast, then we might get somewhere internationally. We will not get anywhere while we merely strike attitudes, take up positions and go with polite little notes to the United States.
I have consulted the record about what is going on, at least as far as one can in view of the cloak of secrecy surrounding these matters. On February 9, 1971, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West tried to get some information from the Secretary of State for External Affairs and received the following reply as recorded at page 3232 of Hansard:
I do not think it would be appropriate for us as a federal government to appear before any U.S. tribunal that is considering these questions, any more than we would consider it appropriate for the American government to appear before our tribunals. Our contacts must be much more direct. I am sure the hon. member recognizes the question of the dignity of our government in dealing with the governments of other countries.
There are times when something is more important than dignity and this is one of those times. The survival of this country is at stake. The minister can smile as much as he likes, but he knows perfectly well how British Columbians feel about this. If he had more intestinal fortitude he would tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs that sending polite notes is not enough, and merely referring these matters to the IJC is not sufficient. I think a proper way of handling this business would be by bringing forward the sort of motion that is suggested in the publication Perspective, which is put out by an anti-pollution organization on the coast. In their May issue they say:
We feel that prevention will be the best medicine for the problem. The half million dollars spent on the Vanlene oil clean-up-
That was the spill previous to this one.
-could have been used to begin installation of radar along the

west coast for the ministry of transport to monitor the approach of ocean-going vessels, and inform the captains of their positions as they near the coast-line. The captain of the Vanlene thought he was grounded on the coast of Washington. Canada must take immediate action to keep the rust-buckets like the Vanlene from entering Canadian waters without proper functioning guidance equipment. It is not worth the cost to the taxpapers for British Columbia harbours to seek increased trade with ships that could just as well end up on the rocks as in the harbour.
Then they say:
It would be an ironical situation for the federal government to proclaim a national underwater park in the Gulf of Georgia and not protect it from the potential polluters floating above.
If supertankers are permitted to travel along the coast of British Columbia it is only a matter of time before one of them runs aground.
The resultant spill will be 50 times worse than the 330 tons spilled by the Vanlene. The ecological and economical destruction would be disastrous.
Then they suggest a motion for setting up a committee formed of citizens from the Canadian side of the border as well as from the American side which would delve into the Cherry Point disaster and other matters, find the facts, make recommendations and then as a joint citizen group from both sides of the border bring pressure to bear on both governments jointly and make them act.
I know that on the government side of the House there is a great lack of respect for ordinary, organized citizens. Nevertheless, if we are to deal effectively with the United States I think we must encourage such voluntary citizen groups to do their work. Citizens must be informed, they must be organized and they must stand behind their government. What is the sense of sending polite notes to the United States government, to members of Congress, to the President or to anybody else unless the American government knows that Canadians are ready and willing to support their government in these efforts? The Skagit business is staring us in the face. The IJC is supposed to have made a report. And what has been the result? The government has done absolutely nothing. I suggest nothing will be done on either side of the border until enough citizens groups become concerned, stand behind those who are concerned about pollution and demand that something be done.
Only a few minutes remain to me, Mr. Speaker. May I say this. We need new priorities in this country, priorities different from those this government espouses. The government's top priority is that of economic profitability for corporations-oil corporations in this instance. The government adheres to that priority even though it results in ecological disaster for the west coast.


Frank Howard: What do they care?


Winona Grace MacInnis: We must change that. We must speak out and stand firm in our dealings with this government and the government across the border. We have had one Arrow disaster. We know what that disaster meant for the people of the area concerned. How many more disasters like Chedabucto Bay and Cherry Point must there be before the government realizes that setting up equipment to deal with pollution when it occurs is not enough? We must prevent these disasters and as our first line of defence we must stop the big supertankers from coming in large numbers down the west coast. It can be done if
June 9, 1972

the government wants to do it. Apparently this government has given its allegiance to big business on both sides of the border, to oil companies and other big companies. Its polite notes are designed to give people the idea it is doing something.
Let the government think what all this means to British Columbia. Let it think of the beaches fouled, of water polluted, of recreational possibilities damaged, and so on. Our second largest industry, the tourist industry, is shot because the environment which makes that industry possible is being wrecked. Wildlife is destroyed. Such pollution is a disaster for marine life and for bird life. These things are irreplaceable. Our province, one of the most beautiful areas in the whole world, is being desecrated by oil companies, mining companies and lumber companies which are taking out all that the traffic will bear without any thought of what will happen. It is time British Columbia members made their voices heard loudly and clearly. It is not enough, in view of what is going on, to introduce a motion of this kind. I can hardly believe that British Columbia supporters of the government will allow the government to get away with this sort of thing.


An hon. Member:: You had better believe it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, of course we are in favour of this motion even though its introduction involved political trickery. We believe in what the motion says and we support the amendment. We will support the motion as amended. However, let me say this: the people of British Columbia are not fooling and they do not intend to let this government get away with what has been happening in the past 18 months. They will not tolerate such complete neglect and failure to do anything concrete that will stop tankers coming down the west coast. I for one hope that every force in this country will be mobilized to prevent this outrage being perpetrated against our west coast province.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) has provided the House with an excellent opportunity to review a subject very close to the hearts of west coast members and all members who serve constituencies adjacent to or involved with bodies of water that are navigated by commercial vessels.
In order to focus our attention more sharply after the numerous speakers who have spoken in a number of hours of debate, let me deal with the spill and say how large it was. Strangely enough, this was not a big spill and not a very damaging spill. It was dramatic, not so much because of its size but because of the location in which it occurred and what is anticipated will take place on the west coast. I have some notes which the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was good enough to give me after he had been in touch with the office today of Congressman Meeds of the state of Washington. According to these notes, the clean-up co-ordinator is Captain David Gersho-witz, captain of the port of Seattle coast guard district. The tanker involved was the World Bond, a ship under Liberian registry carrying oil from Iran. This was not oil that is to be connected with the new, proposed oil route from Alaska.
Oil Pollution
The ship arrived at Cherry Point late on June 3, 1972, and began discharging oil almost immediately. The spill occurred during darkness on June 4. Witnesses say that crude oil discharged for approximately five hours before it was discovered. A great deal of the spill was contained by plastic booms surrounding the discharging vessel. There is a regulation which states that loading or discharging vessels must be surrounded by these booms. However, they are not effective in currents greater than seven-tenths of one knot; oil is sucked under the boom when the current exceeds that figure. Coastguards estimate the spill at approximately 100 barrels, each running to 55 gallons. Some estimates are as high as 300 barrels. So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an oil spill of between 5,000 and 6,000 gallons.
A broken valve caused the spill. The valve has been taken from the ship and sent by the coastguard to an independent testing lab to determine the cause of the break, whether it was the responsibility of the vessel or of the Atlantic Richfield Oil Company.
On Monday, Congressman Meeds will testify before a sub-committee on the navigable waters safety act sponsored by Senator Magnusson and himself. This legislation was introduced after the spill at Anacortes last year. It will provide for strict harbour controls which will lessen the possibility of collision and strict construction standards for bulk liquid carriers, such as oil carriers. Initially, only United States tankers will have to comply with this ruling, but by 1974 foreign tankers will also be included. The notes conclude:
A letter was mailed today from Senators Magnusson and Jackson and Congressman Meeds to Secretary of State Rogers requesting the administration to call a cabinet-level, Canadian-U.S. oil spill conference. This conference would specifically discuss the international consequences and possibly co-ordinate action in the event of future oil spills.
Here is a movement toward Canada-U.S. co-operation which up to this point has not been recorded in this debate. It is certainly going to be a useful addition to the studies now being taken to see if some control can be brought to the matter of oil spills on an international basis between Canada and the United States. This is in addition to the recommendation made by the government of Canada for action by the International Joint Commission.
It is interesting to note that today, June 9, hearings are taking place in the Congress of the United States, in Washington, in the joint economic committee of which Senator William Proxmire is chairman. I quote from a press release dated June 2:
Senator William Proxmire ... announced Friday that the Committee will hold four days of hearings on June 7, 8, 9 and 22 on natural gas regulation and the trans-Alaska pipeline.
"It is becoming increasingly clear that the supply of energy has shifted from abundance to scarcity," Proxmire said, "and that the nation badly needs wise public policies to avert an energy crisis-
"It also means that government policies must be formulated in a broad perspective that carefully balances the environmental, economic, national security, and other social demands of both consumers and producers-
"The purpose of the hearings I am announcing today will be to place the Federal Power Commission's regulation of natural gas and the Interior Department's decision to approve the trans-Alas-

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
ka pipeline right-of-way into this broad context and determine how well these policies serve the broad public interest-
"The hearings on June 9 and 22 will investigate whether there is evidence to support the Interior Department's decision to approve the trans-Alaska pipeline right-of-way. As I indicated in a May 19 letter to Secretary Morton, a preliminary analysis of the available information indicates serious omissions and inconsistencies between Secretary Morton's public statements and his department's analysis of the situation."
Of particular interest to us is that in the schedule of witnesses, attached to this press release, who will appear before the committee today the first witness is "David Anderson, Member of Parliament, Canada". A little later I want to remark on why the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) happens to be before that committee today, about the work he is doing and also the very valuable work being done by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) in this field. Before I do so I want to refer to the area that is affected.
The Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound would be affected by the oil spills we have been discussing today. Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia are formed by an indentation of the west coast and by the inland shore of Vancouver Island. These two bodies of water together are about 20 to 30 miles across. They extend northward from the southern point in the state of Washington for a distance of approximately 200 miles. This inland sea is an extremely busy area. It is plied daily by hundreds of vessels, commercial, recreational, small craft and one of the biggest fishing fleets in the world. The area is of inestimable value for trade, recreation and marine life. It is also a great commercial fishery. Around its shores and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is the strait leading into the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound, are the cities of Victoria, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver and smaller centres such as Nanaimo, and so on.
Let me now deal with the threat to this area from oil spills. While it is true that oil has moved daily in vessels up and down the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound for decades and spills have occurred again and again, it is only with the possibility of giant oil tankers proposed for the Alaska route, or TAPS route as it is called, that a threat of this magnitude comes to the Gulf of Georgia. This threat is beyond our present capability to manage or even comprehend. To give hon. members some idea of what is meant by an oil spill if vessels of the 250,000 tons and up class were to spill oil in the Strait of Georgia, let me refer to words which the hon. member for Victoria used in a speech last February to the Vancouver Island Liberal Association.


Thomas Miller Bell: Was this before you kicked him out of caucus, or after?


Grant Deachman: I am referring to the hon. member for Victoria, whom we have not kicked out of caucus. We never kick anybody out of the Liberal caucus.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: What about Hellyer and Kierans?


Grant Deachman: Sometimes members decide that they want to leave us, but we never kick anyone out. The hon. member for Victoria said:
The tankers they are building for the Valdez-Bellingham route carry about a million barrels of crude. At roughly 250,000 tons
[Mr. Deachman.J
they are today considered to be only medium-large tankers. It would take about three of that size every day to take the maximum output of the TAPS line at Valdez. But I did a little calculation with the help of some handy conversion tables, and if the million barrels they carry is as incomprehensible to you as it is to me perhaps it is easier to understand if I say that a million barrels would make a trail of crude oil 18 feet wide and an inch thick for a distance of 700 miles. If you want the 700-mile trail a little wider- say 30 feet wide-still an inch thick-just move up to a 500,000-ton tanker.
The same hon. member, in an address to the Chamber of Commerce of Vancouver Island at Duncan, British Columbia, in March, 1971 said:
The Torrey Canyon was a 100,000-ton or 600,000-barrel capacity oil tanker. It got off course and spilled the whole works in the English Channel. The tanker Haro which ran aground off a reef in Chedabucto Bay spilled about 10,000 tons, 5,000 tons of which escaped the sea and was never a part of the immediate problem. It cost $3.5 million to clean up even superficially the other 5,000 tons. What is by today's standards now known as a medium-sized oil tanker of about 100,000 tons would carry about the same amount- about 5,000 tons of oil for its own consumption and a 200,000-ton-ner of the Universe class will carry over 12,000 tons. This is not the end. Tankers nowadays range up to double that size, to 400,000 tons, and there are bigger ones on the drawing board.
Consider the threat brought to the west coast by the proposed TAPS line. Consider for a moment what is at stake here as far as the Americans are concerned and what the possibilities are of preventing traffic along this route, as was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), or seeing it diverted down the Mackenzie Valley through Canada. I wish to quote from a well respected industrial newsletter published on the west coast, Beale's Resource Industry newsletter. Reference is made to a report published in the United States by the president of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company the purpose of which is to set out the United States case in support of the west coast tanker route. The president stated:
The dependency on foreign crude sources in district V is greater than comparable dependency in the aggregate of district I-IV.
In other words, the interior of America is already well supplied by internal oil resources. It is the coastal area which has economic problems. The article goes on to point out as follows:
Shipment of North Slope crude oil to district II could lead to a current underutilization of existing systems and a future oversupply in that district at the expense of district V-
The uncertainties associated with any trans-Canada pipeline indicate it could not be built without much delay and greater cost than suggested in the environmental impact statement.
He points to the seriousness of the Canadian native claims issue which he feels would upset going ahead with the Mackenzie route. The report continues:
A trans-Canada pipeline would raise significant environmental issues where there is currently no established forum for dealing with them and could involve regulatory and jurisdictional delays beyond any reliable estimate-
Canadian equity financing would be necessarily limited and requirements for transportation of Canadian oil could result in excessive net resource costs to the United States.
The report goes on to document various reasons why they do not want to accept the Mackenzie Valley route and why they consider the less costly, more flexible, totally
June 9, 1972

U.S.-operated and controlled west coast route to be more desirable. And so it seems evident as we watch-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupt the hon. member to remind him of the agreement reached as to the time to be allotted to speeches. The hon. member's time has expired.


Grant Deachman: Perhaps hon. members would be good enough to give me a few more moments. I shall be finished in a very few moments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will put it to hon. members. At the same time, I will incorporate with that request the suggestion that the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North might be allowed the 15 minutes to which he is entitled. Is that agreeable to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Grant Deachman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In summary, I would like to particularly praise the work of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich in his fight before the U.S. courts and in congressional committees in an effort to point out what this issue means environmentally to the Puget Sound and Georgia Bay areas. I would remind hon. members how effective the hon. member has been in making the people of Canada, the people of the United States, the Congress of the United States and this Parliament aware of these problems.
I would also praise my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria, for what he has done. He has made some extremely valuable suggestions as to what could be done on the west coast to ensure more effective control of tanker traffic. We must recognize that tanker traffic is coming, and I very much doubt that it is within the power of this Parliament or the people of Canada to prevent these vessels operating on the high seas off the west coast and in and out of U.S. ports.
While I do not have time today to discuss the details of the measures advocated by the hon. member for Victoria, may I simply refer to his suggestion that an elaborate system of radar control operate on the west coast to keep this traffic under surveillance throughout its passage. This program would provide rigid inspection and would prevent rust-buckets, as one hon. member called them a moment ago, entering the sheltered waters of the west coast. The hon. member also suggested provision of harbours of refuge for vessels in danger, places where safety gear might be kept ready for use whenever oil spills occur.
It will be seen, therefore, that work is being done to bring about better rapport between Canada and the United States in an effort to control these matters, and that suggestions are being made by Members of Parliament both to our own government and to the United States as to what can be done to control this growing threat.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to say that in my opinion this has been a very useful debate today after what might be termed a lost weekend yesterday. I think the government has materially assisted in allowing the amendment
Oil Pollution
proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It was accepted today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) on behalf of the government.
The International Joint Committee now will not only have authority to consider the matter by way of reference but will also have the necessary resources, financial and otherwise, to produce results that will provide protection to the people of the United States and Canada against hazards, real and realized, from the tanker transportation of oil.
The gravity of the situation can best be appreciated when the facts are examined. We learned that within three to five seconds between 4,000 and 12,000 gallons of oil were spilled into the ocean. We in Nova Scotia know the frightening dangers to the ecology from oil spills. The Arrow disaster in Chedabucto Bay resulted in 1.2 million gallons of crude oil plastering 190 miles of our province's shoreline, killing wildlife and costing the taxpayers of this nation a fortune.
The oil spill in British Columbia is a drop in the bucket compared to the Arrow disaster and the danger of future disasters to British Columbia from tankers which will have a 100,000-ton dead weight capacity as compared with the 18,000-ton dead weight capacity of the Arrow. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) was talking about tankers with a 250,000-ton dead weight capacity and the possibility of still larger tankers being built.
I have a 1972 year book issued for the "National Fisherman" in which is a picture of one of the great supertankers being produced. Part of the accompanying story reads as follows:
Controversy over proposed superports-deep water terminals to receive oiMankers which may range up to one million tons dead weight in another decade-
That indicates what the people of British Columbia have to face in the future so far as tanker traffic is concerned along their shorelines. We in Nova Scotia appreciate how frightening this whole situation is for members who come from that area of Canada and the people who live there, just as we are frightened in Nova Scotia about similar future problems associated with our coastline.
What concerns me about this debate, just as with the situation at the time of the Arrow disaster, is that we approach each of these disasters as they occur, and when they occur, to our ecology on a piecemeal basis. The time has arrived for an integrated, national long-term policy which will ensure control and regulation of all such activities be they problems of pollution associated with the Great Lakes, tanker traffic on the east and west coasts or the development of nuclear power plants whether the sites be on either of our coasts or in central Canada.
While the residents of British Columbia have this week been concerned about the oil spill from the Cherry Point refinery, we in Nova Scotia have been concerned about the possible construction of a nuclear power plant on Stoddart Island in Shag Harbour. We were told discussions were being held between officials of a United States group and Mr. Regan's government about the possible
3024

June 9, 1972
Oil Pollution
construction of a $2 billion, 12,000 megawatt nuclear generating station with power to be exported from that plant by cable under the Atlantic Ocean to the northeastern United States.
Surely the dangers inherent in such a project are just as real and even more deadly to our environment, as well as to those who live in the area of Nova Scotia, as the oil spills on both the east and west coasts. Surely we should before now have had definite statements as to just who can build these plants, as well as in respect of the dangers to the public of such a power station and the relative dangers associated with the CANDU-type nuclear power station as compared with the United States light water reactor which has been proposed for construction by United States interests on Stoddart Island.
It was helpful to learn from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) today that the type of reactor proposed for Nova Scotia had not been authorized in Canada and will either require a change in the criteria or a refusal of the application. We must certainly have some guarantee from the government as to the safety of these nuclear power stations from almost every point of view. I am informed that the Pickering I nuclear power station had to be cut back from full energy production to 80 per cent capacity as a result of a build-up of cobalt 40, the same substance used in the cobalt bomb. Pollution Probe has contended this is the highest concentration found in a non-military device. It is also contended by Pollution Probe that there is a higher level of radioactivity in the Pickering area than is normal. We must act in an attempt to solve this type of pollution problem as well as pollution from oil spills. We must have greater assurance than we have at present that pollution associated with the CANDU method of nuclear power generation is less dangerous to the public and the environment than other methods of power production.
It has been my view that the CANDU method of nuclear power generation produces a great deal of radioactive waste. It is urgent, also, that we obtain new assurances with regard to effluents, for again I understand the Pickering I nuclear power station also had to be cut back because its production capacity was heating up the lake into which it dumps its effluent to such a degree that it was dangerous to the resources of the area. Again I should like to refer to the "National Fisherman" and its reference to the dumping of effluents into waters by nuclear power plants. It reads:
Dumped indiscriminately, waste heat can raise water temperatures near discharge tubes more than 20 degrees F, disrupting migratory and reproductive cycles and killing fish or driving them away.
That is an indication of the type of danger associated with nuclear power generation. We should be involved in an over-all examination of all types of pollution developed by man in various ways. This is particularly so if we are to build nuclear power stations in this country, just as it is if the United States is to build tankers with a dead weight of a million tons capacity to carry oil from Valdez to Cherry Point or some other refinery on the west coast, creating tremendous danger to the people of British Columbia from every environmental and ecological point of view.
[Mr. Coates.1
We should have the same assurance when the government approves the development of nuclear power stations whether it be by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited or someone else. We must have every guarantee that there will be no danger or that the danger will be very minimal to our environment, the ecology and the people who live in the area.
There is a suggestion that in the Chicago area of the United States, where a nuclear power generating station has been built, the incidence of stillborn children is greater the closer you get to the power station. This is information gathered during a study carried out in the United States by environmentalists. Surely we do not want to be party to the construction of that type of station which will kill children even before they are born. We already have evidence that there is more radioactivity in the environment the closer you get to the Pickering nuclear power station. Surely we should not place communities in a position where our people might suffer this kind of danger.
Coming from the Atlantic provinces, I find it strange that there should be talk of nuclear power stations by the government of Nova Scotia and the government of New Brunswick which have at their doorstep the tides of the Bay of Fundy which could produce a similar amount of power which would be completely pollution free. I believe, also, we must have an assurance from the government as to who should have the right to build nuclear power stations. I endeavoured to obtain today some information in this regard from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Should a group of United States citizens, who are not allowed to build or who cannot receive a permit to build a nuclear power station in their own country, be permitted to come to this country as a private group of individuals and receive permission to build a nuclear power station here which would direct most of the energy produced back to the United States where it is required? Surely it is stupid for us to become involved in such a situation, especially when we consider the danger inherent in many aspects of the production of nuclear power.
I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in allowing me to speak for 15 minutes in this debate. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) for putting this motion before the House. Some people may say it was done through trickery. I do not care why or how it was done. I believe this has been a very useful debate. It is the type of debate which the people of Canada wanted the House of Commons to have today. I think the New Democratic Party deserves credit for seeing that the disaster of yesterday became a useful mechanism for today so that Members of Parliament of all parties would have an opportunity to express their points of view on the tremendous problems associated with man-made pollution and how we can best correct the situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
June 9, 1972


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Nielsen) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Oil Pollution


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Pringle) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being after five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
25319-6i

Monday. June 12. 1972