1972-03-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly on a question of privilege. In the answer to my written question No. 27, which appears in yesterday's Hansard at page 949, there is a rather substantial error. The number of persons listed as receiving the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement is shown as a little over 110,000, whereas the figure should be over 484,000. The department has admitted to me that there is a mistake and has assured me that a corrected reply will be forthcoming in a day or two. I trust, therefore, that anyone interested in these statistics will wait for the corrected reply.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, because of the interest that has been shown in the House in this matter, I wish to announce that the Agricultural Stabilization Board will implement tomorrow the livestock diversion program recently developed for potatoes in Prince Edward Island. In accordance with the concept of the advance payment, and as I indicated earlier in the House, those who do not wish to participate in this program can obtain possession of potatoes committed to the board by repayment of the advance. The Agricultural Stabilization Board will keep a close watch on supplies and prices, and the extent of the livestock feed program will depend upon the level of producer participation and price reaction.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for his statement and to congratulate him on acquiescing to the requests of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture, the potato committee and other interested bodies. I hope, with him, that the program he has announced will prove to be beneficial both to potato growers and to livestock feeders in Prince Edward Island and that any potatoes not diverted but bought back will also be to the advantage of the growers.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the program undertaken by the government on behalf of potato growers, the government is taking a new approach to that followed up to now. In fact, it is a sort of combination cash payment and storage program, giving the producer the option of either taking his product out or leaving it in. As far as we are concerned, we will be prepared to assess the program when it is finished to see if it has really worked to the advantage and met the needs of the producers. In fact, in the final paragraph of his statement the minister said they will keep a close watch on the program to see how it works out.
On the order: Introduction of Bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: There are ten private bills which were placed on the order paper yesterday for introduction. It was indicated by the Chair yesterday that an opportunity should be provided to study the bills from the procedural standpoint. By agreement with the hon. members concerned, no decision will be made at this time and the bills will be allowed to stand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the pre-budget submission of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that the economy needs further stimulation in 1972 and immediate personal and corporate tax cuts to increase demand and reduce unemployment, can the minister inform the House whether the government agrees

March 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
that further federal stimulus is required and whether the government is contemplating immediate action to reduce taxes?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I met yesterday with a committee of the council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They presented me with their views on fiscal policy, monetary policy and taxation. Any response the government would make to that brief would be announced in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.


John Angus MacLean: Is it the position of the government that present government intentions in the private sector are inadequate and, if so, is the government going to develop immediately a special tax incentive to encourage expansion of business plant investment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that from time to time I have taken exception procedurally to questions drafted in this way. When hon. members ask whether such and such is the position of the government I have the impression that perhaps hon. members are seeking an expression of opinion. I would suggest that hon. members might try to draft questions in another form. Perhaps the hon. member's question might be replied to briefly by the minister.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has really rephrased his question, and I would have to respond to it in the same way.


John Angus MacLean: Can the Minister of Finance inform the House whether it is his intention to make a definitive statement on government policy with regard to taxation, as requested by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, either by itself or in the form of a budget presentation before the Easter recess?


John Napier Turner: Not before the Easter recess, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO PRESENTATION OF BUDGET BEFORE ELECTION

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister might be able to inform the House whether there will be a budget before the election is called, or does the government intend to conceal its financial position until late fall or not reveal it at all?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the election is going to be called, and I do not know whether I should consider the 1962-63 precedent of the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the minister has forgotten that we were defeated in the House and therefore we could not do anything unconstitutional. I now ask him, can he give an undertaking to the House that the country will not be denied a financial statement through a budget before the government goes to the country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will just give the right hon. gentleman the undertaking that I will be fair with the country and the House at the appropriate time.



INCREASING FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN ENERGY AND RESOURCE INDUSTRIES-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question.


An hon. Member:: Don't bother. He is reading a book.


David Lewis: In view of the statistics released yesterday by Statistics Canada that foreign investment in this country, mainly from the United States, reached an all-time high last year and was directed mainly to the energy and resource industries which are now about 80 per cent foreign-owned and controlled, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether such a continuing expansion of foreign ownership is consistent with the government's policy in this area at this time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has as yet enunciated no policy limiting expansion in that area with the exception of the uranium industry, as the member knows.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-DATE OF POLICY STATEMENT-DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT NIXON ON FORTHCOMING VISIT TO OTTAWA

David Lewis: May I then ask the Prime Minister whether he can now tell us when parliament and the country may expect the announcement of government policy on this issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I have often said it is unsafe to name a date, but it is probably safe to say it will be before his own party reaches a policy on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: My party, Mr. Speaker, reached a policy quite some time ago.


An hon. Member:: Which side of the waffle?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that we have had this exchange, perhaps we might allow the hon. member to ask his supplementary question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will announce the policy on foreign ownership before the visit of the President of the United States to Ottawa on April 12, if I remember correctly, and, whether or not the announcement is made, can he say whether the question is on the agenda for discussion with the President of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question I cannot answer for the reason I stated previously, that I would not talk about a date. Therefore the date of the President's visit is known but the date of our announcement is not known. With regard to whether we will talk
March 21, 1972

about it or not, I might answer by saying the agenda has not been fixed between the two countries yet.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister give us some indication of the government's thinking in respect of the implementation of the DISC program, and will the Prime Minister give the House and the Canadian people some indication of the procedures and methods whereby the government will try to offset any adverse effects from this program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has answered this question at least five times and there is nothing I can add to his answer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then may I ask another supplementary. Is it the intention of the government to place this matter before the President of the United States? Acknowledging that the Prime Minister has indicated that the schedule has not been drawn up, is it the government's intention to place this very important question before the President?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for the reason I just gave the agenda is not set between the two countries, but if the subject is placed on the agenda I will take the view that has been taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.



USE OF DISC PROGRAM BY UNITED STATES AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURERS-ACTION TO COUNTERACT EFFECTS- SHUTDOWN OF DUPLATE CORPORATION

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that a number of United States parts producers with branch plants in Canada have already set up DISCs in the United States and, if so, has he taken any specific action to counteract the negative effect of this?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister oi Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would provide me with the information, if he has any.


John Edward Broadbent: I will be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. Second, has the minister investigated the possibility that the recent transfer and announced shutdown of the Duplate Corporation in Windsor, Ontario, is possibly due to the fact that the Chrysler Corporation has now decided to produce its own windshield glass in the United States instead of purchasing it from Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that fact, but in many other instances that I could quote the opposite has taken place. Companies in the United States have decided to use parts made in Canada. So this is not a frozen situation; it keeps moving all the time, sometimes in the Canadian interest and at other times against Canadian interests.



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would he report to the House, to the people of the Mari-times and to the oil interests on the result of his conversations yesterday with Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I say as briefly as I can that the discussions both yesterday and this morning were, I believe, beneficial to both sides in terms of creating a greater awareness of the difficulties that we both face in this matter. There was an undertaking on my part as a result of the representations made to me this morning to propose certain alternatives which will be conveyed to Premier Hatfield by the weekend. These alternatives will maintain the objectives of the federal government but may result in some changes in the application that will accommodate his objectives as well.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask the minister when he will tell the people of Nova Scotia about his plans, or will Premier Regan have to learn about them later? Would the minister undertake, rather than waiting for questions to be asked of him this afternoon, to inform the House at the same time as he informs Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick as to the method or procedure which the minister will propose as an alternative to the present system, because of the implications that are involved?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Any proposals that were made to any one province would, I assume, under normal circumstances be of national application. Under those circumstances I would see no reason for not making them available at the appropriate time but would wish to consult with Premier Hatfield on whether they would or would not cause any impediment to his own negotiations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Am I to understand that the minister would not be prepared to make a statement in the House with respect to these matters prior to or at approximately the same time as he conveys these alternatives to the premier of New Brunswick?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry if I have misled the hon. member. What I meant to convey was that we would be making certain proposals to the premier. Incidentally, these will probably result in a further set of meetings early next week in Ottawa. Until the proposals are accepted, they are simply that, and he may have to use

March 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
these in his negotiations with private interests. Only if there is agreement would it seem logical to me to put these forward in public form.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dauphin. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


J. Michael Forrestall: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to use points of order. I want to ask a supplementary question, but if I have to I will make it a question of privilege. I want to know what-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Dauphin. If the hon. member says he has a point of order I will listen to him and decide if there is a breach of the Standing Orders of the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will do it on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If the implication in the responses of the Minister of Transport is that the question of oil levies imposed with respect to pollution is a matter of concern only to a very narrow region of Canada, then the implication to Nova Scotians, to the House of Commons and indeed to those interested in the industrial complex surrounding the minister's procedure with respect to the collection of these levies is not a fair one. I think he should rectify it and at least give some consideration to other parts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dauphin.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission indicating that the commission was basing its estimates on a 6 per cent unemployment rate for 1972, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the figure of 6 per cent is the estimate of the government as a whole?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has his department received an application from the Dominion Aircraft Corporation of Vancouver for a government guarantee of a bank loan of some $3 million to enable this Canadian-owned corporation to produce a STOL aircraft, the Sky-trader 800, thus providing jobs for between 400 and 500 persons in the lower mainland of British Columbia? Has

such an application been received, has it been acceded to, or has it been rejected?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have previously answered that question in reply to the hon. member for Peace River. I said at the time that indeed an application had been received for a general adjustment assistance program some five or six months ago, and it had been rejected on the basis that the company had no manufacturing capacity in Canada. The company came back two or three weeks ago, this time suggesting that an R. & D. program under PAIT might apply, and this is in the process of being analysed now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact this company has firm orders for some 23 airplanes, and orders held in abeyance for an additional 17 aircraft, would the minister consider this worthy of review to see whether or not this application-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is obviously a representation to the minister.



AIRCRAFT-INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT ON ASSISTANCE AND FINANCIAL COMMITMENT BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. After the interesting statement he made in the finance committee this morning about the future of the aircraft industry, I would like to ask the minister whether we may expect a major statement about assistance to the industry, when the statement will be made, and will a substantial commitment to the industry be made?
Hon. ]ean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend has in mind the decision concerning the DCH7 STOL program with de Havilland, a decision is expected very soon indeed. Already certain amounts of money have been spent on that in previous years, and the question is now one of confirming or otherwise the future of this research and development program.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. While welcoming the minister's announcement this afternoon relative to the diversion of potatoes for feed stock in Prince Edward Island may I say that his statement perhaps raised more questions than it answered. Can he indicate what level of price will be sought with regard to the sale of these potatoes? Also, can he indicate whether or not the Stabilization Board now has exhausted all attempts at any sales of these potatoes so far as export
March 21, 1972

markets are concerned, something he did refer to last week?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the question is no. There are some prospects that are being explored, not with the Stabilization Board as being the primary seller but being involved with companies that are in that business. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, the price will be low enough so that the potatoes can be used for livestock feed economically.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When will the minister or his officials be in a position to indicate the exact price? Also, can he indicate whether or not, because of the continuing interest in possible exports and if reefer cars become available, the people presently holding contracts with the board and not wishing to sell for feed stock will be able to hold for that purpose?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They can hold for that purpose or any other purpose, the reason primarily being that they expect to get some further value out of selling their potatoes in the present market which, in Prince Edward Island, is substantially at the moment over the advance price level. I would think that the price of the potatoes for livestock feed probably would be around 15 cents per hundredweight, but I am not sure of the exact figure.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be allowed a last supplementary but we do have to try to get on with other members' questions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In order that Prince Edward Island producers may take advantage of the present higher price, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture has conferred with the Minister of Transport to see if some further improvement can be made in the supply of reefer cars inasmuch as the CNR estimated they were still 100 short last week?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and there has been a significant improvement even this week.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Last week, when I called the minister's attention to the fact that excessive footwear imports could hurt Canadian producers, he replied that he was discussing this problem with the authorities of the Quebec Industry and Commerce Department.
Can he now tell the House what stage these discussions have reached?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we are making considerable progress, as I indicated in my brief statement this morning when I presented the estimates of my department to the committee.
The gist of our program is to co-ordinate in the best possible way all federal and provincial assistance plans so as to make a larger contribution to the efficiency of this industry, both in productivity and in marketing.
I intend to make a very orderly statement of our efforts in the next few weeks, but a good part of our program is already being implemented. For instance, there are officials of my department now touring industrial plants with consultants and they are explaining these programs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister.


Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The minister apparently wants to announce just what is going on.
Can he state whether the discussions between the federal government and Quebec authorities will finally result in control or reduction of the volume of footwear imports into this country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I could not guarantee that, Mr. Speaker. However, one thing is essential, that Canadian consumers should not bear the brunt of the operation and therefore the industry itself must absolutely operate at a profit, achieve efficiency in both production and distribution. That is the aim of our present efforts. I believe the population of Canada will agree with this.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House whether the intraregional transportation subsidy within the Atlantic region will be reduced from its present level of 17) per cent to 15 per cent on April 1?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that for very good reasons the hon. gentleman was not in the House on the day I made a speech. If he had been I do not think his response outside would have been quite as critical. I announced at that time that in fact the intraregional subsidy is not going to be reduced on April 1.


Robert Carman Coates: I thank the minister and I am sorry that I missed his speech. In view of the fact the subsidy is not going to be reduced, is the minister going to make some other announcement in respect of a transportation policy for the Atlantic provinces in keeping with those recom-

March 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
mendations proposed to him by the four Atlantic premiers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the speech to which the hon. gentleman has referred I did try to indicate what progress has been made on various matters recommended by the premiers. I might suggest to the hon. member that if he would read the speech he would find some of the answers there. Within a day or two we will also be tabling the second report of the federal-provincial committee, which makes other recommendations, and I indicated that I would be prepared to implement those as well.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR BUILDING OF STRUCTURES ACROSS NAVIGABLE WATERS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Last week I posed a question to the Minister of the Environment concerning the so-called James Bay project. It was near the end of the question period and the Minister of Transport interjected and time ran out. May I now ask the Minister of Transport whether he would make a statement on motions prior to the Easter recess to indicate to the House under what terms and conditions the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act would apply to dams, roads, bridges, etc. going across navigable waters? I realize it would not be possible to do so during the oral question period, but I would hope the minister would make a statement on motions prior to the Easter recess.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker. If that is not possible in the compact nature of a statement on motions, I shall have all the information as well as the appropriate officers present when my estimates are considered.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister consulted with the province of Ontario in respect of the James Bay project and their interest in it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not
personally, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps some of my colleagues have.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Last week I asked

the minister for information concerning the business failure of an air charter firm in Toronto known as Charter Flight Information Services whereby many customers lost their deposits. The minister said he would look into the matter and report to the House.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is fairly lengthy but I shall be glad to send a written reply to my hon. friend. I can say it appears that this was a matter that involved a travel agency which of itself does not come under federal jurisdiction. After the hon. member has seen the written reply I shall do my best to answer any further questions he may have.



MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FROM ALASKA- IMMINENCE OF UNITED STATES DECISION-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADIAN POSITION

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the large report issued yesterday in the United States concerning the oil pipeline alternative, and in view of the fact the United States government seems to be moving inexorably toward a decision very soon, is the government of Canada in a position to make a statement on its alternatives on this very important subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would add nothing to what we have previously said, that we have let the Washington government know that there is an alternative. Beyond that we have not gone out of our way to seek any presentation of alternatives, but the alternative is there.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A great deal of interest is being evidenced in the discussions that the Prime Minister and the President will have. Does the Prime Minister expect that this subject and the subject of the Great Lakes clean-up may be brought to some conclusion during the President's visit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there again, the agenda is not set. I would hope that we are more liable to talk about the Great Lakes than we are about the pipeline.



POSSIBLE JOINT CANADIAN-AMERICAN COMPANY TO BUILD MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE

Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are there any plans to form a joint Canadian-American company which would build an oil pipeline, and will this possibility be discussed with President Nixon next month?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, unless the Americans have such a plan that they want to discuss with me.
March 21, 1972



POLLUTION


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker, but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary would take it as notice. In view of the excessive dumping of raw sewage by the boroughs of North York and York near the Humber River, will the government take steps to alleviate this pollution and thereby eliminate the hazards to the residents of the area?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the problem. This is a matter that would normally fall within the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. However, I shall look into it and if there is contravention of any federal act or regulation we will consider action.



FINANCE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance concerning a matter about which I wrote him on March 7. Can the minister tell the House whether the government has any immediate plans to redeem the 3 per cent perpetual bonds which are presently so clearly out of line with current bond issues and are causing considerable hardship to investors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the kind of question which normally should be placed on the order paper. I suggest to the hon. member that questions such as this one should be placed on the order paper. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I direct a question-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton West. The hon. member for Central Nova is rising on a point of order.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My point of order is simply this, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time I have written to the minister on the matter and I have yet to receive a reply. That is why I raise the question at this time.


John Napier Turner: If that is the case I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to make sure that the hon. member got the most carefully drafted reply possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



POSITION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIONS ON NEW CONTRACT

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister last Tuesday about the negotiations being carried on with the postal unions. In view of the fact the contract is just about to expire, can the President of the Treasury Board give some indication today as to what is going on and, hopefully, indicate whether he is even more optimistic now of an early settlement than he was last Tuesday?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would refer this question to my colleague, the Postmaster General, who is better informed about this matter than I am.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Postmaster General heard the question and there is no need for me to be repetitious. Can the Postmaster General give some indication of the present status of the negotiations, and is he even more optimistic at this date of an early settlement than was the President of the Treasury Board last Tuesday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about the second part of the question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, let us forget the second part.


Mr. Speaker:: The second part is somewhat academic. Perhaps the minister might like to reply to the first part of the question.


Hon. lean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that it would be in the public interest to make any comment on these negotiations now being held in camera.
Concerning my optimism, I may say that I am always in a good mood, and I hope that a solution will be found as soon as possible.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF ADDITIONAL TERMINAL ELEVATORS AT PRINCE RUPERT TO RELIEVE PRESSURE ON EXISTING EXPORT FACILITIES

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I inquired of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board about terminal grain facilities at Prince Rupert. The minister said that the Minister of Transport had the possible enlargement of those facilities under active consideration. Can the Minister of Transport set out some timetable as to when he hopes to make an announcement regarding the building of additional facilities at Prince Rupert as well as all the other questions relating to this matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Before the election.

March 21, 1972


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be absolutely precise, but would the hon. member be satisfied if I were to make a general statement of the type he is asking about in 48 hours?


Frank Howard: On motions?



TAXATION


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister or his department had any discussion with Massey-Ferguson concerning the fact that the company may locate its offices outside Canada because of the provisions of the new tax legislation?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. There has been correspondence; there has been no discussion with me personally, although there have been discussions with my office, yes.


Jack Burnett Murta: Is the government contemplating bringing in amendments to the tax legislation pertaining to Canadian companies that operate internationally?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of thing which, if any change were contemplated, would be announced in the appropriate way.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in the sense that it has to do with a Canadian firm locating outside our country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized. I doubt that his question is a supplementary, although it may be a related question. Even if it is not either a related or supplementary question, the hon. member is recognized at this moment for the purpose of asking his question.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, this shows that athletic persistence in the back row does pay off eventually.



INDUSTRY


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is he aware of a recurring problem that started about two years ago involving the Skil Corporation plant in Richmond. The plant was going to close two years ago. I believe they delayed closure and now they are contemplating it again. Is he aware of these plans and of the possible loss of 150 jobs? If so, what is he doing about it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my seatmate is aware of this matter but I am not. I will consult with him and with my department and try to inform myself better on this subject. Was there a question attached to the request for information?



TRANSFER OF PRODUCTION TO UNITED STATES FOLLOWING PRESIDENT NIXON'S ECONOMIC MEASURES

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether the government has taken any steps to monitor the transfer of production, and consequently of jobs, that may have occurred in Canada since President Nixon's August 15 announcement? Would he make this information, if he has it, available to the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we took a certain number of measures to counter the August 15 announcement by the President. One was the employment support program, on which I reported this morning in the committee. That helped to maintain about 28,000 jobs in Canada. I thought that was a pretty good reaction to those measures. I would not be able to assess in detail what has been the effect on investment intentions in the minds of manufacturers as a result of the August 15 measures, and I do not think anybody can do that.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the tremendous backlog of pension applications and delays extending for quite a number of months-I realize we are getting the best co-operation and courtesy from the minister's officials-has the minister had an opportunity since taking over his new portfolio to ascertain if there is some manner in which these officials can be assisted to expedite claims a little faster?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we now have a backlog of between 6,000 and 7,000 cases. We are doing the best we can with them. I am going to discuss with my deputy and other officials tomorrow whether there is any means by which we can hurry these claims along. I think it would be difficult to bring in new and untrained people on a temporary commission, but we will see what we can do.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban

March 21, 1972

Affairs. Did the minister announce in Vancouver recently, or over the weekend, a policy of government loans for the rehabilitation of existing housing stocks? If so, will he be introducing legislation to this effect in the House soon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the second part of the question, or only the second question, is in order and the minister will be allowed to reply to it. Possibly the hon. member will get information relating to the first part of his question in this way.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did mention that we had an experimental program in Vancouver that was established by my predecessor in the Strathcona housing area. There was an experimental program of loans and grants to home owners to rehabilitate their homes. I said we were learning a great deal from that program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is the kind of question and answer about which there are procedural difficulties. The hon. member may ask his question directly. When he asks it as the hon. member did and obtains the sort of reply the minister gave, then the debate is over what was said outside the House. In that respect that type of question and answer is irregular.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am phrasing my supplementary question in the proper manner. Is it proposed to introduce legislation in the House to expand and extend the provision for loans for the rehabilitation of existing housing?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that legislation will be introduced in due course, as predicted in the Speech from the Throne, and when introduced it will reveal what it deals with.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not in the House, I would like to ask his parliamentary secretary a question.
At noon we received from his department a bulletin announcing that in the future people who become insolvent will be able to seek assistance from officials of the Bankruptcy Branch to have them administer their bankruptcy.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether those who administer their own property -farmers for instance-will be able to take advantage of this new regulation?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister can answer briefly, he may do so, but normally such a question should be put on the order paper or debated at the time of adjournment.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware of a recent study by Statistics Canada of the consumer index that reveals that the increase in foodstuff costs in Prince Edward Island is almost double or triple that of the other Maritimes centres? If he is aware of such a rapid increase in food costs in Prince Edward Island, is he referring this matter to the Prices and Incomes Commission for study?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of it and the Prices and Incomes Commission no doubt, in the general context of its mandate, is giving attention to such matters.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the House how soon we may expect the revised bill to amend the Canada Labour Code, including provisions for technological change?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I hope we shall see it soon.



POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON CANADIAN EXEMPTION FROM INTEREST EQUALIZATION TAX AND AUTO PACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was asked this question:
Have there been discussions with the United States government in regard to Canada's present exemption from the interest equalization tax, and are these discussions connected with the discussions concerning the auto pact?
He replied that the question should be directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I directed the question to the Minister of Finance and in his reply the hon. gentleman stated that the subject came within the purview of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My question is this: does anybody over there know what is going on, because I should like an answer to the question?
Hon. ]ean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce): On behalf of myself, the Minister of Finance,

March 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
the officials of my department and officials of the Department of Finance I wish to say emphatically that no such discussions took place.



DATE OF RESUMPTION OF SITTINGS FOLLOWING EASTER RECESS

Mr. I. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has just inquired whether anyone over there knows what is going on. This is a related question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask his supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary, Your Honour. You will notice that the President of the Privy Council is not in the chamber today. He is campaigning this week in Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: Where is the Leader of the
Opposition?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to ask the acting leader of the House-I understand him to be the Minister of Agriculture-whether he can amplify or clarify the answer given by the President of the Privy Council on March 10 concerning the date upon which we shall be returning after the Easter recess. The hon. gentleman stated it would not be earlier than April 10, but possibly later. I should like to ask specifically whether the House will be in session after April 10 and whether it will be in session when the President of the United States comes here?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will take the question as notice. The President of the Privy Council will have to consider the kind of answer he would like to give tomorrow.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He will be away all this week.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might draw to the attention of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley the whereabouts of his six colleagues from Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we do not become involved in provincial politics.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On the same misguided point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that at least in Newfoundland an election has been called, while here there is complete confusion, indecision and vacillation about what the Prime Minister intends to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the arrangements for speeches in today's debate. I think you will find there is agreement among representatives of the parties that the first or principal speakers of all the parties shall be allowed 20 minutes and all other speakers 15 minutes, and that there shall be no extra time for anyone.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I attempted to direct a short supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member tried to ask a supplementary, but there are members who tried to ask not only supplementaries but first questions and did not have an opportunity to do so. If the question period were to be extended it might give opportunities to hon. members who rise on a number of occasions but who do not even get close to a supplementary.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on another point of order?


Some hon. Members:: On the same point!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me there are times when some hon. members can ask many supplementaries and other times when an hon. member cannot even be allowed to ask one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West) moved:: This House expresses the view that in order to protect and preserve our environment, immediate national standards for environmental quality must be set for air, water and land, it being clear that these standards must be set for all pollutants, that they must be enforced by the federal authorities, that low-cost loans



March 21, 1972

must be available to municipalities and to certain industries to ensure no further delay in the building of sewage treatment plants and plant clean-up, and that an Environmental Council of Canada should be established without delay.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say I have been informed that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) is ill and cannot attend the House today. We regret this, and we trust his recovery will not be long delayed.
I wish to say at the very beginning of my remarks that many more areas of concern could have been included in the motion, for there has been major neglect of environmental problems in every part of Canada over the years. Some progress has been made in this field, but on the whole the record of the federal government has been anything but good. The government had the opportunity to give real leadership in meeting the many environmental dangers facing the nation, but it has failed to meet the challenge. Instead of a national and unified approach to this Canada-wide question, we find that in the field of jurisdiction, environmental standards, control and enforcement there is more fragmentation than ever before.
At a time when the United Nations is calling for a common international outlook and direction, and stressing the need for a unified approach, this government has decided to forgo national standards. It has deliberately passed legislation which may well result in a hodge-podge of different standards from one end of Canada to the other. This short-sighted approach can only result in further delays in effectively meeting the environmental hazards confronting us.
Canada needs an integrated environmental policy. The foundation for such a policy has not been set by this government. The earth as a habitable place for human beings is in serious danger. It is evident that pollution is both widespread and serious. Resource extraction is proceeding at a ruinous rate and our earth is being rapidly overpopulated. All of this amounts to a global situation from whose effects Canada is not exempt. It is obvious that pollution, resource extraction and population are all part of the same picture. Any environmental policy, to be successful, must adopt an integrated approach to the over-all solution.
Our earth can be likened to a spaceship. It is a craft of limited carrying capacity for human beings. The basic elements supportive to life through evolution have developed into systems which constantly recirculate. Complex life-support systems have evolved in which the air, water, nutrients and energy supplies for the inhabitants of earth are normally maintained. Man is so utterly dependent on these natural processes that the policies he devises to govern his actions must ensure their maintenance if he is to survive. Unfortunately this is not being done, and in many parts of the globe there is increasing evidence that man is seriously and dangerously upsetting the balance of nature.
Most of the resources on earth are indefinitely renewable through natural cycles, but some are not. For the continuous provision of high-grade mineral supplies we will have to devise artificial cycles for recovery and re-use. For the exhaustible fossil fuels, such as coal and
Request for Environmental Council
oil, we are developing the alternative of nuclear power, but we must take care that byproducts of heat and radiation do not defeat our purposes by destroying the natural cycles not under our control.
Other sources of energy must be researched and tested, for it is estimated that our resources of oil and natural gas will be pretty well used up within the next 70 or 80 years. This is a pretty sobering thought, especially when you see our present government letting these valuable energy resources go mainly to foreign corporations at fire sale prices. The lack of adequate surveys by government to protect and ensure that future Canadian needs are adequately met in all these fields is most disturbing. The over-all Canadian public interest has not been protected by this government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has a little difficulty hearing the hon. member who has the floor. I would ask hon. members who are carrying on conversations to do so behind the curtains. The Chair would like to hear the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This was amply demonstrated in the field of mineral fuels, which is one of our non-renewable resources. Here, we- find that for the period 1965 to 1968, out of a total of $795 million in book profit, only 5.7 per cent, or $45 million, was classed as taxable income. This disgraceful tax sellout is certainly a source for additional government revenue which might well be used to assist in the clean-up of our environment.
Another disturbing aspect of the environmental problems facing us is the effect which pollution has had on a number of species of wildlife and fish, which are very much a part of our environment. Some species have already been wiped out and an increasing number of species have been reduced to the danger level. This is a clear-cut warning to mankind that many of our activities are adversely affecting the very food chains on which human life on this planet depends. This is the reason that scientists on a world-wide scale are calling for a halt to the destructive pollution of our environment which is presently taking place.
There is one more major point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with briefly before mentioning some of the major environmental problems specifically facing us in Canada. No environmental policy can be effective unless population growth is taken into consideration. Many environmentalists class this as the number one problem facing us in the world today.
The human population of the earth in 1971 is expanding at the rate of 2 per cent each year. This growth rate means that the earth must provide every year for the resources required to support 70 million new individuals. This means providing new food, power, fuel, air, water, minerals, space, doctors, hospitals, teachers, schools, transportation, industrial plants, and countless other cultural resources for a population three and one half times that of the current population of Canada each year. Already there is misery and want in many of the underdeveloped

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
countries of the world. It is estimated that within the next 30 years the world population could double, and instead of 3.6 billion people on this earth we would then have roughly seven billion people. This means more industry, more resource use, more pollution. The strain on our environment and resources will be immense. It appears doubtful, with this staggering increase in population facing us whether we could ever appreciably increase the standard of living of those people now living in many of the underdeveloped countries in the world.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, every country in the world, including our own, should develop a population policy. I feel Canada should initiate, through the United Nations, international conferences to promote the stabilization of the earth's population. Canada's own population must eventually be stabilized based on the carrying capacity of our environment. Investigations in relation to our per capita needs for all resources should be commenced without delay. I might add that major research on all human settlement problems is also needed immediately. This includes, of course, the increasing number of problems which we are meeting in our rapidly growing urban centres, which currently are the source of most of our severe environmental problems. Long range planning and action on these urban matters cannot be long delayed. There are many other aspects of population growth, but time does not permit me to deal too extensively with them.
Our motion indicates, Mr. Speaker, that our party is interested in the setting of national standards for environmental quality of air, water and land. These standards must be based on the biology of the receiving environment, and not on the purely arbitrary limits of what is technologically possible. If the ecological balance of natural populations or organisms is substantially altered by current technology, then I feel the offending process must be prohibited. National standards must be enforced by the federal authorities and adequate penalties must be set up to ensure compliance with the law. The setting of national standards will force a major clean-up of pollution problems throughout the nation. There is no doubt it will be costly, and for this reason the federal government should be prepared to provide vast sums of money for the over-all clean-up which must come. Low cost loans must be available to all municipalities and to some industries so that they can get on with the job of sewage treatment plants and plant clean-up without any further delay.
A pollution control fund should be established to help tackle some of the most serious and pressing problems facing us. In this category would come the clean-up of the Great Lakes system and other pollution problems which have arisen mainly due to a lack of knowledge and research over the years. The costs of pollution control, however, must be met primarily by the offending party. In some cases subsidies might be necessary, but if so the cost must be made public so the true cost of technology may be assessed. Those who break pollution laws must be liable for the full cost of clean-up, and governments should take steps to ensure that non-recyclable, throwaway consumer products should eventually be phased out by law.
Our party has spoken out on numerous occasions urging the establishment of an Environmental Council of

Canada. The function of the council would be to report on environmental affairs and to give guidance to both the government and the general public on all environmental problems. It would be a non-political organization, with adequate facilities to do a thorough job in the whole field of the environment. The establishment of such a council is long overdue and would be welcomed by Canadians generally.
I indicated earlier that our group is not impressed with the record of this government's attempt to deal with our environmental problems in general. It has been a piecemeal approach at best. A number of departments still jealously guard the right to establish regulations and to dictate policy regardless of the consequences. These ministers cannot do a proper job of protecting our environment if they are constantly in conflict with the commercial and economic aspects of their own departments.
For this reason one over-all Department of the Environment should have been established and should not have been placed in conflict with any economic activity coming under its direct jurisdiction. This is one of the weaknesses of the present Department of the Environment; it has fisheries and forestry under its control. Conflicts of interest do arise. It does not control the whole field of environmental problems and for this reason will often be ineffective in solving pollution problems.
Already in this House we find that we cannot obtain full information from the various ministers on certain important environmental developments. For example, let us look at a major problem in the environmental field in Canada today. I refer to the TAPS versus the Mackenzie River pipeline routes. The public is being kept in the dark. Here we find that several departments are involved, yet no clear-cut policy or clear-cut statement has been madt on the floor of this House as to what is going on in relation to the pipeline or as to what Canadians can expect to come out of it.
Only yesterday, a report indicated that the Americans had released a very voluminous survey which had been made of the TAPS pipeline and the Mackenzie River route. Apparently the United States has far more information, as do the general public in that country, than we in Canada. I think we in Canada are entitled to know just what is going on. What discussions are taking place? What discussions have taken place? If it is envisaged that a pipeline will come down the Mackenzie River corridor, Canadians should know. Is the pipeline being discussed in terms of a common carrier? Who will set the route? Who is going to own the pipeline? What will be the starting point of this pipeline and, when additional finds of oil are made in the Canadian north, will there be room in the pipeline to bring these resources down to the Canadian market? Some members opposite indicate that they have this knowledge. It is not general knowledge throughout Canada, and it is certainly not within the general knowledge of the members of this House.
We are interested in finding out how this pipeline will affect the natives in the north. What plans have been made to make certain that the livelihood of these people, which will be affected by any construction of this type,
March 21, 1972

will be protected? What is being done along these lines? We are also interested in having released the ecological surveys which have been made to indicate whether it is safe for the pipeline to be built. We in the New Democratic Party are very anxious to see this type of information released to this House at the earliest opportunity.
We have opposed the so-called west coast tanker route from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point in the State of Washington. We think it would be disastrous if an oil tanker route were to be established along the west coast. It would be only a matter of time until a major oil spill occurred. We will then see multiplied on an immense scale the disaster which occurred within the past two or three days on the southern shore of Vancouver Island when a ship went aground and many miles of the west coast of Vancouver Island were fouled by the oil which rolled up on the shore.
I would like to make one more point about what we feel has been a lack of policy on the part of this government. We find that the large James Bay project is going ahead. The Quebec government has moved in, surveys have been made and some work has been done. Where does the federal government fit into this picture? This project is part of the over-all environmental problems of this nation but federally we stand on the sidelines because we failed to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. We were ineffective in moving into this area and in demanding that proper ecological surveys be made before the project was allowed to proceed. This is something we should have done in the interest of all Canadians, our environment and our resources. Any Crown corporation should justify the building of dams on any river in Canada. This is what we ask. This is what we are going to press for, and we hope to see amendments of this nature brought forward by this government.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion that is before the House. I think it is obvious that any member concerned with the environment will have to support it. I hope the government will take note once again that the members of this House are vitally concerned about the lack of action in the past two or three years. It is a shame that we have to keep coming back time and again to this subject of the environment. In reply, publicly or in the House, the government says that several pieces of legislation have been passed and surely that is good enough; surely, we cannot be expected to do more. What is wrong with the government's action is twofold.
There are two basic shortcomings in the legislation that we presently have. The first is that the laws have not been passed in a planned or co-ordinated fashion. There seems to be no over-all plan into which the pieces of legislation fit. In other words, they meet a situation or a complaint in some sort of token fashion, but do not form part of a larger plan.
The second failure is that the government has not followed up what legislation it has by regulations and positive action. In these two areas, the government has suggested they have dealt with the situation. One of the failings of the present government is that it feels all that is necessary is to pass laws, get the stuff through the House. The government wants to get bills passed, accepting as
Request for Environmental Council
few amendments as possible, so there will be some indication on the books that the government is concerned. However, that is not enough. It is not the kind of legislation we would like.
Time and again the government refers to pieces of legislation such as the creation of the Department of the Environment, the Canada Water Act and the Clean Air Act, but if you look at the results you find these acts have been completely ineffective up to the present time. When you analyse them, you find they are mainly permissive legislation and in some cases pure token legislation. To a large extent, the goals of an efficient economy and a healthy environment are not contradictory. However, the cost of restoring the health of many sectors of our environment is likely to be very high and the federal government, as the major source of financial power and the broadest forum of Canadian concern for national issues, must demonstrate more leadership in this area than it has in the past.
The government has only been successful in the areas of least resistance. It has hesitated to enter into critical areas for fear of tramping on provincial toes. This, of course, is something about which I am sensitive, coming from the province of Ontario which has a Conservative government and which, like all provincial governments, is very sensitive about its own powers and jurisdiction. In every case in which there has been a move by the federal government, co-operation has been received from the provinces. When proposals are made and plans put forward to the effect that on the Canadian scene we intend to do something about the environment, the provinces co-operate. Time and time again they have co-operated.
The problem is particularly prevalent in respect of the Canada Water Act and the Clean Air Act which supposedly were intended to be the greatest innovative pollution measures in Canada. They have ended up as mere pieces of rhetoric because they hinge on agreements with the provinces before any real positive action can result. As anyone knows, it is no easy matter to bring together a federal government and ten provinces in order to reach agreement. If we look at the various acts, we find there have been no positive results. The so-called national standards in the Clean Air Act apply only in two cases. They apply to any federal premises and can be enforced in the provinces only if the provinces agree.
The Canada Water Act also hinges on federal-provincial agreements. However, on many occasions I have felt extremely sorry that we have been unable to make the Canada Water Act work. From the beginning I felt, as did many others, that it was based on an entirely erroneous premise, and that the whole act would not be effective. If we look at the province of Ontario as the prime example, we find the province already is divided into areas for pollution control. It already has units dealing with pollution control. It has municipal agreements. It has river basin agreements and it has area and regional agreements. This is a pattern which is now completely set up in the province of Ontario. That province has been engaged in this work for 15 years under the Ontario Water Resources Act, but the federal government came along with the Canada Water Act and said that so far as it was

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
concerned it intended to divide up the area in another way.
So far as the Canada Water Act is concerned, the federal government has said it intends to insist that the matter be handled on a water basin or regional area basis. This has not worked out. There have been a number of agreements with the provinces which show some promise of future activity, but in large part there have been only studies. Studies are fine. However, the problem in respect of the program is that for the first three or four years of its existence most of the time has been spent on studies. Then, when the results of the studies are made known the government is not satisfied with them, finds they did not turn out the way they wished or decides that the studies themselves are ambiguous. Difficult decisions must be made, and yet these decisions have not been made.
Another so-called piece of pollution legislation consists of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act regarding coastal pollution. Although this act applies to all Canadian waters, it will not be as effective off the west coast of Canada as off the east coast. There are inequities and gaps in the adoption of the regulations under this Act. My colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-Dartmouth East (Mr. Forrestall) intends to deal with this aspect later in this debate, because this is a matter which has concerned him very much, as well as others, and he has been asking questions almost daily on this particular subject.
Another thing I lay at the doorstep of this government as a failure is its inability to make hard decisions. If we look just at the great environmental issues we face at the moment, we will see that this is true. There is a great project for hydro-electric development in the James Bay area proposed by the government of Quebec. There is federal involvement because the closing of navigable waters must be approved by the federal government. There is federal involvement in respect of Indian affairs, environmental affairs and so on. Yet at the moment we have been left completely in the dark concerning where the federal government stands in respect of this project. I recognize that this is not an easy matter with which to deal. The federal government must decide now or shortly whether or not it will agree to this project.
Daily we have been asking, over a period of months now, about the federal involvement in this project and have received no answers. The only inkling we received was in a statement by Premier Bourassa of the province of Quebec. He stated he had been talking to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) about this problem recently. That came out in a news report, but the Prime Minister of Canada has not acknowledged in the House that he has even discussed or considered it. For months we have had nothing but evasive answers. We have not even had an indication that the federal government intends to take the situation seriously and say it is in favour of the project, that it is against the project or that it intends to impose certain conditions. The Prime Minister has not made his position abundantly clear to either the House or to the premier of Quebec.
There is also a decision to be made in respect of the carriage of Arctic gas and oil from Alaska to the mainland of the United States. It must either cross or come close to Canadian soil in such a way that there will be
(Mr. Aiken.]
environmental danger. Yesterday the United States government indicated that a study of this project had been made. A four volume report was tabled at two o'clock yesterday, and the summary we have received is to the effect that the general report indicates there are dangers involved in both routes but that perhaps the overland route is the one that would be most satisfactory to the United States.
This report deals only with the United States. It must decide what is most advantageous for it. The report refers to security-security of the oil passage and security in respect of being able to get that oil regardless of hostile acts from within this country. This is one of the things they are thinking about. I do not know why this aspect has never been considered before. However, a good deal of the report covers the question of security of the oil lines. There seems to be some concern about whether the oil can be moved from Alaska to the United States without any interference from us. I have not seen any evidence that the government of Canada intends to hold public hearings, establish a parliamentary committee to look into the matter, or make a decision.
The special committee on pollution was anxious last year to look into this subject and some hearings were held but nothing final was produced because the committee did not go on a tour as they desired. Perhaps it would have been a good thing to do. In any case, no studies have been made by Canada. When on earth are we going to start, because the Americans are ready to make a decision? They are ready to grant a shipping line permit because that is the easiest and the quickest route, but so far as Canada is concerned it is probably the most dangerous. We do not know whether they are going to make such a decision within days or weeks, but certainly they are going to make it without any indication from this country as to how we feel about it. The decision will be made by the United States strictly on the basis of what they feel will be in the interest of their own security.
There is also the matter of the Great Lakes clean-up. Unfortunately, this work has been stalled, and yet this is a gigantic problem involving two federal governments, one provincial and eight states as well as several other governing bodies. But we have had no decision on that. I was very heartened today during the question period when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question about the decisions, announcements or agreements that may be made when President Nixon comes here next month regarding the pipeline problem or the Great Lakes problem, and he intimated-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but, in accordance with the special order made today, I must advise him that his time has expired.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) which reads as follows:
This House expresses the view that in order to protect and preserve our environment, immediate national standards for environmental quality must be set for air, water and land, it being clear that these standards must be set for all pollutants, that they
March 21, 1972

must be enforced by the federal authorities, that low-cost loans must be available to municipalities and to certain industries to ensure no further delay in the building of sewage treatment plants and plant clean-up, and that an Environmental Council of Canada should be established without delay.
Mr. Speaker, this motion covers so much ground that it is next to impossible to discuss every aspect of it. Still, I should like to call the attention of the House to that part of it which reads as follows:
-that low-cost loans must be available to municipalities and to certain industries to ensure no further delay in the building of sewage treatment plants and plant clean-up-
Mr. Speaker, the essence of the motion is contained in those lines. I feel that it is imperative that we solve the financial problems of the municipalities to ensure sewage treatment.
Setting up an environmental council, adopting standards and passing laws will be useless if industries and municipalities remain in their present sad situation. We have always said, and I repeat it, that the problem is financial.
Let us hear all the speeches to be made this afternoon and evening, and we will always come to the same conclusion: we are facing a tremendous financial problem. Thus, I would like to draw your attention to a newspaper article published in October 1968 in La Presse and entitled: "Some companies will be unable to survive pollution control". This is what it said:
The federal Minister of Resources, Mr. J. J. Greene, has declared yesterday that some Canadian firms will be compelled to close down because of the government progran on pollution control.
The Minister explained during an interview that pollution was now everybody's problem, but that pollution previously caused by certain industries was their direct responsibility.
The business community must consider the steps that are required to fight pollution as part of the production costs which, needless to say, will ultimately be borne by the population.
Mr. Greene said that Canadians would have to be prepared to accept these additional charges and slightly higher prices as being the cost of living in a healthy atmosphere.
Certain industries may perhaps not be able to pay the cost of pollution abatement measures and will then have to shut down.
"But the federal government understands this point and I think that the public must be prepared to pay for this economic dislocation", said he.
Mr. Speaker, the minister was then suggesting that we should be prepared to pay the cost of pollution abatement, and that certain industries might not be able to foot the bill. He also admitted that the problem was of a financial nature.
In February 1970, I received a letter from Mr. Fowler, President of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. This letter related to the federal budget and pollution abatement.
First of all, Mr. Fowler called the minister's attention to the problems for factories which must all tackle the job of not polluting the water and treating it.
And I quote:
-.. the pulp and paper industry solicits that your next budget include the following provisions:
1.	Elimination of federal sales tax on construction materials, equipment and supplies purchased for the purpose of depollution.
Request for Environmental Council
2.	Easing of regulations concerning amortization so that capital expenses directly related to depollution may be amortized over the period most favourable for the firm (the amount to be amortized could be considered as an expense or amortized over any period chosen.)
3.	Federal grants equivalent to one third of capital cost of work carried out to bring existing industrial plants in line with any regulations set up concerning depollution (the government could also allow, instead of such grants, amortization calculated on a broad evaluation of the capital expenditure, having the same financial effect for most companies.)
The above provisions would, in our opinion, facilitate the implementation of depollution called for by various legislation and regulations, among them the Canada Water Act.
I could go on for the rest of the day quoting texts, newspaper articles or statistical data supporting the fact that the problem of pollution must be dealt with, and promptly. I know that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) is aware of the problem and I urge him to give careful consideration, as a possible solution, to low interest loans to municipalities or industries which urgently need these loans and apply for them.
I am surprised to see that a party to my left is supporting this measure and this is gratifying. It proves that all the Social Credit party's interventions to this end have not been in vain. Not so long ago, we were being called all kinds of names when we mentioned interest-free or low interest loans.
I think that municipalities should be entitled to such loans, at least with regard to sewage disposal, and that companies should be able to obtain low interest loans with a much longer write-off period, or even enjoy some tax exemptions.
We will obviously not be talking in terms of thousands of dollars since the problem is of such magnitude that it will require enormous expenses. The main problem is to determine what the federal government is able to do. A brief dated October 26, 1965, by the Canadian institute for the control of water pollution, stated and I quote:
(13) Legislation and tax procedures at the federal, provincial or regional levels should be established and amended so as to insure the most economical and efficient financing of the development, operation and improvement of the facilities for the treatment of sewage waters.
I agree on this point, but towns are facing an even more pressing problem. Industries make profits from which they can deduct tax payments. Actually, most of them are prosperous. But municipalities do not possess the same financial means as a large industry. After all, the damages resulting from unchecked municipal pollution are paid by Canadians.
How can you hope that municipalities like Brompton-ville, Richmond, Windsor, Asbestos, which are all in my riding, can abide by the government's criteria while their budgets show a deficit year after year? How do you expect the resident of Brompton or Windsor to pay higher taxes for pollution control facilities? Actually, these facilities have been totally outrun by budgets 50 per cent of which is earmarked for debt servicing.
The federal government in co-operation with the provincial government should immediately grant interest free loans to municipalities to enable them to deal with pollu-
1008

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
tion, particularly sewage waters which are discharged into waterways that are frighteningly becoming polluted. The more we hesitate, the more tax money we will have to pay.
I would like that the problem prevailing in the Eastern Townships be considered. In the St-Francois river which runs through my riding at the level of Drummondville, the water does not run any more; it is so polluted by the sewage poured into it by some 120 villages and towns in Quebec that it just rolls down.
A study made by the Quebec Water Board showed that close to 270,000 people live on the banks of the St-Frangois or its tributaries. The river is polluted at East Angus, Sherbrooke, Bromptonville, Windsor and Drummondville. Those towns should stop pouring their waste water into that river and, to that end, the federal government, in co-operation with the Quebec government, should grant those municipalities interest-free loans in order to put an end to such pollution, which is intolerable in 1972.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) for giving me this opportunity to say a few words about the environment, about Environment Canada, about our federal programs and the manner in which these federal initiatives are coordinated effectively with those of the provinces.
His motion expresses the view that, "in order to protect and preserve our environment, immediate national standards for environmental quality must be set for air, water and land." I want to stay close to the main point that he is endeavouring to make. Mr. Speaker, we have been in the process of setting not only national standards but also national objectives.
When I mention objectives I am, for example, talking about the quality of the water out in the middle of a lake, or about the quality of large masses of air over a city. Standards, by contrast, apply to the point of effluence, of pollutants from their source. To repeat, Mr. Speaker, we have already announced a series of national air quality objectives. We have also been announcing a series of standards, which we are working out in close concert with the industries concerned.
We have by no means covered all the industries with which we must work and for which national standards must be set. But in answer to that part of the motion which says that Canada must preserve its environment by setting immediate national standards for environmental quality for air, water and land, I have to say that we are already in the process of doing this. It may take longer to do this job than the hon. member would like to admit. However, we have been working closely with half a dozen major industries.
In two cases we have already announced what these new standards are. These are standards which the industry concerned knows it can meet. They are standards where we have good working examples of pollution abatement procedures being adequate to meet all reasonable tests. They are also economic standards because we can point to plants or mills which are in effect making money and which have installed the necessary clean-up equip-

ment and procedures, and are operating them in an economic way.
The hon. member says that these standards must be set for all pollutants. I will have to agree with him on that. However, it will take us time to work reasonably with the industries concerned to develop a description of the latest working technology. We intend to cover all pollutants, and we will be working with all polluting industries with a view to cleaning up their effluents.
The hon. member also says that these standards must be enforced by federal authorities. Mr. Speaker, he knows very well that the federal authority in many of these fields is not all inclusive. For example, he knows the provinces have specific power over property, and power over the location of many industries. He knows that the provinces have the only powers to deal effectively with local pollution which, in its detrimental influence, does not extend to surroundings which are outside a province, or which does not affect fish, navigation or human health, which are matters of federal concern. There are big areas of jurisdiction in this country which rest exclusively with the provinces.
In those areas, for instance in municipal affairs, in respect to industries located entirely within a province and whose pollutant effects do not go outside the province, it is really the provincial authority that must deal with them. However, having said this, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention, and we have been fairly successful to this point, to develop standards which the provinces will adopt, standards which the provinces will in fact copy, and which they will enforce. Even in areas of exclusively provincial or local jurisdiction we will not have pollution havens which will serve to attract certain "dirty" industries, or will permit some firms to get away with practices which would not be allowed in areas of federal jurisdiction or where the provinces adopt federal standards.
I think the hon. member would also be prepared to admit that where the federal standards are improved upon by a given province or municipality, the federal government should have no reluctance in immediately endorsing enthusiastically those higher standards. It may be that standards are not always uniform across the country. But certainly the national government must be able to set national standards which are uniform in so far as the force and effect of federal laws are concerned and to ensure that those are also standards which are met or exceeded in the provinces and by provincial administrations.
It is proposed in this resolution that low cost loans must be made available to municipalities and to certain industries to ensure no further delay in clean-up. I should certainly like the hon. member to list the "certain industries" to which he would give this preferential treatment. This would be a very interesting exercise, especially so far as the New Democratic Party is concerned. If we are to be selective, what industries should receive financial assistance from the government? In other words, what industries should receive a subsidy from the federal taxpayer in order to clean up?
March 21, 1972

Our basic policy is that the polluter must pay, that the industry in question will have to pay to clean up those wastes which it is now discarding into the environment. This is not an operation involving taxpayers' money or subsidies. It is a requirement which will be imposed upon industry. Admittedly industries often need time in order to bring their plants up to our new standards, in order to instal the latest equipment and use the latest processes which are described in our standards.
In regard to municipalities, the hon. member knows that, in effect, grants have been made to municipalities across Canada for a long time. Most municipalities in Canada have received loans from the federal government, one-quarter of which are forgiveable. If payments are kept up and the plant is in place, then one-quarter of the loan is forgiven at the end of the period. In effect, the municipality in question has received the equivalent of a grant of 25 per cent. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been lent to Canadian municipalities over the last decade for this purpose, for the purpose of environmental control, for the purpose of building sewage collection systems and in more recent years the purpose of building primary, secondary and tertiary sewage treatment plants. The Canadian taxpayer, through the federal government, has been helping every municipality that itself had a will to improve its own environment.
Some provinces have seen fit to assist this process. Some, such as Ontario, have made grants to look after those municipalities where the per capita cost is exceptionally high. This is the kind of assistance I mean, but there again we have federal assistance and provincial assistance making it easier for municipalities, certainly those faced with particular problems and high costs, to instal the necessary collection and treatment facilities.
The final point which the hon. member makes is that we should set up an environmental council of Canada. As he knows, this is a big step. We are taking a most important step right away; we are setting up an environmental council of Canada which is appointed by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) and will act in an advisory capacity to him. It is not, at least as initially conceived, a council similar to the Economic Council of Canada which has its own staff, its own civil service so to speak, its own terms of reference and works at its own pace and in its own way. The environmental council which we have in mind and the members of which will be appointed in the next few weeks, will be advisory to the minister. This is a big step; it is a good step and an essential step forward. However, it is only one of a sequence of steps. I might add that I am not personally convinced that we need yet another separate council with its own independent staff, answerable to no one and whose advice is not necessarily practical under the circumstances.
In the few minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take issue with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) who said that we really have no philosophy. Essentially, the Department of the Environment is concerned with the preservation of living things, the preservation of wildlife, our fisheries, our forests, our flora and fauna-nature, in other words. This is the mission of ecologists. Indeed, the ecologists are primarily concerned with the inter-relationship of all living things, one to the
25104-5}
Request for Environmental Council
other, particularly with their environments of water, air and soil and particularly again in their relationships with the human animal and what he is doing to them and to his surroundings.
In the Department of the Environment we have many of the biologists who are concerned with the fisheries, who are concerned with the wildlife of this country, who are concerned with forestry. We also have the engineers who are concerned with our waterways, oceanographers who are concerned with ocean currents, the meteorologists who have been sampling air, who are knowledgeable about climatic conditions in this country, about ice movements, about the general backdrop from an air point of view and indeed about inter-relationships between air and water on both our coasts. So, we have the biological competence, the knowhow in this department to endeavour to deal with the impact of industry, of man's building activities on his living environment. It is in that context that we are developing our philosophy of how not only to protect our environment but to improve it as time goes by.
I have made reference to improving the environment and this is entirely possible. It has certainly been possible in the very big field of forestry. Our forests are certainly the biggest wild mass in Canada. They can be healthier if they are harvested. They can produce three or four times as much fibre as they do today. We can have industrialization and we can have a healthier environment and a healthier forest basically because the old, decaying insect-ridden forest which is commonplace in the so-called natural environment will progressively disappear in all but the wilderness and national park areas. In their place will be crops of younger, healthier, fast growing trees. This is a healthier environment, the kind of clean environment that we can have with more industry, and more employment for the people of this country as well.
That is also possible in the fisheries. Somewhat like hunting and somewhat like the ancient practices of the so-called commons, fisheries had been open to everyone. The rush was on and the first in reaped the greatest reward. In time, with the continued invasion of more and more fishermen, the resource itself was in jeopardy. Inevitably, over-fishing occurred; there were too many fishermen, too many boats chasing the remaining fish. Fishing became one of those "bottom-rung-of-the-ladder" type of activities the world over.
Now, we are introducing a degree of order into chaos. Off our shores where other nations are also fishing, we have entered into agreements to reduce our total pressure on the resource. We will share it. Admittedly, we will get 50 per cent or more, but we will share the resource with other countries so long as, collectively, we stay within the total catch. Individually, we will get our share. Once shares are decided on, it will be possible not only to reduce the amount of fishing effort but, as well, to make the fishery much more economical or economically viable. We will be able to withdraw vessels from the fishery or reduce the number of vessels in the fishery, and thus produce much higher incomes for the fishermen left in the fishery. Also, in time, we can build fishing stocks to a level more akin to those which existed before man began

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
to fish what were formerly extensive fisheries both on our Atlantic coast and the west coast of Canada.
I know that there are many other matters to which I ought to refer. I have said that the polluter must pay. We will, however, give him time to clean up. When he is building a new plant, he must meet the new standards immediately. In cases where there are old, existing plants, he may need some years in order to instal the necessary equipment and processing facilities. That obviously applies to the pulp and paper industry across Canada. There are approximately 150 mills in this country, many of them large, and some of them the largest of their kind in the world. They are not all modern, not all up to date, not all in the best of locations. If we were to force them to solve their pollution problem, or at least meet our new standards for new plants, overnight, many would close down. Certainly, in present circumstances where employment is so important and, indeed, probably the most important matter facing the government of Canada today, we will need to go slowly and put jobs ahead of pollution abatement. We will have to be frank about this and admit this to the country. Time will solve our problems. We shall certainly encourage those mills, one at a time, to meet those reasonable standards which the industry, in the main, agrees are adequate, appropriate, and not too onerous in the circumstances.
I might say in that connection that the United States, for example, is adopting our new standards without change for the pulp and paper industry. Undoubtedly, they will be adopting some of our other standards. We also have established standards for chlor-alkali plants which were discharging mercury. Their effluent has been recycled, the mercury has been recovered, and it no longer finds its way into our rivers and streams. There are other examples one could mention. We are proud when we see other countries following our lead. We, in turn, are learning from them and taking heart from some successes they have scored on the pollution front.
I could enumerate eight different pieces of legislation we have passed in the last two years which deal in a substantial way with pollution. I could list some of the really big developments which I am sure Canadians down through the years will boast about. For instance, who would have thought half a dozen years ago that there would be a firm agreement with the United States for cleaning up the Great Lakes. That agreement has been achieved. I am confident that it will be signed shortly. It incorporates our national objectives for water and will make Lake Erie a lake in which fish can survive and abound. Lake Erie will become a lake that is fit to swim in and its water will be drunk by human beings without any fear of ill effects. That is a massive agreement, a multi-billion dollar agreement, and its scope is impressive. As I say, it is an agreement which will result in the cleaning up of the great water system which drains the industrial heartland of North America. It will result in the cleaning up of that system by the mid 1970's. Mind you, we will be looking for further improvements down through the years. However, Mr. Speaker, that agreement by itself is a tremendous accomplishment.


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


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to the minister and hear what he had to say about the abatement of pollution. Also, I am pleased to support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). Certainly, it is high time for Canada to set national standards for the quality of air, water and land.
The minister told us that grants have been given to municipalities for the building of sewage disposal units, etc. This has been done through Central Mortgage and Housing. The amount of funds made available has been small in relation to the need. I am certain that in his motion the hon. member for Kootenay West suggests a program far more expansive than the one operated through Central Mortgage and Housing. The minister is quite right, however, in saying that 25 per cent of loans or funds made available for sewage disposal units, etc., are written off or forgiven if the municipalities meet certain conditions.
The present motion is not unlike one moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in 1970. At that time the question of pollution was debated. The minister was quite right in saying that a number of pieces of legislation pertaining to pollution have been passed in the last couple of years. However, so far no standards have been laid down. The minister also suggested that there are national objectives or national goals in this area. If there are such objectives, standards, goals or what have you, they are not apparent to Canadian manufacturing firms, Canadian industry generally and to Canadians using our lakes and rivers, our land and air. If there are such objectives and standards, surely they should be made clear to industry across Canada.
In addition, the government's intentions in making sure that these goals are reached should be made clear. It is all very well to say industry is not using land properly and that there shall be penalties. I think the onus today is on the government. It must do a little more in this area. I can think of the difficulties associated with operating mines in the Kenmore district of Alberta. It was suggested that land was being ruined in the area. What have the federal and provincial governments done to assist that industry to repair any damage done to the environment?
I can remember, too, going to Hilton mines in Pontiac county, near Ottawa, a couple of years ago and seeing the huge piles of waste rock heaped up from the iron ore mines. Let me tell the House that the Hilton mines people undertook some expensive research. They wanted to know how much it would cost to flatten out and seed with grass the piles of rock and dust heaped up outside the mine. The experts who were hired said that it would cost $300 per acre. The mining people told the researchers that was too expensive and that they had better come up with some cheaper way of doing it, or forget the whole thing. That experience is not encouraging. That industry should be encouraged to reclaim and repair the sort of damage that is done when open pit mining is undertaking for the recovery of iron ore or coal. Certainly, the government should lay down standards for enabling industry to determine more easily what must be done.
March 21, 1972

It is interesting to note that this motion was moved by a member of the NDP. Members of this House, and particularly of the NDP, have been quick to condemn the Conservative party. They say that it is opposed to advancement and change. The true hallmark of the conservative is that he accepts change based on experience. That is his philosophy. He is not afraid to look back at his mistakes and correct them. If previous governments had done that, perhaps we should not be facing our present difficulties regarding pollution. Mr. Speaker, compare the philosophy of the true conservative with that of the socialist. The socialist, apparently, believes in Utopia. A conservative believes he is the caretaker of the environment on behalf of future generations; he is only here for a limited time and he must take care of our water, air and land so that those who come after him may be able to enjoy it. In order to make this possible one must be prepared to look back and accept change based on experience. I sometimes believe that, over the years, liberal philosophy can be expressed in the question: what will make the biggest buck and the fastest buck in the way most acceptable to industry? Bearing in mind the number of years during which we have had to live with a Liberal government in Ottawa, is it any wonder that pollution is as great as it is today?
The creation of the Department of the Environment was a major step forward. On this side of the House we all regarded it with a great deal of interest. We wondered whether or not the relevant legislation would have teeth in it, whether as guardians of the tax dollar we would be supplied with sufficient information to enable us to judge whether or not the new department was fulfilling a useful service. I was disappointed when the minister told us that the environmental council which is to be set up would report to the department. Such a system will not allow an outside body to check whether the department is acting in an appropriate manner or not, whether it is really cleaning up pollution or whether it is covering up major pollution somewhere or other on the ground that certain industries are involved, or for reasons of good neighbourliness and so forth.
I would much prefer to see an environmental council operated on the lines of the Economic Council and issuing a public report. It could be established on the basis of a mixture of the principles applying to the Economic Council and the Auditor General; it could be, in essence, the auditor of our treatment of the environment; it could audit the management of the environment by the government of the day, and make its report impartially, notwithstanding the effects which the report might have on the government. In this way, it could provide a most useful service. I should like to see the Department of the Environment given increased responsibilities. In my opinion, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act should be placed within the purview of the new department.
Most of our immediate concern arises from the nature of our urban environment. I sometimes wonder how we shall be able to control pollution in large urban areas if we continue to allow cities to sprawl over adjacent territory without limit to their growth. Growing cities do not
Request for Environmental Council
appear to concern themselves greatly over pollution. All one has to do is drive around the major cities of Canada today to realize the extent to which urban sprawl is increasing. The more rapidly cities expand, the less their administrators appear to care about the difficulties of sewage disposal and waste disposal in general.
In the debate which took place last year on this subject the hon. member for Hamilton West listed the percentage of various material which goes into waste. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) referred to the situation in Hong Kong. Reading his speech one can readily understand the difference between the efforts made in Hong Kong to dispose effectively of waste products and those made by various major cities in Canada. There is no doubt, in my view, that cities have been allowed to abuse land surrounding the city area. Standards should certainly be set for municipalities to meet, and, if necessary, grants far larger than have been made in the past should be made available to help them reach those standards. It was said a few years ago that the City of Montreal had installed sewage treatment plants sufficient to handle only about 11 per cent of its raw sewage. This is a shockingly low figure, though I do not wish to single out Montreal as the only example. Other major cities are almost as bad.
We must accelerate existing programs and we can only do this if the government has the courage to lay down specific standards which must be met. In other words, for example, no raw sewage should be dumped into our rivers and waters. If we were as emphatic in making that statement as we are in saying other things, if, for instance, we said that by 1975 no city should be dumping raw sewage into rivers and lakes, then we would see action. Requests for grants would be made to the government and the government would be obliged to come through. But the federal government appears hesitant to take action. It says, among other things, that much of this responsibility lies with the provinces. This may be true to some extent. Nevertheless, over-all authority rests with the federal government, which is responsible for Canada as a whole and the federal government must be prepared to take action to end some of the abuses which have been taking place at the expense of our land, water and air.
So far, the government has taken only what might be called minor initiatives in the area of pollution abatement. Basically it has shown no real leadership. The minister, in his closing remarks, suggested that fish would once again abound in Lake Erie and that after the pact was signed with the United States all the waterways along the Great Lakes system would be cleaned up. But unless a definite commitment is made as to the standard of purification to be met no such result will follow, although the program may have a good appearance for political purposes. Incidentally, there has been a record catch of fish in Lake Erie this year. Results have been far better than last year.


An hon. Member:: Smelts and perch.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suppose that in 1975 a spokesman for the government will point out that catches have improved and claim it is the result of the clean-up program. This will not necessarily be the case. The minister gave the impression that no fish could now survive in the lake. For the record^

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
I might mention that certain species do and can survive. We are looking for more action and less verbiage; better standards, and better defined public goals by which industry and the rest of us must abide.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the House and the country certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) for having taken the opportunity today to put forward a motion relating to our environment, thus permitting parliament, at least on this one day, to concentrate its interest upon so important an area. However, because of the way in which parliament functions, because it is controlled by government, and because there is a dictatorship existent in the structure of government activity, not much may come of the complaints which are raised and the propositions which are put forward. None the less, I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West, in taking this opportunity, deserves our applause and the applause of the people in the land. Not one single item is of greater concern to us than the question of the environment, our ecology and living things on the land, in the waters and in the air. Since they are the basis of life, if we do not concern ourselves about them in a serious way we injure the prospect of life on earth continuing beyond a certain point in time.
I listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister said, because after all he is the minister charged with the responsibility for dealing with environmental matters. I should like to extend a word of congratulation to his speech writers. They worked with such care and precision that so far they have prevented the minister from saying anything today on this subject except in general terms, and then not the full truth. When the Department of the Environment was established, and when preceding it a number of other pieces of legislation were announced in speeches from the throne of earlier years, members of parliament had great hopes that we were embarking upon a concrete plan of action to deal with environmental problems, the ecology, and to do something worth while to preserve life in Canada and on shores close to Canada, and thus hopefully influence the situation throughout the world.
For example, as the minister has mentioned we have the Canada Water Act which conceived of the establishment of water management control areas, or river basin boards, or some such bodies as that. I do not know how many have since been established. Has one such water management control area been established, even though the Canada Water Act has been on the statute books for over two years now? I doubt whether any have been set up, but perhaps one has. When the bill was being dealt with by the House, we attempted to establish in the legislation national standards for water quality throughout the nation, so an objective could be set. However, the Liberal party objected to that concept and refused to put into effect national standards.
Then we also had the Clean Air Act. As far as I know, the only activity under that act is that some studies are being conducted into the extent to which our air is being
(Mr. Horner.]
polluted. But in terms of activity and action there has been nothing.
Then, we had the Fisheries Act which again corrected some abuses of the past. This act sought to prevent pollution in the future rather than simply penalize people for pollution after the fact, as had been the case previously. However, when the minister announced the promulgation of the pulp and paper effluent regulations early last November, we found the regulations did not apply to a single, solitary hardboard mill in Canada.


John (Jack) Davis: The regulations apply to mills under construction.


Frank Howard: Yes. Being too precise, the minister did not listen to what I said. I said they do not apply to a single, solitary hardboard mill in existence in Canada today.


John (Jack) Davis: Standards are exceeded by half a dozen of them.


Frank Howard: None whatever. Even if the regulations were to have some effect in the future, and were applied to pulp and paper mills that will be built, or even applied to present day mills on a negotiated basis, the minister is flying in the face of his own arguments. At one time he said to industry: "We want you to keep your effluent within the plant gates". Now, through these regulations, he is telling them: "It is all right to pump your effluent out into water courses, into lakes, streams and salt water. Before your effluent is declared toxic", says the minister now, "there must be a fish kill of 20 per cent", albeit under controlled conditions. That is the way I read these regulations, and if I am wrong perhaps the minister will declare otherwise. As I interpret the regulations, when the fish kill reaches 20 per cent of the fish existing under controlled conditions, the effluent is classified as toxic and the mill is then in contravention of the regulations. If the percentage is only 19 per cent, then the mill can go ahead and kill that number of fish.
Then, we had the Arctic Waters Pollution Control Act which applied to a 100 nautical mile zone around the Arctic archipelago. I understand this to be the finest legislation in the world so far as controlling pollution by oil tankers is concerned. The only part of it that does not ring true is that it applies to an area where there are no oil tankers operating or it is unlikely that they will be operating.
However, off our east and west coasts where oil tankers move through the waters practically every day of the week, there is no such stringent requirement. I am sure practically every day of the week somewhere in the world an oil tanker sinks, or runs aground, or runs into bad weather, capsizes, breaks up and spills oil into the ocean. This is another instance of having some fine words in legislation which itself has no practical application. In other words, we have laws without teeth. We have laws written in fine terms, which are carefully drawn and on the surface are supposed to help preserve our environment and protect our ecology. But the value of these laws has either been emasculated by inaction on the part of the government or eviscerated by regulations such as the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations. Under the sponsor-
March 21, 1972

ship of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) we have in Canada pollution control by press release only, certainly not by direct activity.
Let me give the House a few examples of what I mean in the few minutes available to me. At one stage the minister pointed out that he wanted industry to keep its effluent within the plant gates, that none of it must go outside. Technically that is possible, he said. Then, the minister comes along with regulations and says to the pulp and paper industry, his friends: "I really did not mean what I said. We will permit you to continue pumping your effluent into water courses across the land, to kill fish and destroy the ecology; the regulations say you can". We have the Arctic waters pollution control legislation, the finest in the world, with no application to Canada in those areas where oil tankers operate; it applies only to those areas where very few people and no oil tankers are likely to move.
Today, we can find the ship Vanlene aground on the rocks of Barkley Sound off the coast of Vancouver Island. This is a ship that missed its mark by at least 100 miles, that did not even have a Canadian pilot aboard to bring it into Canadian waters. I understand that it had defective compasses. So far, this ship has discharged 30,000 gallons of bunker oil into the ocean off the west coast of the island. The owners of the vessel obviously were sloppy and careless about its management, not really caring what happened, a sloppiness and carelessness matched only, so far, by the attitude taken to the situation by the Department of Transport.
At this very moment we have at the scene fisheries department officials, department of defence officials and Department of Transport officials standing around on decks of ships watching the current of the water moving this oil spill up on to the beaches of Vancouver Island and Long Beach, being unable effectively to clean it up. They have an oil licker, I understand that is the technical term. This is a cleaning-up mechanism developed by the Department of Transport, it is true, yet it is inoperative because it will not work when waves are over one and a half feet in height, which is always the case off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The oil licker does not operate because bunker oil, in that temperature of water, turns into something approaching elastic. All the oil licker does is to try to stretch this piece of rubbery substance into the tanks and barges which are said to be there. There has been no action whatsoever. There has been carelessness on the part of the Canada Shipping Act officials and the government. In spite of our pilotage requirements, there was no pilot on the ship. There have also been careless activities in terms of trying to clean up that oil.
Hope Enviro Control Ltd. of Victoria developed a type of oil slick removal equipment that operates on a whirlpool basis. A propeller is placed under the water which creates a whirlpool. This moves the oil on top of the water as well as the sawdust and pulls it into the centre of the whirlpool. It operates with a worm gear. This company approached the Department of Transport to see whether it could try out this piece of equipment on this oil spill. They received a casual response from Norm Siegsworth, the director of that clean-up. He told them to go ahead.
Request for Environmental Council
However, they were not permitted to use Department of Transport barges or equipment which are there at the moment and are not being used. Why does the government not give this outfit a try? Maybe they can help solve the problem. The herring spawning beds in that area of the coast have already been ruined, as well as the sea lion beds, because of this particular ship running onto the rocks. The situation can only deteriorate unless something worthwhile is done.
I want to spend two minutes talking about the proposed oil tanker route down the west coast. The first thing we should do with the trans-Alaska system from Valdez Bay to Cherry Point, Washington is make the Arctic waters pollution control legislation the finest law in the world. This is what the government says. It should be applicable to the west coast and the east coast. If American tankers are going to carry oil from Valdez Bay down the west coast to Washington, they should keep their ships 100 nautical miles off shore or we should insist that they meet the very stringent regulations we set down in the Arctic Waters Pollution Control Act. I will not go into detail, but this legislation covers safety equipment, double hulls, crews, navigational equipment and everything else.
We should not be in such a rush to accommodate the oil interests which want to build a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. We should look carefully at preserving the ecology in the Arctic and the Mackenzie Valley. The research which the government has done so far does not relate to the preservation of the ecology, but to the extent to which a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley will injure the ecology. The government says it is only concerned about doing as little injury as possible. I believe they are approaching the problem from the wrong point of view. In any event, this matter has not concerned the government so far. The government has completely ignored the matter of the sovereign rights of the native Indian and Eskimo people in the north who still have aboriginal rights in that territory. These people are far more concerned about their inheritance and the ecology of that area than the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) will ever be if he lives to be 150 years old.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover of the motion. I listened with a good deal of interest to his carefully prepared statement. The motion is cast in general terms. It refers to national standards and suggests the federal government should have the responsibility to move in this direction. It is not my intention today to talk in terms of what is possible by setting national standards and working in this broad way.
I listened with some interest to the remarks of the last member who spoke. Before proceeding to the particular theme which will be my subject today, I am tempted to make one or two comments on what he said. First, I do not think the cause of ecology is satisfied by extremist statements. It is very well for the hon. member who just spoke to talk about the damage to the sea lion and herring beds. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) assured me that competent environmental officials who are very concerned have looked at this and there is no evidence of damage. The hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni (Mr. Barnett) made a statement to the effect that there

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
is no evidence of damage. The case for ecology is sound and serious. The damage from spilling of oil is obvious to all Canadians. However, that case is not helped if we exaggerate and say things that cannot be backed up by facts.
I should like to deal now with a more specific situation in the National Capital Region. In a previous session of this parliament, I introduced a bill to create a National Capital Region. Pollution Control Authority. It was my hope that we could start by demonstrating what was possible within this one particular area where the responsibility and interest of the federal authority is perhaps a little greater than it may be in some other parts of Canada, however great the problem is in all areas.
When I spoke in the Throne Speech debate at the beginning of this parliament in 1968, it was my hope that the government would give some priority in its policies and measures to reducing the scandalous pollution of the waters of this region. I say scandalous because there is no other way we can describe what we have done. I say "we" in the collective sense as Canadians. These must have been magnificent waterways when the first explorers viewed this country. When the pilings for the MacDonald-Cartier Bridge were put in a matter of a few years ago, 30 feet of sawdust was found at the bottom of the Ottawa River. This had been deposited by a previous generation which had exploited the resources of this country for their own good and sufficient reasons. However, the heritage they left us was to be carried by such magnificent waters as the Ottawa.
I remember a former deputy minister of fisheries, the late Mr. Bates telling me that at one time there were 30 salmon inspectors engaged on the Ottawa River between here and Montreal. Freshwater salmon disappeared from that water approximately 80 years ago. This fishery was killed by the timber trade, the pollution by sawdust which was dumped into the river and the bark of the logs drifting down the streams. I am proud to note that some very substantial measures have been taken by this government to deal with the problem.
Let us look at the Ottawa River for a start. On the Quebec side of the river, the government of Canada has entered into agreements with La Communaute Outaouaise, the regional municipality on the other side of the Ottawa, created by the Province of Quebec, to make grants which have made it possible for the first time for sewage treatment facilities to be developed. There is now a concern about and a measure of attack on the problem. I am sure that hon. members noted the announcement of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) with regard to the purchase of the E.B. Eddy mill. The federal government has purchased 44 acres of this site. The old groundwood and sulphite mills are to disappear. Over a period of 10 years, the mill will be phased out of its present location and relocated. Careful effort has been made to preserve jobs. This is a problem in this matter because there is a delicate balance between the economic aspect and the moving of the whole industry, a balance between the cost of relocation which makes it difficult for industry to provide employment and the absolutely imperative concern to protect the environment.

I note that this particular mill is being cleaned up. It was daily discharging industrial wastes into the Ottawa River which was equivalent to the sewage waste of a community of 11 million people. In this particular phase, it is the money of the federal authority that is being used. Similarly, on the Ottawa side of the river, grants have been made for sewage treatment plants. There was a recent announcement of a grant of approximately one-third of the cost to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The same formula that had been developed in connection with the regional community on the Hull side was used. Something like one third of $35 million, the estimated cost for municipal sewage treatment works, was provided to add to the capacity of the Green Creek plant to double it from 40 million gallons to 80 million gallons, to add phosphate treatment facilities, to expand the Watts Creek treatment plant and to maintain tertiary phosphate treatment. There was also a grant of $11 million made by the federal government to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to assist in interest charges of capital costs in advance of need. These are steps in the right direction. But this is only a partial attack on the problem and is not sufficient.
The Minister of the Environment, who responded for the government in the House today, has tried for a long time to work out an agreement under the Canada Water Act with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec respecting the Ottawa River. A study was made of the Ottawa over a period of time. A careful measurement was taken of the extent of pollution at different points. The results are now being assessed. It is abundantly clear that the cost of cleaning up this river will run into hundreds of millions of dollars. The pulp mills are the prime offenders. Under the constitutional division of responsibility in Canada, the provinces have primary responsibility in this area. But, I say now to members of the House and to the people of Canada that the government is prepared to do more and has been prepared to do more.
The federal government was prepared to support a total plan of pollution control in the national capital region on the Ontario side of the river. I call upon those hon. members representing this community in the provincial legislature, the overwhelming majority of whom are supporters of the Ontario government, not to be silent on this matter. The federal government is prepared to put forward many pollution control measures and the province must share in the responsibility. The municipalities here as in other parts of Canada have limited capacity to carry these burdens. The province of Ontario is dragging its feet on pollution control in the Ottawa area.
I hope that those who try to go swimming at the beaches of the Rideau or Ottawa River this summer, and read the conflicting medical reports about whether 120 parts per million contamination is or is not enough to close up the beaches, will remember that in any case the pollution is far too great. What has taken place in this national capital region is a scandalous pollution of a tremendous water resource. I ask those members in the provincial legislature of the province of Ontario who represent this area to do their duty to the people who elected them and make
March 21, 1972

vigorous representations to have the government of the province of Ontario do more than it has done.
I also call on one or two other ministers to do something. I note with a great deal of satisfaction the transfer of the Rideau Canal from the Department of Transport to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is more concerned with national parks. I hope this will represent a change of attitude and philosophy, as I am sure it will. I hope those responsible for looking after the Rideau Canal will be less concerned about mechanizing the locks and getting a maximum number of boats from point A to point B, and more concerned about the quality of the water in the Rideau Canal. I hope they will take some measures to enforce the standards that are absolutely essential on these magnificent pleasure waterways which are so much a feature to be enjoyed by those who spend any time in this region.
The measures to be taken to clean up the national capital region have just been started. I am proud of what has been done. There is the aid to sewage treatment facilities both on the Quebec and on the Ottawa side. The National Capital Commission has explicitly stated that it will aid control over pollution in the area within its authority. I commend those responsible for the initiative they have taken, because I think this is a magnificent example of what can and should be done. However, I call on those representing the provincial authorities to bear in mind that the war on pollution has to be won, it is true, by setting national standards and doing the things the mover of this motion has in mind. But I think a very practical and concrete demonstration of what is possible to other regional municipalities across Canada should start in our own backyard.
May I end on one note? Among the other measures on which I have not touched today are those loans for sewage treatment projects which have been made through the instrument of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to municipalities across Canada. I am informed that since 1961, the beginning of the program, something in the order of $500 million has been approved in 2,000 loans. There is a good deal more to be done here, but the loans which have as an essential feature abatement of part of the capital cost of facilities if constructed within approved principles and within an approved period of time, are an essential part of the clean-up program. This represents, I am told, something in the order of $180 million in respect of the cost of cleaning up the Great Lakes. This is part of the picture, but it is not enough. It must be substantially expanded. I hope we will see some initiative in this field.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who has just preceded me for recognizing that, indeed, recognition of the problem of pollution in our rivers and other waters started in 1961 with a major drive to have the type of sewage treatment plants that would bring about some correction of the situation which was very much apparent. I am sure all members realize the problem is a very broad one which must involve our interest and concern. However, I hope the statements I make today will not be so narrow as to leave hon. members with the impression I am right up to my neck in a fight for my political life, as is the member who preceded me. I wish rather to deal with a
Request for Environmental Council
couple of fairly narrow issues. One deals with the impact of the oil levies for the purpose of building up a maritime
011	pollution fund, and the other deals with the foundering off Vancouver Island of the freighter Vanlene.
Perhaps I might preface my remarks with one or two general comments. First, the reputable movers of oil in the world have no hesitation about paying for their own mistakes. This should be made very clear. While they have no hesitation in that regard, they do have some very serious reservations about paying for the mistakes of others. The second general observation-and I commend this to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and others-is that the practice of large oil tankers coming into our coastal waters, when perhaps one ship is all the company owns, is a practice at which, in the light of the devastation which might occur, we must look very closely.
We regret a number of omissions on the part of the House, as well as on the part of industry, in Bill C-2 which gave us in essence the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act with which I would like to deal in the next ten or
12	minutes. The Canada Shipping Act, which deals mainly with coastal pollution problems, has already been very clearly proven relatively ineffective on the west coast and therefore could not be very applicable or useful should a major oil spill occur in any of our waters. The amendment, on the other hand, applies to all waters, the west coast included, but it will not be as effective on the west coast for perhaps a very narrow reason, namely, that not nearly as much oil is moved in and out of Canada on that coast as there is on the east coast. Bill C-2 recognized the necessity of raising a fund from which costs for cleaning up spills could be drawn. A levy of some 15 cents per ton of oil shipped in and out of Canadian ports was imposed on February 15 of this year under the act for the purpose of building up the maritime pollution prevention fund to the level which was indicated by the minister of some $25 million to $30 million for the purpose of cleaning up any oil spills.
Another point that I could mention in connection with this by way of background is that most of the oil arriving on the west coast will be outside the 12-mile limit. This entire act applies to specified Canadian waters and says nothing about movement from international to national waters. If the Americans, for example, went ahead with their west coast tanker project, these tankers would be moving outside the 12-mile limit in international waters so there would be nothing really that we could do. To say that we have effective means of control out to 100 miles is absolute nonsense given the realities and practicalities of the Pacific Ocean in that area. There is not a man in this House, nor a person on the west coast of Canada, who is not aware of the tremendous disaster that would occur should there be a spill anywhere out to 100 miles or indeed out to 200 or 300 miles from the Canadian Coast should tankers use the proposed route to the northern part of the U.S. where it would be proposed to process any oil out of the Prudhoe slopes.
On the other hand, on the east coast, traffic is moving in international waters right within the contiguous and immediately adjacent areas. I have only to cite the example of the St. Lawrence River itself. Here we have a very
1016

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
clear jurisdiction over those things which would put teeth into this type of an act and which would have the effect of being preventive. An oil levy for the purposes of preventing pollution is nonsense. It prevents nothing, and it provides solely a fund from which money might be derived for the purpose of cleaning up spills once they have taken place. Its relationship to prevention still confounds me, although it was alluded to many times by the minister in the course of the debate some months ago when we dealt with this measure.
The act itself is a poorly drafted, inconsistent and inadequate piece of legislation that falls far short of achieving any meaningful protection of our marine environment. The legislative inconsistencies surrounding the manner in which levies are collected for the maritime pollution prevention fund have contributed not only to the indefinite postponement of the expansion of the continental oil companies terminals in New Brunswick and its related industrial complex at Lorneville in New Brunswick but are a major factor that currently jeopardises major industrial expansion surrounding the oil industry in the Strait of Canso area of Nova Scotia.
These levies are collected each time a tanker leaves or enters a Canadian port, and have the effect of adding 15 cents to the cost of each ton of oil for each movement. For trans-shipment purposes, this is a minimum of 30 cents a ton. Where processing is involved, this could reach up to 45 cents and indeed 60 cents a ton, and when you are talking about five to seven barrels of crude per ton, depending on its weight, you begin to talk about 10 cents, 12 cents or 14 cents a barrel. When you start adding administration costs and overheads, you get perilously close to the point where users of gas and oil could be facing an increase of as much as one cent a gallon, this is not to mention greases and other products of crude oil.
To illustrate the inability of this fund to adequately protect our environment, we need only look at the current dispute surrounding the payment of costs to clean up the oil spill created when the Pan-American freighter Van-lene ran aground last Tuesday off the coast of Vancouver Island. The Vanlene was a freighter carrying some 37,500 gallons of bunker oil, although there is some confusion about the figure. I suspect it was considerably more than that. In any event, since the Vanlene was not classified as an oil tanker, no levies were charged against the oil carried as ballast, and hence no contribution was made to the pollution prevention fund. I wonder about that. I think anybody involved in the oil movement on the east coast certainly wonders about that.
The clean-up costs for the Vanlene will be borne by east coast oil shippers who contribute to the fund each time one of their tankers enters or leaves a Canadian port. Quite obviously, the Maritime pollution prevention fund is driving industry away from the Maritimes and is doing very little to protect our marine environment from other incidents of this nature.
It is interesting to note that when questioned in the House on March 20 how the clean-up of the Vanlene would be paid for, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied:
The government has paid for clean-ups in the past and probably will do so in the future.
If this is so, then why not have the pollution fund guaranteed by the federal government, thus permitting a substantially longer period to build up the level required by the minister and at the same time substantially reduce the per ton assessment against these movements?
I wish to come back to the Vanlene for a minute. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson)-and we regret his absence from the House in recent weeks-is reported in the Sunday Colonist of March 19 as saying that there is no way in which we will be able to handle the resulting spill from a large oil tanker. There is no equipment designed for such an operation. A Department of Transport spokesman said that in addition to adverse weather conditions, the operation is hampered by lack of experience. They have not had to combat a spill of this type before. Clean-up costs, he said, will be in excess of one half million dollars. It seems to me that most of the machinery and manpower is recruited from private companies. It took three days to get a net around this ship.
What has happened to these fine contingency plans that we were assured were in existence? It is obvious that in the case of an oil spill anywhere in Canada our ability to do something about it is quite meaningless. There is still no co-ordinated national contingency plan to combat major oil spills, and I submit that this has been amply demonstrated on the west coast in the last week.
On July 8, 1971, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) revealed details of an interim contingency plan for coping with oil and toxic material spills, to be in effect until a national contingency plan is developed. This national plan has not yet been completed. The minister appears to be only taking credit for the work done by those who worked on the oil spill of the Arrow in Cheda-bucto Bay in Nova Scotia.
I have two points to make. The method of collecting levies on the east and west coast, where there is a substantial amount of oil moving in and out, is unfair because it poses the prospect of doubling, tripling and even quadrupling assessments on the shipment of the same oil. There is something wrong in principle about that. The result is that it may drive away potential industrial development on the east coast, both in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In the first instance of the sort since the sinking of the Arrow in Chedabucto Bay, we have had a demonstration of our total inability to cope with major oil spills. This is not only regrettable but in a sense must be immoral inasmuch as we have been constantly assured by government that we do have contingency plans to meet any emergency that arises. I point out that in the latest case it took three days to get a boom placed around the sunken ship.
It is to be hoped that the Minister of Transport, in his conversations with the Premier of New Brunswick, will tackle the first point that I have made with respect to the levies on the movement of oil and reduce those levies substantially so that they will not interfere with potential industrial development. He could have the government fund the present plan, and spread it over a considerably longer period of time to reach the total of $25 million or

March 21, 1972

$30 million that he feels is required for the purpose of combating oil spills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 40, the following matters will be considered at the time of adjournment this evening: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-National Defence; the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan)-Industry; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Public Service.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harding:
This House expresses the view that in order to protect and preserve our environment, immediate national standards for environmental quality must be set for air, water and land, it being clear that these standards must be set for all pollutants, that they must be enforced by the federal authorities, that low-cost loans must be available to municipalities and to certain industries to ensure no further delay in the building of sewage treatment plants and plant clean-up, and that an Environmental Council of Canada should be established without delay.
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention in greater detail to some of the legislation enacted by this parliament since 1968 in respect of pollution. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has referred to some of the acts in a general way, but I wish to deal with them a little more specifically because I believe this will assist to bring to debate into focus.
Since 1968 parliament has passed the Canada Water Act which prevents the emission of sewage and industrial pollutants and protects whole river systems such as the Fraser in British Columbia, the Saskatchewan on the prairies, and the Ottawa River, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) a few moments ago. That act provides for the imposition of fines of up to $5,000 per day for polluters of such river systems and streams. If we are to clean up some of our major waterways we will tackle the job under the authority provided by that act.
We in this parliament also passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. This was a remarkable event in
Request for Environmental Council
that we drew a 100 mile base line to protect Arctic waters from pollution by vessels attempting to navigate those waters, and to protect them from pollution by man on the edge of the Arctic seas. In this case our right to pass such legislation was challenged. Hon. members who recall the voyage of the Manhattan will recall the misgivings that we had as to whether or not Canadians even had jurisdiction over the territory in the north that we had long considered to belong to Canada. That act was passed, and to date has remained unchallenged by other countries. Year by year its provisions become more real in protecting Arctic waters.
I also wish to refer to the Canada Shipping Act, mentioned briefly by the previous speaker, which imposes what are probably the stiffest anti-pollution requirements in the world on ships entering Canadian waters. This measure is now being challenged by the oil companies because of the provision to impose a levy of 15 cents a ton on oil cargo moving in and out of Canadian ports. The oil companies would like us to believe that this levy of 15 cents a ton is the make or break limit for them. I do not really believe that is so. I believe there is more profit to be made in the oil business than will ever be wrecked by that 15 cents a ton levy. I believe that the application of a law as stiff as this is a beginning in bringing control to offshore waters so that they will not be polluted by the oil industry. Despite the pleas of the Premier of New Brunswick and others, I do not think this levy will wreck Canadian business. As the minister points out, it is only one half of one per cent of the value of the oil.


J. Michael Forrestall: One half of one per cent? You're kidding!


John (Jack) Davis: That is right. Don't you think the oil industry can afford it?


Grant Deachman: I hear the incredulous voice of the hon. gentleman opposite wondering if this is only one half of one per cent. Perhaps he will want to reflect on the remarks he made earlier, and join with those of us who think that the 15 cent per ton levy is not a bad place to start.


J. Michael Forrestall: It isn't the 15 cents I object to, but the 30 cents and the 45 cents.


Grant Deachman: All we know is that the Premier of New Brunswick is down here pleading on behalf of the oil companies to get that lifted. I am pleading on behalf of the people whose livelihoods may be wrecked by oil pollution.


J. Michael Forrestall: It isn't the oil companies that will pay for it, it is the consumers.


Grant Deachman: What are we to do with the fisherman who is affected? Will we write him off?


J. Michael Forrestall: Surely to goodness-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member is not paying very much attention to the Chair. In addition, he is disturbing the hon. member who has the floor. I would remind him to address his remarks to the Chair.
25104-6 i

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council


Grant Deachman: The hon. member gets his figures up to 30 cents by talking about oil that is brought in and taken out again. That is not really what people in the oil business are doing.
I also want to mention the Northern Inland Waters Act which protects the waters of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the same way that provincial water acts protect waters in the provinces. We also passed the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act by which we extended fishing zones to the 12 mile limit, including on the west coast Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. I also want to refer to the passage of the amendments to the Fisheries Act which have strengthened regulations respecting the deposit of sewage and waste in waters frequented by fish.
I want to refer to amendments to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act which provide stringent safety and anti-pollution controls for offshore drilling operations, thus preventing oil drilling in the Gulf of Georgia and thereby avoiding a disaster such as they suffered at Santa Barbara in the United States. This is a matter of grave concern on the west coast. The Gulf of Georgia is a little inland sea, one of the best areas in the world for navigation in inland waters, for sport and commercial fishing and recreation, but it could all be destroyed by a disaster such as that which happened at Santa Barbara.
I want also to refer to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act which requires new automobiles to be fitted with a device to reduce exhaust emission and to lower noise levels. I want also to refer to the Clean Air Act which we have just passed and which gives the federal government the authority to establish clean air standards across the country. There are other ways in which the battle against pollution has been carried forward by this government under existing legislation. We reduced the level of phosphates in detergents under the Pesticides Control Act which provides severe restrictions on the use of DDT and other pesticides. Incentives have been offered to industries buying air and water anti-pollution devices so that there is now no excuse for them not cutting down on pollution from their plants.
The government has also provided loans to municipalities through Central Mortgage and Housing for sewage treatment plants. At the Iona Island plant in the city of Vancouver much of the work was financed by a very large loan from Central Mortgage and Housing. This plant has made a great deal of difference to the residents of English Bay and to the parks in the area.
Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the acts of parliament which have been passed by this government since 1968 in the war on pollution. I think we can take a great deal of credit in this House for what has been done and for the legislation which has passed through this Chamber in the fight against pollution across Canada.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is a very important one which affects all of us regardless of our financial position
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
and, in many ways, regardless of where we live in Canada. Pollution, problems of the environment, the ecology, are today international problems; they are severe problems which we cannot escape. This is an issue that all of us are going to have to face up to and put more money into than we have in the past.
Even in my constituency, which is primarily rural and not industrialized, more and more people are becoming concerned about the general question of the environment. In the last few months I have had people coming to see me and have had letters regarding air pollution and pollution of the water. In January, a gentleman came to see me who was concerned about the fact that his cattle would not drink water from the Qu'Appelle River because cities had dumped sewage into it. More people are becoming aware of the problem because they hear about it in the news every day and they read about the effect pollution is having on our water and air.
Mr. Speaker, I think the general question of pollution is another example of the evolution of social policy lagging behind technology. In the last 20 or 30 years there has been a technological revolution but our social policies and institutions have not kept pace. In man's early days he had little impact on the environment. There were a few streams polluted here and there, a few manmade deserts, but for the most part nature was able to replenish itself. Streams were able to cleanse themselves. Nature sustained man and remained in control. This is not the case today when man is controlling nature. In the last 60 or 70 years we have had radical changes in the quantitative way of life of mankind and we now find that we are overwhelming nature.
This is primarily the problem that we are discussing today. We are the first generation with the power to establish its own destiny, its own environment. We have the power to destroy it with nuclear weapons, biological weapons and so on. Many of the long term effects of such weapons are not known. We have created for ourselves an environmental nightmare. Many people in the world breathe smog and eat food polluted with pesticides. Rivers and lakes are so polluted that fish can no longer live in them. Many of our non-renewable resources are being exhausted without any long term plans for future generations.
When I was reading some material in preparation for these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I came across a few terrifying facts. Each year man is adding some 140 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; sewage production in North America averages 120 gallons per person per day which goes into the waterways. As we know most pollutants end up in the ocean and ecologists are warning us about the long term effects on plankton and life in the ocean which produces about 70 per cent of the earth's oxygen; some 7 million tons of pesticides are added to the atmosphere each year; pollution from fuel may double by the year 1980. We know how much smog there is now in some of the large cities and perhaps in eight or ten years urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks in order that they may breathe oxygen.
I think it is very clear that the problem before us transcends political boundaries and economic advantage. We
March 21, 1972

must move before it is too late and find some long term solutions to the problem plaguing our environment.
I think we must do two basic things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we must pump hundreds of millions of dollars into research on pollution control. This is something that we have let slide for too many years. We have started to move in that direction with the creation of the Department of the Environment, but I suggest we are moving too slowly. We should have a department and a program with teeth and money.
Secondly, we must pass much stiffer anti-pollution laws with national standards for air, water and land pollution. We should not be soft with industries that are polluting. I realize that in order to do these things we must trample on some toes because we live in a capitalist society which is concerned about making a profit, and it may not be profitable for some companies to invest in pollution control equipment. But that is a social choice, a social decision which we must make collectively as a society, as a country. That is the type of planning that must be emphasized in Canada and the whole world today, because in this field mankind is lagging.
Besides, how can we really measure in dollars and cents the cost of the destruction of our environment and the long term effects that destruction will have on mankind and animal life. Many of those effects we do not understand today. In Canada, many policies in this field ought to be introduced, the first and foremost of those being national pollution standards for air, water and land. These pollution standards must be enforced vigorously, otherwise they will not be effective. We must also develop some rational plan regarding our non-renewable resources. Today, we are more interested in exploiting these resources, in selling them to a foreign country, than in conserving them. Many people are warning us that it will not be many years before we shall have run out of many of our non-renewable resources. In Canada we take no heed of such warnings. Instead, we offer bigger tax concessions to oil, gas and mining companies. That must be changed. That is why I am concerned about matters like the continental energy policy and talks going on between Canada and the United States regarding trade.
There must be more research into pollution caused by automobile exhaust systems. Such pollution affects the cities of this country. Automobile exhausts are one of the largest sources of pollution in Canada. There must be more research into public transportation, so that people may commute from one part of a city or country to another without using automobiles. There must also be more research and planning with regard to recycling and preserving minerals. We must preserve them instead of just dumping them and losing them forever. Also, as the hon. member for Kootenay West suggested a number of times, we must establish an environmental council of Canada, which will advise on and study problems connected with pollution. The council will recommend solutions that we, as Canadians, ought to follow. We should establish a pollution control fund as well that would provide substantial amounts of money to abate the problems of pollution.
Request for Environmental Council
I suggest that loans and funds in this area should be made available to municipalities of the country, to enable them to instal sewage treatment systems. Here, again, is an area we must be concerned about. Sewage, as we know, is one of the major causes of pollution in our rivers, streams and lakes. Much research into sewage aspects of pollution is being undertaken in Sweden. There, they are talking about recycling waste products and about installing systems that will use about one sixteenth the quantity of water that we use for disposing of sewage. Much less pollution is expected to be the result. As I say, we can do many things like that. Loans and grants must be made available to municipalities. It is useless blaming municipalities for our pollution if we do not give them funds to correct the situation.
In addition, the Department of the Environment must co-ordinate these activities. That department must be given teeth. I am not being unfair, I think, when I say that until now, that department has been a disappointment. It does not seem to know where it is going. It does not wield enough authority. It has no long term plans and is not providing us with much information regarding its activities. I hope I have made clear what our country should be doing regarding the abatement of pollution. Not one of us knows how many years are left for mankind. We must begin implementing some solutions very quickly, because time is running out.
Before closing, may I say a word about the world population explosion and the rate of population increase. Today, the world population is increasing by 70 million people each year. For 1800 years, up until 1830, the world population doubled about every 200 years. In 1830 the world population was approximately 1 billion people. Between 1830 and 1930, the world population doubled, to 2 billion. Between 1930 and 1960 the world population increased by another billion people, to 3 billion. Between 1960 and 1970, world population went up to 3.6 billion, and we expect it to double again by the year 2,000. Over 7 billion people will then be living on our planet. This concerns me greatly. We live in a country that is sparsely populated, if one excludes some of our larger cities. The population problem affects the world in general and Canada, through the United Nations, can supply more leadership in this area than is being supplied at present.
I have tried to speak of problems that I think should be examined immediately. We are just learning about environmental pollution. Some ramifications of pollution are not known and we will need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development to overcome the problem. Also, we will need to introduce much stiffer laws than those on the statute books today. This question is one that concerns us all. It cuts across party lines and boundaries because, no matter where we live, the problems of pollution have become critical and need to be solved.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the subject of the environment from three points of view in the short time at my disposal. First, I shall deal with it from the national point of view; second, I shall mention the international situation and third, I want to deal with some matters of particular concern to my own constituents in the field of the environment.

March 21, 1972
Request jor Environmental Council
First, speaking from the national point of view, may I say that the time has come-and I think my opinion is shared by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada-to assert our national concern with the entire subject of pollution. I notice that in his speech this afternoon the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) once more brought forward that old chestnut that is brought out when various aspects of environmental control are discussed-the constitution. In discussing the old problem involving the constitution he mentioned areas under federal and areas under provincial jurisdiction.
I am looking at the recently tabled report of the constitution committee. At page 91, three sections are devoted to the question of pollution control. Recommendation 100 is as follows:
Control over the pollution of air and water should be a matter of concurrent jurisdiction between the Provincial Legislatures and the Federal Parliament, and, as in section 95 of the British North America Act, the powers of the Federal Parliament should be paramount.
Recommendation 101 reads as follows:
The concurrency of jurisdiction over air and water pollution would necessitate both Federal-Provincial and Province-to-Prov-ince planning and coordination or programs.
The report then goes on to endorse the work of the Resource Ministers Council as a means of continuing consultation on matters of renewable resources. There is discussion in great detail regarding the present constitutional set-up involving the control of pollution, and the existing confusion is clearly shown.
Provincial jurisdiction stems from property and civil rights, municipal institutions, local works and undertakings and matters of a local and private nature within a province. Federal jurisdiction is based upon the criminal law, navigation and shipping, coastal and inland fisheries and the regulation of trade and commerce. There is, here, an immense possibility of jurisdictions overlapping. There are obvious difficulties in determining constitutional and political accountability.
It seems to me that the recommendation of the committee on the constitution is of the utmost importance. In recent years a totally new challenge has been developing in line with the growing global crisis relating to the environment. Man has learned that the world's resources are finite and that there is also ever increasing consumption which may threaten, in the long run, our physical and psychological survival.
Despite the statement the minister made today, I did not feel he was expressing a sense of urgency. It is true this may have been because he was not feeling very well himself. But I believe there is a growing militant, popularly based anti-pollution campaign in progress and for the sake of political expediency, if for no other reason, all of us should pay attention to this movement.
I noticed that the Canadian Wildlife Federation said the other day that 65 species of Canadian wildlife are endangered by human activities. I noticed, also, that Dr. McKenna of the York-Finch Hospital in Toronto said that air pollution contributes up to 50 per cent of all ailments

afflicting man. A former Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, said we had ten years in which to act before we smothered in our own waste. So I urge the federal government to use overriding power to deal with this threat, and to set national standards. I am not saying the provinces do not bear a measure of responsibility but I am asserting that the overriding concern is federal.
I undertook to deal with the international aspects of this matter. I know the minister had only 20 minutes in which to speak. I am sorry, though, that he did not use part of that time to deal with the question of the Stockholm conference on the environment which is to take place in June. The whole question of pollution cannot be solved locally, provincially or even nationally. It has become an international concern. For the first time the world community is organizing to try to deal with these international dangers affecting the welfare of humanity. I am sorry the minister is not in the House at the moment and that he did not have time to tell us what initiatives the Canadian government is prepared to put forward at this conference.
I should now like to spend a few minutes dealing with problems in my own constituency. We in the Beaches-Woodbine-Greenwood area of Toronto along the eastern lakefront are deeply concerned about pollution. Local organizations have gone into the facts, made reports and communicated them to elected representatives and to governments. They are actively participating in the battle against pollution. I had occasion the other day to send a questionnaire to my constituents. I asked about a problem which faces one particular area, namely, the smell which emanates from a local sewage disposal plant. I put this question:
The east end (of Toronto) has a problem of air pollution including odours from Ashbridge Bay. Agree or disagree?
Five hundred and thirty-eight people answered the question. Five hundred and fourteen agreed, and 24 disagreed. I suppose the 24 who disagreed are not as sensitive to odours as those who agreed. This was gone into by an organization called ForWard Nine. They conducted an inquiry they called Operation Sniff, the purpose of which was to determine the extent and pervasiveness of the odours coming from this plant. After the study they presented a factual report. I shall spare the House the details, but they were very expressive in their language about this menace to the quality of life in an otherwise excellent residential area.
We are affected not only by air pollution; we are affected by water pollution. The condition of Lake Ontario is not as bad as that of its sister Great Lake, Erie, but fish life is decreasing and bathing is becoming more restricted. We enjoy access to a beautiful recreation area, yet very few people venture to swim there because of the pollution which they fear they will encounter. Again, this is a matter of international concern. We all know that the International Joint Commission has recently negotiated, and I believe entered into, an agreement providing for a tremendous international plan to clean up the Great Lakes.
I was disappointed that the minister in his rather soothing remarks today failed to deal with the fact that, as I understand it, the President of the United States has vetoed the financial measures necessary for the plan
March 21, 1972

recommended by the IJC. I wish the minister had told us something about this project, which would have had tremendous beneficial impact upon the lives of people living around the Great Lakes-a very substantial section of the Canadian population, I might add. We have a duty to maintain our heritage of fresh water in the Great Lakes. The minister should tell us, if he can, why the President vetoed this project, whether his veto is likely to be withdrawn and what the Canadian government is doing in an attempt to get a different answer.
There is one other aspect of this question with which I should like to deal. A lot of the air pollution we experience arises from the burning of garbage. It is the view of experts, and my own view too, that the solution lies in recycling garbage and using it for industrial purposes. We are planning an experimental plant in the area of Toronto. It will be a municipal plant but to some extent it will have to be supported financially by the Department of the Environment. I plead with the minister to give sympathetic consideration to schemes of this sort. If it can be shown that they work they could constitute a major contribution to the ending of air pollution.
I do not know whether my time is about to expire but I should like to refer to a speech which the minister made on March 16, 1971. I thought I had the Hansard report with me but I cannot immediately locate it. However, it was reported in the press at the time that the government would aid city garbage disposal. The press report reads:
Jack Davis, Minister of the Environment designate, told the Commons committee on fisheries and forestry that many cities cause air pollution by burning their garbage and once the proposed clean air act is passed the federal government will be in a position to help. The federal government likely will conduct research into ways of disposing of solid wastes without burning them, he said. Knowledge from such studies will be of great help to cities such as Toronto-
Somewhere else the minister said the government would be ready to assist in the financing of experimental projects in this field, to show what could be done to transform the waste of modern civilization into something useful instead of having it burned and thus put into the atmosphere as a pollutant and health hazard to people living in the cities.
As I have said, this subject has international, national and constitutional implications. It also has extremely important local implications. When the minister took on this job more than than a year ago I wished him good luck. I hope that all energy and vigour will be put into the enforcement of regulations. It is easy to set up standards. It is relatively easy to make reports and speeches on the subject. What is difficult and will require a tremendous amount of social, legal and governmental effort is the adequate enforcement of regulations that are made.
I know the minister was not feeling very well today and was able to be in the House for only a short time, but I commend to him the fact that people all over the country are concerned that the work of his department be fully effective so we can be saved from the scourge of the pollution of our environment.
Request for Environmental Council [Translation]


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, as I listened this afternoon to the speeches of other hon. members, especially that of the mover of the motion (Mr. Harding), I noted that mention was made of almost every pollution problem under the sun and that there was no particular discourse on the text of the motion. That may have been a useful exercise, since we have already had, during the debate on various legislative proposals made by the government and adopted by this House, the opportunity of making a detailed study of those excellent measures, and it would be superfluous to come back to them today.
The previous speaker deplored the fact that the Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis) did not have enough time to speak about the important question of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment which is to be held in Stockholm from June 5 to June 15, 1972.
Mr. Speaker, I have indirectly been involved in preparations for this conference, especially since September when the minister asked me to attend to a national advisory committee in conjuction with the conference. I may be able to give information that might satisfy the hon. member who brought up the matter.
We have indeed set up an advisory committee of 50 members, on which the provincial governments are represented especially through their deputy ministers responsible for pollution and the quality of the environment. This committee also includes representatives of various spheres of national interest, for instance, industry, the natives of the country, the Indians, the Inuits as well as representatives of various citizens' groups which deal in matters pertaining to the environment, and those of the scientific community in general.
To carry out productive work, the number of members obviously had to be limited. Otherwise, we should have spent whole sessions just trying to conciliate different opinions. We feel we have been successful in setting up a committee representative of vast national interests.
So far, we have held two meetings, at the beginning of December and early this year and we intend to hold a third one next week.
The advisory committee's terms of reference are to suggest means whereby the participation of the people of Canada in the preparation of the Stockholm conference may be brought about, and particularly to incite the submission of suggestions as to the position to be adopted by the Canadian government.
We did not merely hold sessions of the committee, which includes some 50 members, Mr. Speaker. We solicited and obtained the committee's agreement to hold public hearings in all Canadian provinces, to which representatives of all sectors of the nation concerned with and interested in environment issues are invited.
These public hearings will begin in Vancouver on April 5 and the last one will be held in Winnipeg around May 5. During that period, we shall visit all the provinces, including the northern territories.

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
I should like to point out also that as regards the preparation of the Stockholm conference, Canada is among the 27 countries chosen by the UN General Assembly to be part of a committee responsible for preparing the Stockholm conference, drafting the agenda of the meeting and defining the discussion areas, for the question of environment is in itself such a vast subject that it would be ridiculous to believe that all the environment problems will be solved during the few days the conference will last. They must limit themselves to the most urgent and pressing questions.
It might be useful to recall also that the main object of the Stockholm conference is to call the attention of all nations of the world on the urgency of considering the serious question of pollution.
We are fortunate in that a Canadian, Mr. Maurice Strong, will act as secretary general at the Stockholm conference. Mr. Strong took up his duties a little more than a year ago. It was obviously a great challenge for him because people were saying here and there in the corridors of the United Nations that the Stockholm conference would be a failure. I believe it is to the credit of Mr. Strong-shared by Canada, obviously-that he not only made the conference possible but prepared it so well that one can now state that it will unquestionably begin on June 5.
One of the main tasks of the 27 nations' preparatory committee was to suggest to the secretariat of the conference, in Geneva, '.iethods, plans and proporals which were sent last wew to all members of the United Nations so they may consider them and state their position.
The public opinion soundings which the Canadian government intends to hold in the country will be part of the data which the Canadian delegation will bring to Stockholm on June 5.
I must say that it is in all seriousness and with an open mind that the Canadian government intends to sound out the public. It is not some form of window dressing, as it has been commonly stated in the English press. We really want to know what Canadians think because we feel that they are deeply concerned about the matter. We know that they will be in a position to contribute greatly to the development of our official position in Stockholm.
Mr. Speaker, I could speak at length on the Stockholm conference. To windup my comments, I wish to remind hon. members that it would be ridiculous on the part of the government to strengthen its position when only a few months separate us from direct consultation with the people. Canada should adopt a basically resilient position which she should probably maintain to the end. A great deal of compromise will have to take place, even though we could count on certain concessions at Stockholm. However, the Canadian government has certainly in mind that there should be a concensus on the adoption of measures, of recommendation and, if possible, of a universal declaration concerning human environment that would likely be ratified by all nations that are conscious of the serious problem of pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch briefly on a subject that has been raised in this House by the hon. member for

Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who is unfortunately absent at this time and which has given rise to several questions in the last few days.
Reference has been made-

Reference was made in this debate to the 15 cents a ton levy on oil for the creation of a pollution clean-up fund of approximately $25 million. I say this with some reservation, but if I heard the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) correctly he referred to the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act as a bad piece of legislation, or at least he did not think a great deal of it. It is possible that he was present at the detailed study of this bill by the special committee on pollution, but I do not remember seeing him there.
It seems to me that there was not much contribution to that exercise, either in committee or in the House, by opposition members from New Brunswick. It is rather unfair, therefore, to come here today and say it is a bad piece of legislation. As one who attended all the sittings of the committee when it studied that bill, I cannot agree with the position taken by some hon. members. We studied the legislation at length and in depth.
I certainly recognize the merit of the motion now before us. The mover of the motion worked very hard on the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. I recall that most members supported that legislation in the House. Some of them said that to vote against it would be the same as voting against motherhood. But they do not say that today. There is now a Tory government in New Brunswick: that may be the difference. The legislation has been in force for a number of months and perhaps as an afterthought they now say it is bad legislation.
Members opposite made sure they were present when Mr. K. C. Irving, his three sons and a battery of lawyers appeared before our committee to make representations on the legislation. I respect Mr. Irving as any good New Brunswicker should. I respected him enough to question him time and again on this legislation to which he was opposed. He had some personal interest in the legislation. This is fair: that is what the work of the committee is all about, to listen to people who have a personal interest in the laws which we attempt to pass in this House. All the Tory members from New Brunswick added their two-bits of questioning to the record. They then left and did not return for our many hardworking sessions in studying and dissecting the bill. And today they cry "Injustice"!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming).


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if any hon. member would object if I called it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There would be an objection if you did not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
March 21, 1972


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are considering expresses the view that in order to protect and preserve our environment, immediate national standards for environmental quality must be set for air, water and land. I submit this is an important objective which we would do well to consider carefully in the realization that most people in our country consider the subject to be of tremendous interest and concern. I would like to have seen the word "improvement" in the motion because I do not think one can change overnight a situation which has been in existence for 200 or 300 years. I believe that is too much to expect.
I believe, however, we should work toward improvement. As a consequence, I would like to have seen the word "improvement" in the motion, recognizing full well that it can only come about through people in authority such as representatives of the government of Canada and of our provinces and municipalities, as well as citizens generally taking great interest in improving the situation.
I submit that the control of pollutants in the air, in the water and in the land requires an element of greater supervision and regulation than now exists. It may be all right to say the federal authorities should exercise this control, but in my opinion you get better results are closer to the situation if you have control through the provincial and municipal authorities. When the federal machine is involved, people have to come to Ottawa to tell their story and in the process I am afraid a lot of effectiveness is lost. I suggest that if we dealt with this problem at the municipal level we would achieve better results because the municipalities are right on the spot.
The motion says that the municipalities should be assisted by loans to them and to certain industries to ensure no further delay in the building of sewage treatment plants. That seems a laudable objective. Therefore I think this House can say that the substance of the motion is logical and hon. members should have no hesitation supporting it in so far as the principle is concerned.
I think the House would do well to consider that, while hon. members might approve of the principle of working with great diligence toward all the objectives contained in the motion, these activities should of necessity be coupled with an awareness of existing situations which involve the services of many people. This adds up to jobs. I do not think we should merely say we are going to do away with something overnight when the livelihood of many people is at stake. I think it is a reasonable assumption that improvement can be affected. I think we should say that conditions which have existed for many years must be improved. We must believe that the situation, rather than deteriorating further is improving and from every point of view.
I submit that in our approach to the improvement of the environment we must be governed first by short-term objective. The short-term objective may have become critical and must be dealt with immediately by some jurisdictional authority. The longer term objective, of course, involves government, it makes no difference at what level, enunciating the policy it intends to continue from year to
Request for Environmental Council
year with the idea of ultimately effecting improvement. I think we must take these matters into consideration when dealing with the problem in the short term and in the long term.
I have a distinct recollection of the situation that existed in my province of New Brunswick, and the general quality of water resources there when our administration was in office. At that time I took quite a bit of satisfaction, and in fact a reasonable amount of pride, in our passing legislation covering this matter. I think we were a bit ahead of our time, Mr. Speaker, because that was in the mid-1950s.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was a good Conservative government!


Hugh John Flemming: That's just it. I know that the minister, with his intelligence and knowledge, can quickly recognize something that has merit. We passed legislation in this field and agreed to participate in the improvements of which I speak. We agreed to support the municipalities financially if they would instal sewage treatment plants and facilities of that nature. We also set up a water authority in that province. It had the duty to study the situation and recommend concrete steps that could be taken to bring about improvements.
I think we obtained some good results from that legislation. In fact, the legislation is still in operation. The Saint John River is a case in point. It is a long river. It lies partly in the state of Maine, becomes the international river between the state of Maine and New Brunswick, then it comes into New Brunswick and becomes a New Brunswick river. Three different types of authority were involved in the legislation, with all their various problems created from a jurisdictional point of view. There are many villages and towns along the Saint John River. Generally speaking, they all have sewage disposal systems. It must be remembered that one branch of the Saint John River rises in the state of Maine and villages and towns are located on its banks.
As my hon. friend from Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) knows, there are industrial plants in his city. In fact, there is a large plant there which was guilty of causing some pollution of that river. The matter has now been rectified, but it posed a problem for some time. As I say, we made an improvement. I give this example because I think this type of approach should become more national.
I now turn to the question of the Bay of Fundy, which is in the southern part of New Brunswick, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence which is on its eastern side. Here I deal with the question of transportation. At present we have some problems connected with the spillage of oil from ships. We had the wreck of the Arrow and the pollution by oil of Chedabucto Bay. In spite of the pride that we all have in Bill C-2, which provides certain penalties and regulations, I think a little more attention might have been paid to the tax imposed on vessels which by the nature of their physical condition and age are a greater menace to navigation and a source of oil spillage than more modern, larger vessels.

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
It seems to me that this is a matter which should receive consideration in the future because there is no comparison between the possibility of damage due to spillage of oil from a newly constructed ship and the probability of spillage from some old wreck that somebody hires for a small amount of money in order to transport oil.
We have a regulation applying a 15 cents per ton levy on ships of over 1,000 tons. Here I am dealing with the shortterm question which is an issue in New Brunswick and may becqme an issue in Nova Scotia before long. A large development is planned in the southern part of New Brunswick on the Bay of Fundy. Incidentally, it is my riding although it is seven or eight miles from Saint John. It is at Lorneville. As everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, the continuation of that development is very much in jeopardy.
The oil people who contemplate development have said they cannot afford the 15 cents per ton levy. They say they may have to pay this levy inward and outward and if they transport products between one place and another in the area. In other words, there is a possibility they may have to pay the levy three times and they say they cannot afford it. One may ask, what can they afford? But before dealing with that question I would like to mention the seriousness of the situation. It was only about a month ago that we journeyed to Saint John to attend one of those fund raising dinners that everybody knows about. There we saw the plans of this development.
At one end of the development was a huge thermal plant for the production of electricity, involving enormous expenditure and based to an extent on the possibility that they might get their fuel at an attractive price from the over-all development. Next was a huge wharf to be built by the Continental Oil Company, costing approximately $60 million. The Canadian National and CPR had their tracks laid out, and a good deal of space was left for further development to take place. In other words, the very thing that is provided for in various legislative enactments of this parliament is being put into operation at Lorneville at the present time. But now it is all in jeopardy and the whole project may be scrapped because the shippers say they cannot afford this levy.
I am sure that no one within sound of my voice could contemplate such a situation without regretting that it is possible. We must do everything we can to avoid it. The general manager of the project revealed that Continental Oil Company was prepared to pay a levy of five cents to seven cents a ton, but with the present levy the company would lose $200 million a year. I submit that there is evidence of lack of investigation when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) tells us he is satisfied the government will get $25 million in the bank as a result of this levy, while the company concerned says it will lose $200 million a year on the basis of a 15-cent levy. Unless there is something wrong here, it seems to me there is plenty of latitude for the company, the federal authority and the provincial government to put their heads together and work out an agreement with which they are prepared to live.
It seems that the maximum levy was imposed and the submission is that there is no need for the maximum. There is quite a bit of criticism of the federal government. The president of Gulf Oil of Canada-I point out that the company is in Nova Scotia in case someone might think I am being partisan-Mr. "Jerry" McFee, said last week that a 15-cent per ton levy is twice as high as required and he criticized the government for failing to indicate a ceiling for the fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

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


Eymard G. Corbin: I understand that there is a limitation on the time but would you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to put a question to the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This can be done only by unanimous consent, and it is my understanding that no extension of time has been given by the House. I understand procedure we have adopted has even been made an order of the House.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member who has just spoken that we will be very pleased to add the word "improve" to our motion, but the main thing about which we are concerned is to make sure that the first steps are taken toward protecting and preserving the environment. There has been a great deal of talk throughout the country and a great deal of interest has been shown in the matter, but there must be a great deal more vigorous and immediate leadership from the federal government before we get anything like the amount of action that is required to preserve and protect the environment.
Our discussion on the motion has been very wide-ranging, from local pollution issues to the Stockholm conference on the environment. This reflects the fact that this is a many faceted problem and it concerns the public in many ways. However, there has been the feeling among some members that we can get along in a leisurely fashion with respect to the question of the environment. Those of us who have been digging into this subject realize that the experts are deeply concerned lest our technology whittle away, destroy and obliterate our environment to such an extent and so rapidly that in the process the human animal will be eliminated.
We are beginning to realize that we must face up to two problems, the problem of world population and the problem of world environment, and that those things must be dealt with not in some dim and distant future but right now, if we are to keep out of trouble. Canada is one of the world's few remaining treasure houses of natural resources and we are beginning to discover that other countries are realizing this fact. They have used up their own treasures, their own natural resources, to quite an extent.

March 21, 1972

We in our province are very aware that other countries have found the way to our door and are beginning to take from our shores our treasures, our minerals, our wood and other commodities.
We are afraid that our water power and other resources may be taken away entirely. This may be good from the standpoint of international trade, but from the standpoint of planning a future for those who will come after us we must make sure we do not destroy in the short run our whole heritage and the possibility of a good environment for those who follow us.
Parts of Canada are among the world's best potential holiday spots. I have been told that in my own province tourism is the second largest industry and I have no doubt that such is the case in some of the maritime provinces. We must take great care to make sure that this remains the situation. I am glad to see that some of my hon. friends know what a treasure house and holiday spot we have, and it is indeed a beautiful place.
We are anxious to see the establishment of an environmental council without delay, because we think we badly need a non-partisan body which would represent all the sections of the community. Only when we get a widely representative body of that kind will it be possible to get action on these environmental problems.
It has been pointed out today that the minister is handicapped and that he should be in charge of environment and nothing else. He has under his jurisdiction forestry and fisheries, and these often come into conflict with the environment. In our province, the big forest industries and the environment do not always march in the same happy direction and often one does not progress without the destruction of the other. The minister is in the position of being subject to sectional interests in a way that he should not be.
Our main reasons for wanting the establishment of an environmental council are so that the minister can be free of conflicts of interest, so that the council can represent the interests of the whole community, and to avoid the federal government's regrettable habit of using the taxpayers' money to pay for reports and studies and then sitting on them as though they were its own private property. If the public is to protect the environment it must know the facts, and both this government and the provincial government-at least the one with which I am familiar-have the regrettable tendency of trying to keep the facts away from the public because it might be embarrassing if the public were to use them. An environmental council would avoid that sort of thing. Those are the reasons we want this council.
Secondly, we believe firmly that national standards should be set for water and air quality and that the only place to set those standards is here in the federal parliament under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment. Some time ago we passed the Canada Water Act. Some of us were on that committee and discovered that all this water basin business looks beautiful, but only on paper. It has become pure rhetoric and is now a speciman for a museum: it is not real, Mr. Speaker. Not one water basin area has been set up. We pointed out that it would not work and that the only thing that would work would be to have the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Request for Environmental Council Davis) armed with national water quality standards for all parts of the country. The same thing should be true for air quality under the air pollution act.
When he spoke this afternoon, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) catalogued legislation passed by this government. It is one thing to pass legislation and it is another to have that legislation take effect. I wondered where his eyesight was when he said that this legislation was protecting all the major rivers in Canada. He knows the Fraser River as well as I do, perhaps even better. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is not going away, though I imagine he has had a phone call.
I am sorry he has to go, Mr. Speaker, because I was going to say that he can see the Fraser as well as I can and he knows that we could almost expect the second miracle of walking on the water without any danger of sinking in the places where it is so highly polluted.
I still remember fisherman Buck Suzuki of the fishermen's union pointing out that they have to use gloves when they fish for salmon in the Fraser River because of the raw sewage which endangers their health. He also indicated that he hated to think of the citizens of Vancouver and elsewhere eating fish that had been nurtured on raw human sewage. These rivers are not clean and to shut our eyes to the fact that they are in such a state of filth is to shut our eyes to reality. The only way to clean up our rivers is to provide enough low interest loans to municipalities that they can build sewage treatment plants. This must be done.
I wish the federal minister would have a good, strong discussion with the provincial minister and get him to see that the Moran dam must not be built. It will kill fish and destroy life in large stretches of the river and surrounding areas. This dam should not be built on the Fraser River if we are considering the protection of our ecology. This government alone, or even in concert with provincial and municipal governments, cannot protect and police the ecology. We must have citizen help. This afternoon one hon. member showed us the international scene and another talked about the Stockholm conference on the environment. Now I am going to turn to the small end of the telescope and use a list that was published in the "Canadian Conservationist-Winter 1972." This is what was said to the ordinary citizen under the heading "Live Econscientiously!", which is "consciously in face of the environment."


An hon. Member:: How do you spell it?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I shall not spell it now because it would take up all my time. The article begins with these words: Sharing the environment means sharing the responsibility to keep it livable-today and tomorrow. We are not the earth's owners, but her guests. Conservation means doing your duty by doing your share:
Here are the points. Get ready for number one because I warn you this is going to throw you:
1.	Limit your family to two children. If you want more: adopt.
I am wrong. It will not throw you gentlemen because most of you are past being able to do anything about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council


Winona Grace MacInnis: But it will throw your relatives. Perhaps I am being unchivalrous. I take it back in the case of many of you.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps you are being inexact.


Winona Grace MacInnis: "Inexact" is close. The list continues:
2.	Don't use paper towels; use cloth ones which you can wash and use again; when writing use both sides of the paper rather than extra sheets. Refuse unnecessary paper bags in supermarkets: use shopping bags you can re-use. Return junk mail to the sender and mark it as such.
I will add my postscript here, Mr. Speaker: Tell the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) to pass a law that will not allow junk mail such a favourable rate of postage.


An hon. Member:: Especially that which goes to him.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The list continues:
Wasting paper means wasting trees and building pulp mills.
3.	Walk and use public transport as much as possible: it's safer and reduces pollution.
They forgot to add that it reduces the corporation, too, which a lot of people in this chamber have. It also reduces the danger of heart attack and early demise. I continue:
4.	Vote for candidates whose record shows concern for the environment.


An hon. Member:: Now you have got them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Not "whose rhetoric" but "whose record shows concern for the environment." It continues:
If you don't know where they stand on environmental issues: find out.
And don't find out by listening to them; find out by looking in Hansard. I did not read that from the list, Mr. Speaker; I contributed it myself.
5.	Use electricity wisely. Don't buy or use electric gadgets such as electric can openers: they are a waste of materials and energy.
6.	Use no pesticides unless absolutely necessary and then only those containing the least harmful chemicals such as pyreth-rin, methoxychlor and the carbamates. Never use chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides such as DDT, DDD, endrin, dieldrin and toxaphene.
7.	Insist on glass instead of plastic containers: glass can be recycled, plastic cannot. Support recycling depots by taking your re-usable materials to them.
8.	Join at least one conservation group and participate actively in its programs.
9.	Write letters on environmental issues to newspapers and government representatives. Public opinion does work.
Don't throw this magazine away: when you're finished with it, please give it to another interested person.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned that we had put a section in the Canada Water Act to greatly reduce the amount of phosphates in detergents and eventually to eliminate them. He knows that the government would not have included that section in a month of Sundays without the flood of letters, telegrams and briefs from people all across the country. These people were armed with knowledge gained from Pollution Probe, STOP, SPOT and other organizations. This strengthened the hand of the minister and the government

and enabled them to say phooey to the big soap lobbies that were prowling around.


Grant Deachman: You are doing it, Grace.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am telling you how it was done; it was through volunteer citizen groups. It is they who police the environment, given the knowledge, the initiative and leadership. I suggest that it is the job of the Minister of the Environment to lead campaigns to give this knowledge and leadership to voluntary citizen groups which represent the entire community instead of just individual, interested sections. It is only people representing the whole community who can save and protect our environment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, coming from an area so close to the Great Lakes and the problem of international pollution I thought I should take part in this debate. When I read the motion I thought it sounded reasonable. I thought the debate would be more constructive than it has been so far; perhaps it has and I missed it. However, after listening to members of the opposition, especially members of the New Democratic Party, I feel that the motion was probably moved for nothing more than political reasons.
If one were to read the record one would find that many statements made about pollution are exaggerated, unfounded or even fabricated. For instance, Mr. Speaker, hon. members have talked about a ship going aground off Vancouver Island. We are all concerned about pollution. We are interested in this matter. We have listened to different stories about this ship. Radio and television commentators and newspaper reporters have described how the ship sank and discussed the possibility of oil pollution. I think those stories were exaggerated, especially after listening to the hon. member who visited the area. I am referring to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), a member of the NDP whom I got to know very well on the fisheries committee. He said that he did not see any oil in the area except around the ship itself. He did not talk about the environmental damage, etc., that was supposed to have been caused. He took a constructive attitude and told us what he saw. That is not the impression one would gain from reading the newspapers.


Frank Howard: What the hon. member said was right at that time, but that is not the situation today.


Mr. Benjamin:: The ship is now leaking, as the hon. member is.


Eugene Whelan: We have heard what has been done in the Great Lakes. How many really know what has happened in the Great Lakes? I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Windsor Star. It was written by a noteworthy reporter and is entitled, "Extension for lakes clean-up bid". The sum of money mentioned may not seem much to some but it is a great deal in my area. They are spending $500 million on this package.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is cheap.
March 21, 1972


Eugene Whelan: The article reads in part:
Federal and provincial officials met behind closed doors in Ottawa last week and agreed to continue a pact which will result in the spending of $500 million to fight water pollution from municipal sources along the lower Great Lakes.
The article goes on to say that according to sources in Ottawa there is a "99.9 per cent chance" that President Nixon will sign this agreement "when he visits Prime Minister Trudeau . .. April 13 to 15." Let us talk about what has been done in the Great Lakes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That shouldn't take long.


Eugene Whelan: More has been done in the Great Lakes than most people are aware of. I am speaking of cleaning up the Great Lakes, Mr. Speaker. I am not condemning anyone. What has been done by those in authority? We know that pollution in the Great Lakes has been caused mainly by our American neighbours. I was going to say, neighbours to our south, but some of them live to the north of me.
Generally speaking, the pollution began in the Great War when no one paid attention to anything except production. There have been attempts to clean up the river, especially from our side, and there have been attempts to clean up the Great Lakes. Take the city of Windsor, for instance. Every bit of its sewage now goes through some kind of treatment plant, whether primary, secondary or tertiary: not one bit of sewage from Windsor goes untreated into the Detroit River. In some of the surrounding areas plans are being made for primary and secondary treatment plants and in some areas tertiary treatment plants are being planned.
These installations have been built within the time limits set by the federal government and the municipalities doing the work will receive substantial reductions both in interest rates they must pay and in the size of loans they can obtain. Both the city and county have made good use of such funds. Also, Mr. Speaker, we do not use as much salt in our part of the country as others. One would expect us to use less because of the warmth of our climate; even so, the use of salt has been drastically curtailed. I am told we are using less in our area than ever before.
Let me talk a little about the country, Mr. Speaker. The town of Amherstburg in the last three or four years has installed a sewage treatment plant. The town of Kingsville has installed a sewage lagoon. The town of Leamington, which is practically a city, has installed a treatment plant. Essex has installed a sewage lagoon. Belle River, Harrow and some of our other smaller communities have plans on the drafting board or are in the process of letting tenders for sewage treatment facilities. Talk to the people of my area; they may not be 100 per cent satisfied but they recognize that much has been done.
Those in positions of administration and those directly aware of water pollution-for instance, the Lake Erie fishermen-know how much has been done both by federal and provincial authorities. For instance, fishermen on Lake Erie know that two years ago if they cast their nets they lost sight of them two or three feet under water. Today they can see them 15 or 20 feet beneath the surface without difficulty. Talk to the aqualung divers; they will
Request for Environmental Council
tell you that today they can see for 30 feet when 60 feet under water, whereas before when they were 50 feet under they had to feel their way around salvage operations. Let us see what industry has done to overcome pollution. Under pressure from federal and provincial governments, firms like Chrysler, one of the largest concerns in the area, have cleaned up their operations.


Frank Howard: That is because the polluter must pay.


Eugene Whelan: The pollution coming from that plant is at a very low level, practically zero. They have taken advantage of new depreciation provisions applying to pollution abatement equipment.


Frank Howard: The polluter must pay.


Eugene Whelan: The same has happened with Ford. No more oil comes from the plant; they have changed over to natural gas, I believe. GMC has done the same. Actually, GMC has done so well in filtering effluent and in removing oil that used to come from the transmission plant that the waterways around the plant are now full of tropical fish. I do not know what is being put into the water, but the fish are propagating more quickly than biologists expected. I am pointing these things out because many people are trying to get the idea across that there is no program for fighting pollution and nobody is following up pollution problems. For years the Allied Chemical plant in my area was one of the worst polluters. That plant is not causing any more trouble because they have switched to bunker-C oil and their chemical wastes are being dumped into large settling bins.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You had to pay them off to do the right thing.


Eugene Whelan: That project meant 600 jobs in the area. Some of these programs that were worked out between federal and provincial authorities may have been a little late, but they were carried out.


Frank Howard: Yes, when the minister said the polluter must pay.


Eugene Whelan: I know that pollution is damaging. However, directly or indirectly the government has helped to curb the sort of pollution I have mentioned. I have heard hon. members suggest that the federal government should administer more of these anti-pollution programs and should be given more authority in this area. I am inclined to think that the federal people should be given more authority. We talk about great distances in this country as if everybody in Ottawa was far away from everybody else. I do not think that viewpoint is right, especially when we can in a relatively short time cross this nation by aircraft or reach somebody by telephone in a few minutes.
When we reflect that in this modern age we can cross this nation and back in less than 24 hours it is difficult to realize the need for having so many different offices in various parts of the country all with authority to deal with one phase or another of this subject. One of the main

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
obstacles we encounter in Canada is that each province wants to run its own little show, to decide what it is willing to do about pollution, what steps it will take to induce industry to establish itself in the area, and so on. I am inclined to be a federalist, Mr. Speaker, believing we could control our environment better if the authority to do so were in the hands of the federal government. When I think of what we did in respect of our fisheries under the present constitution, the way we handed over those fisheries rights to the provinces, some by letter and some by order in council, and the way these are being administered in the different provinces, I realize this sort of opting out by the government leaves a lot to be desired.
A few months ago I attended a conference on the environment held in Bonn, West Germany. Before I went there I thought we were far behind other nations in the world, but after attending this conference in which representatives of some 22 other nations took part I formed the opinion that we were far ahead of many other countries. This parliament and this government have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to what has been done in the last four years to control pollution. As late as this evening I received a letter from my local Pollution Probe group-a very active and responsible group of people.
We very much hope that an agreement will be reached soon between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the United States which will eliminate some of the air pollution coming from the south across the river. Groups such as the one I have mentioned have done tremendous work in suggesting legislation and following up the legislation which has been handed to them for use. It is possible that we, as federal members, have been negligent in not assisting them with our advice in the past. However, with the limited facilities available to us in Ottawa it is hard to do more than carry on our duties in our offices on Parliament Hill.
As to pollution of the Great Lakes, I have a stack of books and reports on this subject; I could fill a wheelbarrow with them. I think it is time an agreement was signed. It is time the Americans did something to clean up the pollution on their side so that more could be done on the Canadian side.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned by the problem of pollution mentioned in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).
We are a hundred per cent in favour of this plan, and we and many others would like to see something done and to see the causes of the pollution which we now experience in this country eradicated.
Mr. Speaker, pollution has become one of the most urgent issues of our day. In fact, it is a threat to our survival and that of generations to come.
In face of those facts, we all agree that means have to be found to solve this problem.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that under the present system we have considered so far that it was more important to preserve the financial system than to protect mankind. Yet, this financial system, which is becoming stronger by the day, deprives citizens of the means to build purifica-
(Mr. Whelan.]
tion plants to protect us from pollution, which is becoming more and more serious every day.
In the face of this, we must say that the causes of this problem are not new. We must admit that we have been hearing about pollution for several years, but also that the problem has not been solved, even though we have found solutions to it.
We have had experts make studies in order to find means to eliminate pollution. And the solution lies in building treatment plants of different types. We have everything required to do so. We have the know-how. Nobody doubts that we could find the skills required to draw up plans, to solve these problems in every municipality.
Mr. Speaker, we have not solved the problem yet. A mere handful of plants have been built. At what cost? With funds borrowed at interest rates of up to 9 or 10 per cent. I know municipalities which borrowed at 10 per cent interest to build waste treatment plants. Being already in debt, they took on additional burdens. The federal government therefore was able to help them. We know the contributions the government made to assist them, but they are inadequate.
Most municipalities have not been able to avail themselves of federal or provincial assistance.
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that we are facing a tremendous pollution problem. All citizens agree that it is becoming more serious every day. It has become increasingly serious for the people, and for animal life in the water, in the air and on land. Because of that pollution, animals are dying, especially fish. We find many fish along the banks of our rivers and lakes, the victims of pollution, while we should be doing everything possible to protect our natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, we must find the means of remedying the situation. At the present time, the government wastes money right and left, spending on local initiatives and opportunities for youth projects.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry P. Latulippe: Millions of dollars are spent on those programs, 90 per cent of which are wasted.


Some hon. Members:: That is not so.


Henry P. Latulippe: We could have invested that money, created assets and protected the people.
We could have protected the lives of our citizens. All available funds, the action of youth and their studies can be used to fight against water pollution. We can make them continue their studies and draw up plans. We can encourage them to assist municipalities. With those funds we could lead our young people so that they may do something practical and useful instead of wasting our money for all kinds of silly undertakings.


Mr. Bechard:: Does the hon. member mean that Quebecers and Canadians are spendthrifts?
March 21, 1972


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I do not want money to be wasted. At the present time, I am sure that money is wasted right and left, thus giving no return nor creating any asset in the country. We are destroying the country instead of building it. We must build rather than destroy. Then, all the money, all the resources that we can make available to citizens must be used to build.
I would draw the attention of this government on the necessity of protecting the people because we do not have the right to waste their money on futile causes, when there are so many useful things to do.
I agree with some hon. members. Once all these big problems have been solved, we may waste as much money as we have, if there is any left to waste, which, in my opinion, is not going to happen very soon. All those funds must be used to protect the people and give them what they are entitled to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Everybody will go to the Creditiste
paradise!


Henry P. Latulippe: I know that we cannot solve everything, but I commend the motioner for having urged the government to give the municipalities and the public bodies money at low interest rates so that they may build something, so that they may at last have some means in order to remedy the problem of water pollution.
It is very difficult to solve the problem of pollution, because the system itself is polluted, We must first clean the economy which is totally polluted.


Albert Béchard: Especially the Creditistes from Quebec. Tell us about what happened on March 19.


Henry P. Latulippe: I do not know what the hon. member is saying, I can make nothing of what he says. In any case, he speaks so often and about such useless things that one cannot understand what he says.
Mr. Speaker, we should express our opinion and decide once and for all to protect our human capital. This is human capital, the most valuable we have because there is no price for a human being. There is no price either for animals which we need to survive. There is no price for that.


Albert Béchard: Everyone agrees with that.


Henry P. Latulippe: I live on the shore of Lake Megantic in a town with a population of 8,000. From Lake Megantic to Quebec City there are some thirty municipalities and towns which discharge all their waste in the Riviere de la Chaudiere, then into the St. Lawrence River. There are no more eatable fish in the Riviere de la Chaudiere. Everything is polluted, including the St. Lawrence River. The water no longer flows into the river; it is so polluted, it rolls down.


Albert Béchard: Is it Creditiste country?


Henry P. Latulippe: Be they from Creditiste or Liberal areas, people have the right to live. Liberals have the same right as Creditistes, and Creditistes the same as Liberals or Progressive Conservatives. This right is universal, Mr. Request for Environmental Council
Speaker. I point out to hon. members that our sole obligation is to be intelligent enough to respect ourselves and to eradicate pollution, whether it comes from people or things.
We should work in that direction instead of wasting our activity, our time, our energies and our money on useless purposes. Let us do something useful. Let us build instead of tearing down. We owe it to ourselves first of all to build the most urgent and most important things, those that afford protection to the human race. The point is to protect ourselves and mankind. To succeed, we must take exceptional measures.
It is easy for the government to loan interest-free money to municipalities, as it does to foreign countries. There is good to be done in foreign countries-I admit it-but our country also requires large developments and we can finance them all through interest-free loans maturing in 60 or 70 years. If we can do it for strangers, we must be able to do it at home also; in fact, we can find the means to finance any plan, provided it is workable and materially feasible.
Now, it is materially feasible to build treatment plants, since the engineers are there and we have all the necessary materials. Many people are prepared to work; however, the funds are wanting, they are not available to the citizens in need of them.
The solution to the problem would be to put investment funds at the service of citizens. We must realize that a de facto situation exists and that we should therefore take the necessary means to eliminate the automatic pollution that we are experiencing today. I say automatic because everything is polluted altogether. The first step we must take is to decontaminate our waters. Thereafter, we shall endeavour to purify the air. Afterwards, we might be able to live decently.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a question of privilege or on a point of order?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Compton whether he would allow me a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member may ask his question, but he must have the permission of the hon. member for Compton. The hon. member for Compton still has 30 seconds to answer it.


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member said a moment ago that it was easy to build water treatment plants, that engineers were available, and so forth. Is he aware that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation makes loans to municipalities at a very reasonable rate, and that further it pays a rebate of 25 per cent-which is rather substantial-of the total of the loan plus interests? Is he aware of that?

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of that, as much as the hon. member is, but that assistance is not yet favourable enough to allow municipalities to resort to it because they are already heavily in debt, which prevents them from incurring new debts. Then other means have to be used to assist those municipalities.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What means?


Mr.   Gaetan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, being concerned, as I am, about pollution I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on the subject. First, I should like to say that the way this motion has been put before us smacks once more of NDP political opportunism. To pretend that the federal government has done nothing in the field of pollution is pure fantasy. During the Throne Speech debate at the beginning of the second session of this twenty-eighth Parliament, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pledged that the total resources of his government would be brought into play to prevent the advancing menace of pollution in our country. These words have not remained dead. Since then a ministry of the environment had been created to cope with the rising problems and a number of important and extremely effective pieces of anti-pollution legislation have been passed, such as the Canada Water Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Act and the Canada Clean Air Act. I could go on and on.
Furthermore, before blaming the federal government for not acting one should remember that the federal government does not have complete jurisdiction in the environmental field. The provinces have a great deal to do in that field, but some are not doing their job. They are reticent indeed to stand up to the big companies with regard to setting up pollution standards and taking legal action against those infringing regulations as to standards. Is the federal government to blame for provincial inaction?
What about municipalities which dump raw sewage in nearby rivers? Of course, mechanisms are already in place, as the hon. member mentioned a while ago, to assist municipalities to build newer and more efficient facilities. However, some are not taking advantage of this. Is the federal government to blame for this inaction?
When I consider the government's realization and the inaction of other levels of government, I cannot help but be surprised at and in disagreement with the motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). I do not mean that I do not care about pollution: on the contrary. I represent an area of Canada which is probably one of the most affected by this problem. Indeed, in Sudbury, "pollution city Canada" as it is often referred to, the damage done by industrial wastes to every aspect of the environment is so obvious and staggering that anyone contemplating a clean-up would hardly know where to start.
For 3,200 square miles around downtown Sudbury, vegetation has been seriously injured or destroyed by

poisonous sulphur-dioxide fumes from the giant Inco and Falconbridge operations. Not only air pollution but water pollution represent a great threat in my area. Much of the Vermillion River watershed in the area has been polluted for years. The nearby resort areas at Massey on the Spanish River are strangled by the stench and waste from a pulp mill at Espanola. Also, many of our beautiful lakes in the area are quickly becoming polluted. Soil pollution is also a major concern. The three million tons of sulphur-dioxide discharged annually has thinned natural vegetation. Because of that the first layer of soil is almost all eroded. In consequence, the area in and around Sudbury looks as though it had been transplanted from the moon. As a matter of fact, the American astronauts came to practise in the Sudbury area last year. As I have said before in this chamber, the situation in the Nickel Belt area has become alarming. The provincial government, which has jurisdiction over mining companies, has been remiss in its duty in not forcing the companies there to take preventive measures long ago.
Heavier fines should be imposed on all polluters. I mean all polluters, not only the mining companies but the municipalities which do not properly dispose of their wastes, and the individual who throws trash on the road or anywhere else. All levels of our society should be penalized if they allow pollution; it is fast becoming a question of life or death.
Measures have recently been taken by the provincial authorities with regard to air pollution in Sudbury. Last year they installed a monitor on Ash Street in Sudbury. What a joke! If the wind happens to blow the smoke that way, which it seldom does, we are told that the pollution index is going up; and if it goes up too much the company will be asked to cut down on its operations. We need more monitors. We need them at least in the four corners of the area. Why are they not there, Mr. Speaker? It is because they know very well that most of the time the index would be beyond the acceptable level.
Although the Sudbury area is badly hit by both air and water pollution, the outskirts and the rest of northern Ontario is still fairly free of contamination. It is still beautiful country. That is why I feel that preventive measures should be taken immediately. I have asked before, and I repeat my plea, that a research and control centre be established in Sudbury at Laurentian University.


An hon. Member:: Right away.


Mr. Serre:: Yes, tomorrow. Such a centre could carry out research on pollution control, which would assist the companies. It could also co-ordinate the efforts of all levels of government and all interested groups. It would help bring back and keep this vast region of northern Ontario as a tourist paradise and a healthy place for our children.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy environment concerns the federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as each individual.
I am happy to have had this opportunity of dealing briefly with this crucial problem which my fellow citizens of the great constituency of Nickel Belt consider to be problem No 1.
March 21, 1972

In conclusion, I once more urge all my fellow citizens, municipal authorities and above all provincial authorities to stop merely discussing the damages wrought by pollution and to follow the example set by the federal government, i.e., finally resort to action.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to become involved in this debate primarily because, as many hon. members know, I represent a significant constituency, Hamilton West, which of late has been plagued with a profound concern about pollution. Earlier I listened to the minister. As I reflected on what he said I wondered whether it was the same Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) who in January, 1970, said:
I don't believe all that I read about dying lakes and sickening seas. Most of it is poppycock-written by novices who are reaching for headlines-
In the Speech from the Throne debate in the same year the minister said:
The evidence of past failure to rehabilitate our water resources is there for all to see-befouled water, despoiled beaches, rotting marine vegetation, and diminished fishing.
That is the same man, holier than thou, who spoke today. This is one minister for whom I have a great deal of respect because I believe he is sincere. At the same time, I have my doubts when I reflect on the statement he made in January, 1970. Now that we have a Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), I believe this is the time when it is absolutely incumbent upon us to become involved in tri-level conferences in order to receive some input and acquire direction concerning where we are going.
I know we have passed many bills, some of which have been improved because of the tenacious attitude of opposition members. It is not necessary for me to mention all of them. They include the Canada Shipping Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the National Harbours Board Act, the National Parks Act and the Canada Water Act. What I wish to concentrate on is an anomaly which exists in the city of Hamilton, a city governed by an act which was passed in 1912. This is what has brought the attitude of the city of Hamilton, its citizens, the city council, the province of Ontario and the federal government into focus.
Here we have an act which as a result of legislation gives us three individuals, two appointed by the federal government and one appointed by the city council, who have the right to look into the problems regarding Hamilton harbour in terms of future development. But suddenly it seems to me we have found that here we have an act which is archaic and fit for the horse-and-buggy days. It has been disregarded so far as the federal government is concerned. What concerns me is the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is interested in seeing that there are more commissioners appointed to the Hamilton Harbour Commission without giving any indication as to whether this act is to be updated and brought into focus in terms of being meaningful legislation for the 1970s and the future.
Request for Environmental Council
I think such an attitude on the part of the minister leaves a great deal to be desired. We have a situation in which the city of Hamilton, its council and its citizens are very concerned about who has jurisdiction over development and land use. It is in this area, as a result of having an archaic act, that there are men-and I say this with a great deal of respect-who are more interested in their duties in respect of the harbour commission than in exercising reason as citizens of Hamilton. These men have perhaps missed the boat. This may be the reason there is now a great conflict before the Supreme Court of Ontario. If the Minister of Transport intends to bring in an amendment to this act, I will not give my consent to an increase in the number of commissioners until he gives me some indication that simultaneously there will be an amendment or amendments to the act to make it more meaningful in terms of the development of Hamilton.
I think we must arrive at a balance between industrial development and the protection of our environment. This act does not seem to fit the bill at the present time. I am very concerned about why this government believes it has done all it can. The moment we say to the government that what it has done is good, though questionable, and more must be done particularly in respect of standards which should be set, members of the government indicate that the opposition, particularly the NDP and our party, is not sincere in its motives.
Surely air and water must be preserved and protected from misuse and abuse. Air and water are our most precious natural resources. In the past ten years we have found an excitement among people, ranging from children of kindergarten age to high-powered lobbyists, who point the finger at us and tell us to take whatever action is necessary. This is what we are saying in the motion. Earlier I brought in a motion in respect of the disposal of solid waste. We are now considering a similar motion.
We must continually remind ourselves and the1 government that it is necessary to focus attention on the problem of pollution and give it very high priority, because unquestionably if we do not we cannot be saved. That is not simple rhetoric; it is fact which has been researched and brought before the nation and the world. As we bring more people into Canada, particularly into Ontario, we find that population and industrialization increase. This means of course, an increased demand on our water and air resources. This also means that manpower is required for our industries, and the industries provide employment. Therefore, we find industry and population contributing together to air and water pollution.
The demands on air and water and the amount of waste discharged have grown simultaneously. It is not necessary to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the home-heating, the automobile transportation and the industrial manufacturing which is accelerating the pollution of the air and water which we find so necessary in terms of our daily lives. I wonder whether it is fair to say that as a result of the increase in population there are more demands on industry in order to provide necessary goods and services.
I wonder whether it is fair to say that the polluter must pay. I wonder whether we should be looking for an approach which calls for incentives whereby the responsibility is shared. When we say that the polluter must pay, it

March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council seems to me that indirectly the cost will be passed on to the consumer who ultimately is the taxpayer. I think this should be a shared responsibility. When we say that the polluter must pay, I believe we are abdicating a certain responsibility. We might consider how the province of Ontario is growing and the density of the population. There are about 18 persons per square mile. In the urban industrialized areas the population increases dramatically. As I understand it, there are 5,000 people per square mile in Sault Ste. Marie, 6,000 people per square mile in Hamilton and 2,000 people per square mile in the city of Toronto. Here in Ontario there are 4,000 major industrial sources and at least 10,000 minor industrial sources of air pollution.
This is why I say we must be very concerned about our urban growth. A member on the other side asked whether an hon. member did not know there is a 25 per cent forgiveness under NHA. I think the member knows this. However, we are saying that if there is any sincerity on the part of the government, perhaps the forgiveness aspect of the bill should be increased.
I have had a bill on the order paper for some time. What I am trying to point out in it, without going too deeply into the matter, is that right now the act confines loans made to municipalities to trunk sewage collector systems and central treatment plants. My bill proposes that we not only look into this area but also permit loans for trunk water mains and trunk storm sewage collectors. Surely if the government is sincere in its attitude toward pollution they will agree that my bill makes sense. It makes even more sense when you consider that for a considerable length of time there has been only a 25 per cent forgiveness provision.
In the bill that I have proposed-perhaps there is some difficulty in this regard because it gets into spending power-there is provision for increasing the forgiveness amount from 25 per cent to 50 per cent and at the same time for providing a 100 per cent forgiveness if the projects carried out under NHA are carried out in the wintertime under the winter works program. We know that there is a 25 per cent forgiveness, but perhaps it is time we did more. I am concerned that in the areas which need attention-I am talking about our urban areas-the attention does not seem to be directed to the problems of the cities. I wonder why not. Surely we are all aware of the fact that section 92 of the BNA Act is not the end-all. We are no longer concerned with the constitutional hang-up in this regard because we have a Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Mark Willson Rose: But he is busy running the campaign.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All I say in conclusion is that the motion before the House is certainly worthy of our considered attention. It is a motion brought forward sincerely, one that comes as a result of a growing concern about pollution problems which have gone unattended. I hope the many suggestions that have been placed before the government this evening will be given considerable attention. Government members can give me the whole list of bills that have been passed, but I suggest they have still missed the boat by not setting any standards and by including an archaic act such as the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners
Act which was passed in 1912 and amended in 1951 and in 1957.
Since the government is not taking any action to assist the municipalities further in this respect, which is within the government's power, by increasing the forgiveness powers in the act I say that the government is not sincere when it indicates that it is concerned about pollution. I have mentioned several areas where improvements can be made and I hope the government will take action. I repeat that if the minister brings in any amendments to the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Act which relate only to an increase for the commissioners sitting on the board, then I will do my best to see that the bill does not get third reading because I believe it will have missed the boat. What we need is a bill expressing the feelings of the people of the city of Hamilton with regard to industrial growth and the protection of the environment.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I feel under a moral obligation to take part in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) for several reasons, one of them being that a major part of the constituency I have the honour to represent in the House has tourism as its main industry.
The raw material of the tourist industry is environment, rivers, mountains and lakes.
After hearing the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) speak with such eloquence, praising the beauties of her province, I felt I also could stress the beauty of my constituency in "la belle province" of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we all recognize ourselves to be trustees of ecology, of our environment. We share joint responsibility to protect it. We must ensure that our descendants-


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?


Maurice Dupras: Listen and you will find out.


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


Maurice Dupras: -that our descendants will inherit as healthy an environment as we received.
The Canadian government, jointly with the provinces and the United States government, has already taken steps in order to protect the ecology. Those who have studied the problem of pollution and are familiar with it know very well that this is not a problem which can be solved by one government alone, be it municipal, provincial, or federal. Co-operation of all governments concerned is required to find a solution in order to protect the patrimony which we inherited from our forefathers.
Let us examine, Mr. Speaker, what some countries have done to protect the ecology-and I am thinking in particular of some European countries like Switzerland, for instance, which banned the use of snowmobiles. I do not think we are prepared to go to such extremes and ban use

March 21, 1972

of a machine which is a source of wealth for a large segment of the population of Quebec and other parts of the country.
Switzerland has also prohibited use of motor boats on most lakes because they felt that the water of those lakes was worth protecting, and that the worst pollution of lake waters is caused precisely by motor boats.
At the same time, Switzerland does not allow use of calcium or salt to melt snow on highways. They maintain-and rightly so-that calcium or salt tend to pollute rivers.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to take such drastic measures to protect the ecology. However, we in our part of the country, where very large sums have been invested in the building and developing of resort areas, are deeply interested in the development of our pollution control program.
A while ago, we heard hon. members of the opposition insinuate all sorts of things with regard to the so-called failure of the federal government to act and fight against pollution, to implement measures against it. Some of those measures were mentioned, but I would like to add a few. Someone referred to the opportunities for youth projects that were carried out in my riding. Our young people made praise-worthy efforts to enlighten the people, the adults, to impress them with the fact that fighting against pollution is not solely the responsibility of our governments, but that it is also that of the consumer, the people who, if they pay attention, if they can, can protect our streams, rivers, lakes and mountains.
Under the Opportunities for Youth program, Mr. Speaker, we have seen students devote two months during the summer to enlighten the people and attempt to prepare them to assume their responsibilities and make their contribution to the protection of environment.
We have also seen local initiatives programs which specifically undertook to clean our streams and our lake shores to ensure a better and fresher environment for Canadians.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, pollution is threatening our people and its effects on our country-which nature has richly endowed in terms of splendour, size, great number of streams and lakes-point to the vital importance of that issue.
On the other hand, our resources will be destroyed very soon if people do not watch over them and if we fail to take the appropriate steps as soon as possible.
That is probably why the provincial government wants to generate electric power on James Bay, a priority for Quebec authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of discussing the effects and costs of producing electricity through nuclear fission, and I am informed that wastes from nuclear reactors will become a most serious problem over the next 25 years because we have grown used to burying them in concrete caissons on the bottom of the ocean. Since the ocean belongs to everybody, this very seriously jeopardizes underwater forms of life. If some day one of
Request for Environmental Council
the caissons should explode and should a large portion of the ocean be contaminated, what would happen then?
The solution to the problem lies, I think, in the development of hydroelectric projects through the use of hydroelectric energy, which produces no fall-out whatever nor any waste that could pollute the environment. The resource that are our streams should be developed further in the interest of Canadians before there is thought of selling this electric power to our neighbours. The last years of the 20th century will demonstrate the very great value of electricity, a wealth which our neighbours to the south already envy us, as they have discovered that the salvation of the ecology and the environment in North America lies in the development of hydroelectric power to produce the electricity that is sorely needed.
Those are the few remarks I intended to make during this debate, Mr. Speaker, in order to put across the views of a representative of a part of the province that depends on this integrity of the ecology, the environment, to which we attach a great deal of importance because, as I said at the beginning, the ecology or the environment is our raw material, a raw material which we have in abundance but which could very soon be depleted.
It is of such an importance, Mr. Speaker, that we must encourage the government to look into this problem and to find the proper solutions as rapidly as possible.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to use the time available to me to deal with three aspects of the resolution that is before us. First, I would like to deal with the need for national standards for pollution control and the constitutional problems associated with this need. Secondly, I would like to suggest some immediate action that the federal government could take in order to diminish pollution and at the same time create a large number of jobs and assist the disadvantaged regions of the country. Thirdly, I would like to take a moment to discuss the necessity for citizen involvement in environmental control.
The need for national standards for pollution control has been argued at length by my colleagues, in this debate and in others. The most compelling argument for a paramount federal role is economic in nature. Because of the disparities in economic terms which exist between the provinces, the failure to provide a paramount federal power is to invite provinces to compete for industrial development on the basis of more relaxed pollution laws. Economically weaker provinces are unlikely to resist the temptation to entice industries to locate within their borders by lower capital costs and operating costs which might well result from less stringent anti-pollution regulations.
One need look no further than at the current reaction of the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to the terms of the Maritimes claims fund for an illustration of this. Faced with the threat of the withdrawal of development funds by large corporations, the two provinces are raising the roof. Adjustments in the federal law may be necessary, but I ask myself if there would be any meaningful controls at all in those provinces if it were not for the federal presence. I think not, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
March 21, 1972
Request for Environmental Council
Speaker, because the primary preoccupation of the governments of those provinces is the creation of jobs for their people, and they will use any means at their disposal. Unless there is a federal presence to set down the parameters within which they must operate in creating those jobs, they are likely to create pollution havens.
It is important to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the recommendation for national standards contained in this resolution is supported by a recommendation of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution, the report of which was received last week. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall read recommendation No. 100 which is found at page 91 of the report. The committee recommended:
Control over the pollution of air and water should be a matter of concurrent jurisdiction between the provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament, and, as in section 95 of the British North America Act, the powers of the federal Parliament should be paramount.
That is a recommendation of a committee which was composed of members of all parties in this House and members of the Senate. There is little doubt in my mind that the federal government could succeed in gaining provincial consent for a constitutional amendment which would incorporate the substance of the committee's recommendation if the government were to begin immediately to seek such agreement. There is absolutely no excuse for the federal government not to begin seeking such an agreement on a priority basis, because our attempts to control pollution will never be effective as long as the question of who has jurisdiction remains both complicated and confusing. So long as doubt remains about who has jurisdiction, it will be used by politicians who wish to avoid acting as a means of avoiding action.
I wish to again quote from the report of the constitution committee, also at page 91, as follows:
Federal and provincial sources in the BNA Act for pollution control are many. For example, provincial jurisdiction may stem from "property and civil rights in the province", "municipal institutions in the province", "local works and undertakings", "generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province". Federal jurisdiction, on the other hand, depending on the class of subject dealt with in the legislation, might arise from "the criminal law", "navigation and shipping", "sea coast and inland fisheries", and "the regulation of trade and commerce".
As my colleague from Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has argued, ambiguities in the constitution need not prevent action. However, the fact is that they do and they will continue to do so until they are removed. Thus, it is clearly and urgently necessary that federal and provincial governments, at the same time as they bring forward legislation to clean up our environment, seek to achieve agreement for a constitutional amendment incorporating the substance of the recommendation of the joint Senate-Commons committee to which I have referred.
I might say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that when members of the government present a catalogue of legislation which has been passed by this parliament, I am not impressed. I congratulate them for doing that much and I hope the legislation is improved by members on this side of the House; however, if they were really serious about dealing with the problem of pollution adequately and
[Mr. Rowland.1
ending it once and for all the major emphasis at this point would be on clearing up the ambiguities which now exist in the constitution. They would find a great deal of approval for this effort amongst provincial governments.
If I might be permitted one further comment on the committee's recommendation, I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendation that the matter of pollution be one for concurrent jurisdiction with federal paramountcy. That would allow the federal and provincial governments to legislate but when there was a conflict the federal government view would prevail. This would make it clear that any federal standards, any federal law would be paramount and provide for national minimum standard but it would allow also for the possibility of a wide degree of innovation and experimentation in the legislation designed to control pollution and enhance environmental quality. Beyond that, the committee report reads at page 92:
-because the new pollution power would be concurrent, that necessarily greater federal-provincial and province-to-province planning and co-ordination would result. The superior financial and research capabilities of the federal government, especially in relation to the smaller provinces, can be brought into play through the concurrent power itself and through the federal spending power, if necessary.
The resolution before us also emphasizes the need for the federal government to make available low-cost loans to municipalities and to certain industries to ensure that there is no further delay in the building of sewage treatment plants and the undertaking of industrial clean-up. The advantages which would accrue to u$ from such a program, through enhancing the quality of our environment, by ending the dumping of raw or only partially treated effluent into our rivers and streams, for example, should be manifestly obvious.
Think of the jobs that would be created by such a program-in construction, in design, in manufacturing and in research. Why not extend the program to provide sewage treatment facilities and water for our rural communities in an effort to enhance environmental quality, in an effort to reduce the disparities in creature comfort between rural and urban life, in an effort to inject new life into such communities by making them a more attractive alternative for the location of commerce and industry to our already congested, overcrowded and polluted cities?
This approach, this demand for federal government involvement in creating that kind of infrastructure, these kinds of sewage treatment and water facilities in rural areas, has already been made by the Interlake Development Corporation in Manitoba. The provincial government and the federal government are being petitioned by communities in the area such as Arborg and the town of Winnipeg Beach. The provincial government is taking action. I see no reason why the federal government, if it is serious about cleaning up the environment and removing economic disparities, would not be talking about concurrent action. That action could be taken under DREE; it could be taken under any number of federal government departments. I should like to see that kind of action taken by the federal government post-haste.
Why not extend the kind of program envisaged in this resolution to our larger cities for the creation of means of recycling waste, for research and development into the
March 21, 1972

manufacture of useful products from garbage and waste? Other countries are doing this. In some German cities garbage disposal plants are using the heat generated from the burning of garbage to produce electrical power. It is now possible to produce protein from celluloid which can be produced in turn from waste paper. It is now possible to produce motor fuel by the treatment of human and animal waste. Why are we not looking into this and why is federal money not available for research and development in this area?
Why not extend the program suggested in the resolution to encourage the development and use of such simple devices as garbage-shredders and compressors which would reduce the volume of garbage which municipalities must dispose of? Again, think not only of what such a program could do for environmental quality but think of the jobs, the useful employment it could create. Think of the export potential for the devices for environmental control which the ingenuity of the Canadian people would undoubtedly produce, if properly encouraged, as other nations move in the same direction.
But we cannot leave the problem of environmental management solely in the hands of the government. In making this, my third and final point, I am not thinking exclusively of the somewhat abstract and academic value of participatory democracy. I am also going beyond the very useful suggestion of an environmental council contained in the resolution. I am saying that I am afraid to leave any matter so important in the government's hands without providing the citizens of this country with the means of judging whether or not the government is doing a proper job.
This means that information on pollutants and polluters which is made available to governments must also be readily available to the public. It means that governments must be prepared to provide responsible citizens groups with monitoring equipment and instruction in its use so they can collect their own data and check it against data provided by industry and government. It means that governments must provide financial assistance to responsible citizen groups engaged in policing pollution so that these groups can continue to operate effectively.
To see the necessity for such provisions, those of us participating in this debate need only examine our own motivations. How many of us would be speaking if it were not for the fact that organizations such as SPEC, Pollution Probe, STOP and SPOT had brought the problem of the deteriorating quality of our environment forcibly to our attention, and if they were not in our communities prodding us into action when we show signs of slacking off? I think if each of us were to answer that question honestly there would be no doubt about the absolute necessity for equipping Canadians to judge for themselves the efficacy of their government's efforts to combat pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Standing Order 48(11) proceedings on the motion have expired.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to return to a matter which I raised with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Comtois) on Friday last concerning the recently announced changes in the rent structure of married quarters on Canadian forces bases in this country as well as some of the military housing that is provided off the bases. In recent days I think the department has been inundated with complaints about these changes, but nowhere I think is the situation more exacerbated than with respect to the Canadian forces base at Summerside, Prince Edward Island.
On Friday last, when I asked the parliamentary secretary what action might be taken with respect to the seemingly unjust proposals put forward by the Department of National Defence all he could report was that there were indeed changes being made and that some 8,000 units would have the rent reduced. What he did not say, of course, is that the remaining two-thirds will have the rent increased. Of course, he made no reference whatever to the situation off the military base itself.
One of the things that is particularly shocking about the present situation is that seemingly there was no consultation with those directly affected. The changes proposed under the new rent structure as of April 1 have to do with the establishment of a new rent structure under the aegis of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Central Mortgage and Housing have proposed that where possible rents being charged from PMQ or bulk lease housing will be equivalent to normal rents charged in the adjacent area. One must assume, therefore, that when the rent structures were established for Canadian Forces Base Summerside, Central Mortgage and Housing entered into what most people of Prince Edward Island would regard as a bizzare equation. They compared Slemen Park with adjacent communities.
Slemen Park, I might explain, consists of the married quarters at Canadian forces base Summerside. One might call it a town in itself. It has its own store, bank, bowling alleys, swimming pool, skating rinks, schools and all the facilities and usual amenities one expects to find in a medium sized town. Instead of saying that this is a self-contained community, the Central Mortgage and Housing people compared it with rural communities close at hand. In this case one must assume that those communities were Miscouche and St. Eleanor's. These rural communities, however, are without many of the amenities of a town and therefore the people there pay a rent that is that much lower.

March 21, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Then the Central Mortgage and Housing people went to Hillcrest, the bulk lease housing area within the boundaries of the town of Summerside itself. I might explain that Summerside is a town of some 10,000 people. Central Mortgage and Housing said, "How much would it cost to rent a home within the confines of Summerside itself?" What they came up with was an equation under which most people in Hillcrest would pay more, in some cases $13, $15 or $17 per month, while rents at Slemen Park might be reduced by some $20 or $30 a month, thereby creating a new differential of between $30 and $40 a month.
That in itself was serious enough, even if one forgets other forms of discrimination. Those who have established rents at Slemen Park have included in those rents the cost of utilities such as heat and light. The people of Slemen Park, of course, do not pay transport expenses to go to and from their work. Those who rent in Hillcrest, on the other hand, would pay something like $20 a month or more for heat and up to $20 a month for light. They incur transportation costs in going three miles to work and there are also extra school costs. Therefore, on the average Hillcrest families must pay an extra differential of about $70 a month.
It is particularly shocking to think that such a situation could be permitted, particularly since service people at CFB Summerside have no choice as to where they are to be located. It is true they can apply for housing at Slemen Park. However, they must accept what is offered to them when that offer is made. If they refuse, naturally they drop to the bottom of the housing list. So we have people in a captive situation.
I might add, in parenthesis, that they would not be captive if they decided to live outside the forces establishment altogether, that is, outside either PMQ or bulk lease housing areas. However, if they are to accept accommodation provided by the military, they are in a captive position. To my mind, great injustice is being perpetrated in these circumstances. I know from complaints received from other personnel living in married quarters, particularly at Chatham, New Brunswick, that a similar situation must prevail there as well.
Rents for military personnel in the past few years have increased substantially and I begin to wonder if pay increases such personnel have been granted from time to time are not being totally obliterated by rent increases. I hope, therefore, that this evening the parliamentary secretary will assure me that this matter is being fully reviewed and that there is some hope of bringing about an equitable adjustment for those who are adversely affected.


Mr.   J.-R. Comtois@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, for the period April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1972, charges for married quarters were set by averaging the appraised rental values of all similar types of houses at all bases in Canada. These appraised rental values are set by CMHC, based on equivalent civilian market rentals by areas. Under this system the same charges apply to the same type of house regardless of location. In high cost areas this charge was lower than local rents, the difference being made up by occupants in married quarters in low-cost areas.

During the past four years rentals have increased greatly in urban areas while those in rural areas have remained relatively constant. With the ever widening gap in appraised rental values, the subsidy required from occupants in rural areas became too high and continuation of the averaging system beyond March, 1972, was unrealistic. By late 1971 some servicemen were refusing to accept married quarters in some low cost areas where civilian rental housing was available at lower rents.
As stated by the former minister of national defence last December, the matter has been under study to determine whether some revisions are required. The result of this study produced the recommendation that the national averaging process be discontinued and effective April 1, 1972, the charges be set on the basis of appraised value by location.
Since civilian market rentals vary by location, so do married quarters charges. This has resulted in charges for 8,200 married quarters being reduced while the rent for about 150 will remain unchanged. In areas such as Summerside, rental values are low and all married quarters occupants will receive reductions on April 1. For the remaining 16,500 the monthly charge will increase by varying amounts-for instance, in Chatham, New Brunswick, where appraisal values are high. Charges to married quarters occupants will increase in set amounts by ranks, that is, to a maximum of $15 for sergeants and below, $17 for warrant officers and captains, $20 for majors and amounts for other senior ranks up to $30 per month for colonels. Had we remained on the national averaging basis, charges for all married quarters would have gone up.
Regulations make provision for any base commander to comment on the system and to submit details of any inequity which he feels may exist. Some submissions have already been received. These will be investigated by Canadian forces headquarters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan).


Mr. Comtois:: I am almost finished, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. As the hon. member knows, he cannot, under the rules, raise a point of order at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I was about to say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: This is not the way
the rules are applied. I call upon the hon. member for Don Valley.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a question of privilege. Do you mean to say there is no question of privilege?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member knows there is no such thing as a point of order or any such discussion under these special arrangements. The hon. member for Don Valley.


J. Michael Forrestall: I rise on a question of privilege and ask you to make an order with respect to privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member will have to read the rules. There is no such thing as a question of privilege or point of order at this stage, after ten o'clock.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will invite the Speaker to point out to me where it is stated that a member cannot raise a question of privilege.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this morning in the finance committee hearing on estimates officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated we are on the verge of hearing about a major policy relating to aircraft development in Canada. Such a policy is long overdue and I seek assurance that it will be an effective policy.
Recently I had the opportunity to visit Washington to study civil aviation. This program of visits was conceived and financed by the Donner foundation. I wish to acknowledge with thanks the opportunity provided to develop some deeper knowledge of the subject. What did I learn, Mr. Speaker? Firstly, that Canada is considered to be at the very front of STOL, that is, short take-off and landing aircraft development in the world, notwithstanding the fact that our entire industry is foreign-controlled. The Canadian branches have, in competition with each other, set the world's standard for STOL aircraft. A number of these planes are in demand and in use all over the world.
Secondly, I was able to come to the conclusion that an important future part of the aircraft industry is in STOL development. The 747 may be bigger, the Concorde may be faster, but the market for STOL craft is, in my view, far more promising. STOL aircraft appeal increasingly to noise and pollution conscious people. They are usable more conveniently in densely populated centres which are already built up and where land is expensive. Additional advantages add to their appeal elsewhere. In this developing world where infrastructural systems are not well developed and air transportation is only beginning to become popular, STOL craft are more logical and more marketable. They are a human-scale aircraft concept.
Thirdly, I confirmed that the aircraft industry is a very big business. Even in small plane technology large investments are required. But it is a big business of a special type. It seems that it cannot depend upon the private sector alone for inspiration, for financing or for marketing. The colossal bankruptcies in Britain and in France and the insolvencies in the United States demonstrate this. These three countries are in the aircraft business directly at the government level. This is true even in the United States which is so dedicated to free enterprise in other sectors.
In this situation, let us not see the Liberal government do a re-run of the Bomarc disaster with which the Conservatives smashed the Canadian industry ten years ago, sending thousands of skilled Canadian workers to United
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
States jobs. Let us at least do what our industrial partners in other countries are doing; let us help, and help generously and quickly.
This debate does not give me the time to develop the spin-off benefits which a healthy aircraft industry will generate in our economy. Let me just assure the House that several hundred thousand jobs are related fairly directly to the industry in its present state. I should like to make one final point for the comment of the minister. The Canadian public, the Canadian investor, has never had a real chance to buy stock in a Canadian-based aircraft company. If you want any part of the Canadian action you have to buy stock in the United States or Britain. This situation should be changed. I believe there are many Canadians who would welcome the chance to share the risks of the industry, especially if the government had a commitment to it and a sensible and forthcoming policy.
For these reasons, I urge the minister to include in this policy encouragement to Canadian subsidiaries in the industry to go public in this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to comment at any great length in view of what my hon. friend said about the nearness of the expected announcement. If it will not concern the total restructuring of the aviation industry, it will at least have to do with a certain research and development project known as the DCH-7, having to do with the DeHavilland company.
I agree with almost everything the hon. member said: with the importance of STOL aircraft, with the fact that Canada is ahead in this particular area, the importance of attracting the private sector of the Canadian economy, the importance of government support and the spin-off advantages. The name of the game in this particular instance is to try to bring all these factors together, and this is where the difficulty lies.
One can very well claim that there is tremendous usefulness for STOL aircraft, but he has to make sure that it is put together as a system. One can say that there is a tremendous need for STOL aircraft in developing countries, but in most instances developing countries do not have the necessary finances with which to purchase these aircraft. Consequently, a financing program has to be developed. Support has to be given in some cases through aid programs, and so on.
It is the difficulty of packaging all the elements of this problem that has caused the government, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and myself great difficulties in recent times. We all hope the conclusion of these present efforts will be at par with the spirit of enthusiasm demonstrated by the hon. member tonight.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am fully conscious of the fact that my intervention this evening will not be of sufficient public interest and force to push the usual headlines involving wars, revolutions,

March 21, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
rapes and murders off the front pages of Canadian newspapers. I am also conscious that my question about the principle of national pay scales in the public service will be more popular in Quebec and the Maritimes than in my own province of British Columbia, whose public servants stand to gain rather than lose by accepting the Treasury Board proposals toward regional rather than national pay rates within the public service.
After putting the question into what I believe to be a proper and rational perspective, may I now get down to the basic question. The basic question is whether or not it is to Canada's and Canadians' long-term benefit to adopt the position taken by Treasury Board in opting for regional pay rates for certain categories of the public service. That is the essential question.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) admitted in the House that this is the bargaining position taken by the government. He said this in reply to my question regarding current negotiations with stationary engineers in Public Works. I quote his reply:
The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is in the affirmative. It has been the policy of successive governments to move from a scheme of national scales of wage rates to ones which are more appropriate and more commensurate with local operating conditions.
When questioned further about the anomalous government position of pushing regional pay scales at the same time as massive spending to reduce regional disparity under DREE, which position seemed contradictory to me, I was ruled out of order as being argumentative. In his initial reply to me the minister implied that the regional pay differential had been the long-term policy of successive governments. When pressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he was forced to admit it had been the policy of only two successive governments, that is, since 1967.
I have been looking at the testimony of the President of the Treasury Board when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Before that committee, on March 8, the minister said in reply to a question that the distinction between regional and national pay scales was based on the mobility of the particular component. If the category tended to be highly mobile, then that mobility justified national pay scales. On the other hand, if the category was likely to remain in the community for the bulk of his working life or for a long period of time, regional rates would be more fair to both the public servant and the community in which he served.
This sounds reasonable enough on the surface, but why have regional rates been pushed on the stationary engineers in Public Works when at the same time stationary engineers in federal correctional institutions have been given national rates? That seems to be another anomaly. Sureiy the job is not very different. Surely stationary
engineers under the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) are no more mobile than those who are employed by Public Works. Or is it perhaps that there is recognition of the fact that the correctional component is more militant and that the government could not risk pushing regional rates down the throats of the penitentiary branch.
There is no validity in regional rates. They have been tried in various other classifications including the railroads. They have found very few takers because essentially they are another rip-off. If the government thoroughly believes in regional rates as an established principle, then why not apply them to old age pensions, to Members of Parliament or to the forthcoming revisions in respect of family allowances? There is no more mobility among old age pensioners or people on family allowances than there is in stationery engineers. The government might see how the principle would be accepted in the Maritimes or in Quebec if the policy were extended to that ridiculous conclusion. I say, for heaven's sake stop trying to push this on to the public servants. They do not intend to buy it.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board's position with respect to regional rates of pay is not contradictory to the program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. As employer, the government is committed to paying rates which are equitable and competitive with rates being paid outside the public service for similar occupations. Where the outside pay data for occupational groups indicate significant variations from the Canadian average, and where the area of recruitment and the mobility of employees within the public service is limited, the government as employer considers it appropriate to pay regional and not national rates of pay. Paying national rates of pay in such circumstances would only serve to overpay employees in some regions and to underpay employees in other regions in relation to the rates of pay prevailing in those regions, neither of which situation from the employer's point of view is desirable or viable.
The basic objective of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is to facilitate economic expansion ahd social adjustment in areas of Canada requiring special measures, to improve opportunities for productive employment and the access of people to opportunities. The problem of economic disparities is best attacked on a broad economic front. If the effect of regional economic expansion is to raise the rates of compensation in areas that are now low by comparison with other parts of the country, the government as employer will ensure that its rates reflect those changes subject, of course, to collective bargaining provisions in the public service.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, March 22, 1972