1975-10-31

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 24 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9
2995 6- IV2
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 31, 1975


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recent increases in war veterans and civilian war allowances have created a disparity between these allowances and disability pensions. The disparity creates the effect that veterans with 75 per cent disability or less and who earn no other income may be losing many dollars annually; and in too many cases they are not made officially aware that they are eligible for the higher rate under war veterans allowances. In order to overcome this disparity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House recommends that the Minister of Veterans Affairs direct that all veterans who are eligible be notified forthwith and that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has he succeeded in completing the appointments to the AntiInflationary Board? I think that three members were contemplated. Has someone who would be reasonably credible from a labour point of view been sought and found? Has the process been completed?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that as a member of the permanent group of eight, we have one person who was very closely identified with labour. I believe there is a vacancy left amongst the three Ottawa members. We are attempting to get somebody there, not necessarily to identify with labour but somebody who will be able to understand their point of view.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD-COMMITMENT OF MRS. PLUMPTRE TO CONTROL PROGRAM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: The process has not been completed. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has confidence in Mrs. Plump-tre's commitment to the controls program that he has announced, particularly in view of Mrs. Plumptre's statement in Edmonton on March 6, 1974, in which she said, among other things, and I quote:
-while any government in a sharply inflationary environment might be tempted to start down the general price control path, it was a path that led all too quickly into a morass of tensions and antagonisms between national groups and classes and regions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember that statement by Mrs. Plumptre. However, having myself made statements that prices and incomes control could very well lead to a morass of complications, I am not surprised at that statement. It is obvious that Mrs. Plumptre shares the government's view that it would have been better if we could have cured inflation without going into controls, but since she has accepted a position on the board, she has come to the view that this kind of action is required at this time.
I might add to my previous answer that I was not intending to imply that the six people now appointed to sit are not able to understand labour's point of view. The point that the Leader of the Opposition was making is one with which I agree. It would be good if we could have some people as members of the board who in the past have been more directly associated with labour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister how many people accompanied him, the Minister of Finance and Mrs. Plumptre on that bus ride to Damascus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO SELL PROGRAM TO THE PEOPLE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Given the fact that the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board in a speech yesterday expressed reservations about some of the limits of the government's program, and indeed expressed grave reservations about the exclusion

October 31, 1975
Oral Questions
from the program of prices at the farm gate, and given the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress have mounted a half million dollar campaign to oppose the government's program, how does the Prime Minister expect to sell this program to the people of Canada, if the vice-chairman of the board has doubts about it and organized labour in Canada is going to oppose it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would need to ascertain what the Vice-Chairman of the board said. I have not heard the quotation to which the hon. member refers, but I am sure if she accepted membership on the board knowing what would be in the white paper and the legislation, the interpretation given by the hon. member could not be the correct one. As regards labour, I repeat what I said yesterday. We were given a very fair hearing by labour. Obviously, we have not led them to change their minds yet but I hope the meetings we had and the suggestions which were made, invitations made to them to improve any aspect of the plan they thought was deficient, will bear reflection on their part and that they will come around to seeing that not only will this plan work but that it must work if we are to prevent this disease of inflation from crippling our society.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO ENFORCING REGULATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Given the fact that unenforceable law is bad law and faced with the proposition that organized labour in Canada has indicated that it will not support the program-indeed, that it will campaign against the program-and this in the midst of a potential wage settlement by the government with the postal workers which will destroy what credibility is left in the program, I ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to assure the House before the bill now in committee is passed by parliament that the government intends to enforce this law and that it intends to meet again with the representatives of organized labour to ensure that some kind of compromise can be worked out, because we all realize the stakes are high.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It goes without saying that a law voted by this parliament will be obeyed by all the citizens of this country.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-ABILITY OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS TO AVOID PROFIT CONTROLS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Since the success of the government's policy in controlling price increases is dependent upon an accurate knowledge of profit levels, particularly of those of multinational corporations, I should like to ask the minister whether he can explain the statement by Mr. James Gourlay, director general of audit for Revenue Canada, reported in the press today in which he said with reference to the profits of multinational corporations:
These companies don't move today unless they know all the tax laws and then they just run around them. They can do it in such a way that

you really can't point the finger and say "You have done something wrong".
The substance of his comment was that hundreds of millions of dollars are lost annually in this way. Would the minister explain how the government hopes to control price increases through the profit control mechanism, particularly in connection with multinational corporations?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: One
of the obligations I feel the Department of Revenue has is to secure the best available expertise, as much expertise as possible, to see that these end runs do not take place. Part of that operation, as I think Mr. Gourlay explained, is the work of the Inter-American Centre for Tax Administrators where we look into that aspect on a binational basis. In mid-November I shall be meeting with my opposite number, Mr. Don Alexander, the Commissioner of the IRS and with regard to such action as the multinationals are taking, we hope to get them where it hurts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The minister did not tell us precisely in what way the government plans to make changes in order to avoid the situation so described. Is it his view that the statement reported in the press is accurate and that we are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue? If so, what precise steps has the hon. gentleman in mind to plug this major loophole in the control program?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I can do not better than quote the words of my predecessor who said at one time:
It is important that we collect from multinationals the correct amount of tax based on income earned within Canada so that other business enterprises and individuals are not required to pay more than their share.
That is our goal and we shall do our best to see that we attain it.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-PROVISION FOR REINVESTMENT OF EXCESS PROFITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: The minister is sounding like his predecessor. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a final supplementary question pertaining to another kind of loophole in the price control mechanism. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was quoted in a speech he made in Calgary the other day as saying that excess profits would be permitted well beyond the guidelines if these profits were reinvested in new capital facilities. Is this not, in the minister's view, the loophole to end all loopholes? Would not any corporation rather expand its investment into new capital facilities rather than pay taxes to the government of Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to the special levy that we have proposed regarding exports. We think it is very likely that the export revenue of Canada will recover, and the proposal is that the special levy on export revenue should be refundable if it is to be invested in new capacity in Canada, which I think it can be said is in the interests of all of us.
October 31, 1975


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In view of the minister's responsibility towards the native people, could he say what measures his department is taking to solve the problem resulting from the mercury pollution of some rivers? We know that much of the fish the Indians eat is mercury poisoned. Can the minister say what steps he is taking?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, measures are being taken and being examined jointly with the provincial government, which has responsibility in this area, to provide alternate sources of suitable protein for the people involved.


REQUEST FOR CONCERTED ACTION BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS TO STOP MERCURY POLLUTION
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the minister, since his colleague the Minister of the Environment stated in Miami Beach on October 7 last that the best procedure was to make haste slowly, whether he could use his influence to ask his colleague of environment and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to exert pressures jointly. Three departments, I think, are involved in this problem. Steps must be taken to prevent any irreparable injury to those people who consume large quantities of fish contaminated by mercury.


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to pursue the matter with my colleagues.


CONSULTANT'S CONTRACT WITH ROY McLAREN-EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but first of all may I congratulate him on being promoted to take over the best department in government. My question is one of which I have given him notice and I am sure he will have an answer for me. Was a Mr. Roy McLaren of Toronto recently taken on by his department with the purpose of improving the department's image with the Canadian business community at an annual salary of $50,000 a year, with an operating allow-
Oral Questions
ance of $40,000 a year, and with no requirement to move from Toronto to Ottawa?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question and also for his kind words. I agree with him about the department. It has been improving substantially over the past seven, eight or nine years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: With a start like it had, it could not help but improve.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With regard to Mr. McLaren's contract, I will be very glad to send the hon. member the details of it. Essentially it is a $50,000 a year contract for two years. However, that is the gross amount. In other words, there are no fringe benefits or anything of that nature involved, so it is substantially less than that in actual retained earnings. I might also say, by the way, that he took a substantial reduction in income in accepting the position.
In so far as expenses are concerned, they are fully accountable. There is a ceiling of $20,000 annually. He cannot spend more than that for travel or any expenses of that nature. As to whether he will in fact live in Ottawa, no firm decision has been made on that but he has the choice of remaining in Toronto or moving to Ottawa. If he is going to stay in Toronto and commute, there are the normal transportation allowances, etc. that are paid in all such cases.
On the last point, Mr. Speaker, it is not so much a question of improving the department's image. As I believe the hon. member knows, there has been a great deal of interest lately in having a closer liaison with the business community, particularly in relation to the international turn key projects, overseas missions and the like. It will be these in large part upon which he will be concentrating.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time it has ever been found necessary to improve the department's image with Canadian businessmen, a very sad state of affairs, and I can assure the minister that in the past the department always had a very good image with Canadian businessmen, will the minister indicate whether this is the government's idea of cutting down on unnecessary government expenditure and setting an example of restraint for the Canadian people?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member means by the department's image having been better in the past that he is better looking than I am, I am completely prepared to agree with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the other hand, let me assure the hon. member, as I said a moment ago, this is not by any means an image building operation. I can assure the hon. member if he is interested that there is a very important necessity for closer liaison, particularly in terms of Canadian businessmen getting to know how the various new programs, including the turn key projects, and overseas and develop-

October 31, 1975
Oral Questions
ing country projects, can function, and this will be his primary responsibility.


George Harris Hees: I have one final comment, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea that things had deteriorated so much and were so bad.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a telegram from union officials of CUPW complaining that members of the letter carriers' union have set up their own postal service in the Nova Scotia region which, according to CUPW officials, is absolutely against the law?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received such a telegram. I have suggested that a return telegram be sent to this official of CUPW suggesting that we have referred the matter to the Department of Justice for study, and they will move at their usual speedy pace-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What will Basford say about that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -which means a decision one of these days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: That will help the Department of Justice.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In the meantime, one must commend certain Canadians for their initiative and wish them well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Similar operations are going on in, I suppose, about 20 centres that are now back to work. I would suggest to the official of CUPW who sent out the telegram that he spend a little more time in communication with his president and the negotiating team to resolve the very few differences that exist between our position and that of the union.
While I have the opportunity, I might suggest to the hon. gentleman who is the consumer critic for the opposition that in his question to the Prime Minister he has misrepresented the facts. The proposed settlement with CUPW is well within the guidelines.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Hold your press conference outside.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a very serious question to the Minister of Justice regarding an application now before the National Energy Board by Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited and Foothills Pipelines Limited of Calgary. A challenge objection has been filed by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. Has the Minister of Justice, his department or the government looked into this challenge of Mr. Marshall Crowe, chairman of that committee, to the effect that he may have some preconceived ideas in respect of the applications of these two major syndicates I have mentioned? This is an application or motion for prohibition which endeavours to prohibit the chairman from sitting. He is a graduate from western Canada and has held many high positions in the public service. I would also ask whether the Department of Justice intends to appear to make certain on behalf of the chairman that this is a fair and proper hearing before the court?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the matter to which he has referred has been referred by the National Energy Board to the Federal Court of Canada. At the present time I am considering what role the Attorney General of Canada should have at this hearing.
[DOT] (D30)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, as this is generally a speedy and extraordinary remedy which is being taken, would the Minister of Justice be prepared, if he is not able to answer today on such a serious matter related to the question of energy, which is one of the important factors in reference to inflation, to answer in the very near future and put in a representation for counsel so that Mr. Crowe, who was appointed by the government as chairman of the National Energy Board, a board appointed by the former Conservative government, will get a fair hearing.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in answering the first part of the hon. member's question as to whether we will give a speedy reply, the answer is yes. I am endeavouring to ensure that justice is speedy in this country.
* *



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. There was a report in today's Globe and Mail in which the deputy minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Dr. Sylvia Ostry, was quoted as saying:
It seems clear that at times large and powerful industries have played an important leadership role in the inflationary process. As well, there is considerable evidence that prices in concentrated industries are less responsive to changes in the general level of business activity.
October 31, 1975

In other words, it is suggested that larger corporations are not responsive to competition and are major contributors to inflation. Would the Prime Minister say whether the deputy minister was enunciating government policy when she made that statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the member would draw some conclusions from the fact that we have made these guidelines enforceable precisely against these large corporations so there does seem to be a valid point in the statement of the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and our precise action in this case seems to reflect it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this: Since the Prime Minister's royal commission on corporate concentration will not report for at least another year and has already pointed out that it will not look at the adequacy of the combines legislation, can the Prime Minister at least request the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the deputy minister to table this body of considerable evidence the deputy minister talks about dealing with the effect of corporate concentrations and their contribution to inflation, so at least the House will have access to this considerable body of evidence when giving consideration to Bill C-73.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are two points, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Bryce Commission is beginning its hearings next week and that the New Democratic Party is submitting a brief to it. That is fine and we will see what argument they have. But if I were to make any suggestion, Mr. Speaker, it would be that the hon. member and his party, rather than be interested in these theories, should back the government's program which precisely is going to restrain prices against those very corporations.



INFLATION-PRIME MINISTER'S VIEW ON PERCENTAGE INDUCED DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in this regard. I am under the impression that in July 1974 the Prime Minister indicated that the rise in our galloping inflation was primarily induced internationally whereas we, on the other hand, said it was induced domestically. I should like to ask the Prime Minister which one takes precedence and what percentage of our 11 per cent inflation rate now is domestically or internationally induced.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness, I should say that I have some doubt that this is the kind of information an hon. member should expect to receive during the question period. Perhaps the question might be posed in another way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks the present rate of inflation at 11.2 per cent is primarily induced domestically, and to what extent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To a large extent, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have just one
supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INCOME TAX


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance of which I have given him notice. Why was the deduction for day-care cost not included among the income tax deductions subject to indexing, indexing incidentally which was a proposal first suggested by my leader, ridiculed by the government and now espoused as a breakthrough in policy development.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my advice is that those provisions of the Income Tax Act with regard to the child-care allowance did not have the benefit of the indexing provision.


An hon. Member:: Why was it not included in the announcement the other day?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question as to why that was not included in the announcement the other day, it is because it is not in the law. I am prepared, of course, to undertake consideration of that for a future budget.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the action by the Attorney General of Ontario with regard to violence in hockey, as the minister has admitted in the House, would only deal with the situation with regard to the existing law within the Criminal Code, would the minister consider amending the Criminal Code in order to make it clear, since the league probably would use the same kind of defence that was used in the Minnesota Forbes-Boucher case, that violence in hockey-and I refer to situations which can be seen as criminal assaults outside of sports-and assaults within professional sports will be charged as criminal assaults, as they would if they occurred outside of sport.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that we have the same difficulty in Canada as in the Minnesota case, but I would be happy to consider the Code. I will be meeting with the Attorney General of Ontario very shortly on a number of matters and will raise this with him.
8742

October 31, 1975
Oral Questions INDUSTRY



CONSTRUCTION-MEASURES TO AID SMALL FIRMS AND ENSURE CO-ORDINATION OF FEDERAL AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that small construction businesses show a declining proportion of total construction sales yearly, will the minister inform the House what steps he is taking to ensure the viability of these many small companies?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand, apart from saying in a general way that we certainly will take all the steps we can, that I have been discussing with the various elements in the construction industry how our activity might be meshed with the activity, for instance, of the Department of Urban Affairs and the like, but anything beyond that I would not be able to cope with in a general answer in the question period. However, I will be glad to discuss it with the hon. member or perhaps answer a specific question.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, has the minister consulted with his cabinet colleagues in both the Department of Public Works and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs to consider the co-ordination of federal and municipal government construction plans to ensure a more even rate of growth in the industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the things I think the hon. member will know was proposed in general terms in a recent report of the economic council. I should point out, however, that there is an ambivalence in much of what I am hearing these days from, for instance, the business community which is insisting on substantial cuts in government spending but which also is asking what we are going to do to stimulate construction across the country.



COMMITMENT BY RUSSIA TO BUY FROM CANADA

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the United States and Russia have signed a multi-year agreement on grain sales, would the minister give his assurance to the House that Canada will still be a number one supplier of Soviet Union requirements in the upcoming years and whether or not Russia has given a definite commitment to the Canadian Wheat Board in this regard?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Soviet Union has once again confirmed it will look to Canada first for grain and that our very longstanding and mutually beneficial relationship with them is still firm.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether any thought is being given to signing a similar agreement with Russia or any other country to ensure a basic export sale of grain in future years so far as Canada is concerned with the countries to which we export?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is prepared to discuss and does discuss long-term arrangements with different countries from time to time and had indeed some of those arrangements. The question did come up between the Soviet Union and Canada during the last discussions between the Canadian Wheat Board and Exportkleb and it was agreed by them that the long standing and firm commitment that we have is in fact a better arrangement than a formal specific agreement.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board and all our House committees have been active in identifying areas where we can reduce expenditures and that the need for even more reductions of greater magnitude is being made apparent, will the minister consider a broad study of the fundamental structure of government and its expenditures to promote more efficiency and savings in the total government operation, a study such as the one carried out by the Glassco Commission?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is a constructive suggestion. I will be glad to give it further consideration and discuss it with my colleagues.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It has been reported that the DND is spending $250 million to translate technical documents into the French language and it has been stated that 50 per cent of the job could be eliminated if it were decided not to translate anything that will be out of date in five years. Will the minister be calling a halt to the translation of the documents that will soon be out of date in the Department of National Defence?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the plan to translate technical documents is proceeding, but the ones that are most essential will be translated first. We will be looking at all the documents with a view to seeing whether or not a transla-
October 31, 1975

tion is required, and this would of course include those that could be outdated in five years.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it relates to profit guideline exemptions. It is related somewhat to the questions put to the minister earlier by the leader of the NDP. Considering that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has suggested that industry profits which are reinvested in projects to increase productive capacity may not be covered by the guidelines, will the minister identify all the exemptions that are to be permitted from the profit guidelines and whether any company which reinvests its earnings in productive capacity increases will be exempted from these controls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have confirmed with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that his remarks were with respect to profits from the export business. We will be bringing forward some proposals with regard to a special levy.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-NUMBER OF COMPANIES TO WHICH GUIDELINES ON PROFIT-FLOW BETWEEN SUBSIDIARY AND PARENT APPLICABLE

William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is prepared to consider profit flows from subsidiary to parent organizations as a special case in the application of profit guidelines, will the minister explain to the House in what way subsidiary-parent transfers are indeed special, and inform the House of his estimate of how many companies there are to which such a special arrangement might apply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, the bill is before the standing committee and therefore that kind of question should not be put to the minister here.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable and learned Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I welcome back from ceilidh, and it is in reference to the regrettable situation in Lebanon. Can he report to the House on the continuing function of our mission and the safety of Canadian nationals there?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank my hon. friend for his welcome. The situation is that the Canadian mission has been advising Canadians for some days now, that unless there are
Oral Questions
compelling reasons to remain, they should leave the city and leave the country. With respect to the embassy staff, the policy is to send out dependants and other members of the staff who are not able in the circumstances to carry out their functions effectively. There is no question of closing the embassy or removing it. The embassy will continue to function in order to provide consular services to Canadians still remaining in the country. To my knowledge, as of yesterday it was still possible to leave by way of commercial airline and the authorities were providing security and assistance for persons who wanted to take advantage of that possibility.



ELDORADO-IMPORTATION OF EUROPEAN WORKERS- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A week ago a telegram was sent to the minister, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and other ministers in connection with Eldorado Nuclear Limited importing into Canada some 60 Europeans when there are available in northern Saskatchewan close to Uranium City 128 Indians and Metis who have the necessary physical and mental capacity to fill the positions. Has he consulted with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this connection, and will he assure the House that the company will be informed clearly and definitely that it is not in keeping with the Canadian spirit to import Europeans when Canadians are available for employment?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the President of Eldorado and we have discussed the program with the company with respect to the employment of these people. I can assure the hon. member that there are such persons, that is Indians, on strength at present and we are most anxious to increase the number and to provide training facilities so that they can take their place along with others.


John George Diefenbaker: In the meantime, has the minister suggested to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and with the assistance and support of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that this group of Europeans should be told to stay over there so that the positions can be filled when the Indians and Metis have the necessary training, which at present has been denied to them?


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to reassure the right hon. member again that we are making every effort-


John George Diefenbaker: But when?


Alastair William Gillespie: -at the present time, and this has been going on for some months, if not longer. At the same time, there is a serious shortage of certain skills which are not available and which require many years of training. For
29956-21/2

October 31, 1975
Oral Questions
that reason, the corporation is looking to other sources as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Forget Canadians and bring in
foreigners.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: My question is for the
Minister of Justice. Is his department considering the creation of a federal securities commission to complement the provincial bodies and, if not, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter on which the department and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have been doing considerable work in the past. I think the question should be more properly directed to my colleague.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of a statement made yesterday by the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board that the board will ask 100 of the largest firms to identify their main product lines as a basis for an efficient system of price monitoring. In view of the minister's admission yesterday that the government had difficulties with drafting a list of corporations to be covered by the guidelines, can the minister tell us how the board will handle the complexities of price monitoring?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this seems to me like one of the questions that might appropriately be asked in the committee and I will be glad to deal with it there.


David Orlikow: In view of the intention of the Anti-Inflation Board, as announced by its chairman, to change the regulations governing the program as often as necessary to ensure that they are equitable and workable in their daily application, can the minister explain to the House how an effective system of price monitoring and control can be carried out in such a climate of change, or does the minister agree with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that virtually all excess profits will be exempt from the guidelines, thus making price monitoring unnecessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Similarly this question should be put to the minister in the standing committee.



HOUSING


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
As the home ownership assistance program is about to expire without the housing problem having been solved satisfactorily, and as the minister stated he would soon announce new measures in this regard, can he tell the House whether he intends to include in those measures to encourage home ownership the possibility for an owner to deduct his mortgage interest for tax purposes?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I really could not indicate that without divulging the program. It will address itself, however, to the very real problems of high carrying costs of which interest rates are a major part. I will be making an announcement to the House on Monday on this matter.



EFFECT OF ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ON HOUSE CONSTRUCTION

Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the minister advise the House whether the restraint measures which the government will take to fight inflation will slow down the home buyer assistance scheme and result in a further aggravation of the housing crisis in Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the government has set housing as a priority and it continues to be a priority. We are approaching it from the view of supply so that it is indeed antiinflationary and job creating. I think the hon. member will be pleased with the announcement I will make on Monday.



FINANCE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the serious doubts raised by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday in his very partisan speech on the helpful motion put forward by my leader, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would undertake before the Christmas recess certainly, and hopefully before we complete discussion on Bill C-73, to bring in all of the supplementary estimates for the present fiscal year so that the House and the country will know the extent by which the deficit proposed by the former minister of finance is going
October 31, 1975

to be exceeded and how successfully the government has been in cutting off the fat and frills on the existing estimates this year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: will consider the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
* * **



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister now assure the House that he will honour the principle of the Postal Services Interruption Relief Act and grant relief to all citizens of Canada who are under a statutory deadline to make returns of money or records to him under the taxing statutes, for example income tax, federal sales tax, unemployment insurance, etc., so that these citizens will not have to apply individually to a judge of the federal court for repeal in order to avoid undeserved fines and penalties.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representation. It is a route which we intend to take.



PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS FOR PAYMENT OF OIL EXPORT TAX IN VIEW OF POSTAL STRIKE

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would he accept the spirit of the law just mentioned by the hon. member for Lethbridge as it has come to my attention that people are having to travel from Calgary to bring their export tax to his office in Ottawa. That seems a waste of energy. Perhaps arrangements could be made to have this tax paid at the bank in Calgary or to the Department of National Revenue there rather than adding this wasted transport cost?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to look into that suggestion.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In July of this year the report of the task force formed to study problems encountered by northern businessmen in obtaining federal contracts was published. The report contained some 29 recommendations. Can the minis-
Oral Questions
ter advise whether his department has taken steps to implement these recommendations and would he advise whether he is prepared to refer this report to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are 42 recommendations and subrecommendations involved in this.- We have already taken action to implement ten. Five were not acceptable and we are still pursuing the rest which have involvement with other departments, agencies, and the territorial governments. I will have to take under consideration the question of referring the report to the committee.
&



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As a result of the increases in war veterans allowances there is a widening disparity between them and the disability pensions of around 75 per cent. Would the minister advise the House if the pension commission or the War Veterans Allowance Board have been told to notify all those receiving disability pensions of less than 75 per cent and no other income that they could qualify for increased aid under War Veterans Allowances?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this information has been conveyed already by various means, especially the efforts of the Legion. They have undertaken to notify all veterans what is available to them.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that I think the minister is wrong and the information is not readily available to everybody, would he direct the pension commission when sending out their cheques to notify anybody who is receiving less than the rate that they can qualify for a higher rate? This should be done immediately.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to do this.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Concerning the Estey report and the suggestion to put some of its recommendations into effect immediately, even if the translation of the report is not completed, will the Minister of Transport assure the House that he will see to it that the principle embodied in the Official Languages

October 31, 1975
Oral Questions
Act as regards the tabling of reports in the House is complied with, while ensuring of course that no prejudice is caused to the company referred to in the report?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, our objective has been to attempt to get the report translated and available for publication as quickly as possible and we will certainly try to do that. I think that speculation about its content in the meantime can be a danger and we will see whether we can do anything to guard against those dangers.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that evidence has been coming forward that non-prescription sleeping aids may be ineffective and potentially harmful, and in view of the fact that the Federal Trade Commission in the United States plans to issue regulations prohibiting false advertising of non-prescription sleeping aids, could the minister advise the House whether similar restrictions will be placed on advertising such preparations by this government or if it has plans to review this whole area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me at the very least that my colleagues in the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be more involved than the Department of Communications, but I will see to it that the representations come to their attention.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of restraint in government spending being such an important part of any anti-inflationary program, and in view of the minister's references to the June 23 budget as being the basis of the current fiscal stance of the government, would the minister indicate if the budgetary deficit of $3.2 billion and the cash deficit of approximately $5 billion still holds or is a larger deficit on a budgetary and cash basis anticipated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing to make any statement on these figures at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: I bet you are not.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. In a speech in Vancouver yesterday Mrs. Plumptre proffered what she called a well deserved compliment to the Premier of that province for his imposition of a price freeze, saying that he deserved compliments for his courage and statesmanship in taking these two steps. Has Mrs. Plumptre or the board made any recommendation to the government with respect to the imposition of a price freeze at the federal level and if not, is it the government's intention to impose such a freeze?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We
have had no such representation, Mr. Speaker, and it is not our intention to do so.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON IMPOSITION OF PRICE FREEZE IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in his capacity as the Czar of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Does the minister intend to cause the price freeze to be imposed in the two northern territories?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not hear the first question and am not sure whether the hon. member was referring to government economic action. I have discussed with both commissioners the implementation of the guidelines with respect to territorial governmental operations and am awaiting their responses.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 974, 3,133 and 3,159. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Does Power Corporation have any direct or indirect interest in exploration, importation, sale or transmission of any energy resource and, if so, what aspects and what resources?
2.	Does the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have a direct or indirect interest by trust, family, or corporate device in Power Corporation or in any corporation providing capital of any kind in these areas and, if so, what is the nature of his holdings?
October 31, 1975

Animal Contagious Diseases



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, November 3, 1975']
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: 1.	Power Corporation being a private corporation, information about its direct or indirect interest in exploration, importation, sale or transmission of any energy resource may be found wholly or partly in public records of competent regulatory agencies in Canada, the media generally and specialized periodicals particularly, and failing this, through inquiries directed to the Corporation's Headquarters or specialists in the field of energy or the capital market place.
2.	No, with respect to direct or indirect interest by trust, family or corporate device in Power Corporation. As to the second aspect of the question, this is so broad in scope that it cannot be answered since it could embrace holdings of policies issued by private insurance companies, deposits in banks, trust companies and credit unions, some or all of which operate in capital markets.



Mr. McKinnon: 1.	As of October 1, 1975, how many veterans hospitals are still under the control and operation of the Department of Veterans Affairs and where are they located?
2.	How many hospitals have been turned over to provincial or municipal authorities in the past three years and where are they located?
3.	Is it the intention of the Department to force the handover of those hospitals which have not to date been handed over to provincial or municipal officials, or is it the intention of the Department to retain those hospitals indefinitely?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Six: Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, N.S., Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, Montreal, P.Q., Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, P.Q., Westminster Hospital, London, Ontario, Deer Lodge Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Colonel Belcher Hospital, Calgary, Alberta.
2.	Three: Lancaster Hospital, Saint John, N.B., Shau-ghnessy Hospital, Vancouver. B.C., Victoria Veterans Hospital, Victoria, B.C.
3.	It is still the intention that veterans' hospitals be transferred to the community under conditions acceptable to the Department.


UIC-NUMBER OF CLAIMS AND BENEFITS PAID IN 1974
Mr. Reynold^: 1.	(a) How many claims were made against the Unemployment Insurance Commission during the year 1974 (b) how many were initial claims?
2.	What were the total benefits paid for the year 1974?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned-1 and 2. See Statistics Canada Publication 73-001 entitled "Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act".


ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-28, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canada's animal health standards are among the highest in the world. As a result, our livestock and livestock products are welcome in practically every country of the world. Last year our exports of live animals, meat, poultry and livestock by-products were worth close to $475 million. They were shipped to 120 different countries, all requiring Canadian veterinary health certification of varying degrees.
Within Canada, more than half of all farm income comes from the sale of livestock and livestock products. In 1974, farm cash receipts for cattle, hogs, sheep, poultry, eggs and dairy products were more than $4 billion. The extent of our animal exports and the prosperity of the Canadian livestock industry is directly linked to the high standards of animal health which are maintained in this country under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
The savings to the cattle industry because bovine tuberculosis has been eradicated is more than $15 million annually, not to mention the savings in human misery and hospitalization costs from bovine tuberculosis in humans. The reduction of brucellosis in cattle to less than 1 per cent of the cattle population results in similar savings, including the reduction of undulant fever in humans. It has cost Canada approximately one cent per marketed hog to maintain complete freedom from hog cholera. Prior to the present eradication program in the United States, it cost $1 per marketed hog to keep hog cholera under control through the use of vaccines. Before the introduction of the eradication program, hog cholera had cost the United States $75 million per year. Hog cholera has not been completely eradicated in the United States. Last July there was an outbreak in the state of Texas and, using eradication techniques, they eradicated some 3,000 swine.
These three examples, together with our livestock and livestock exports, which are dependent upon our animal health status, give adequate proof that it is to Canada's advantage, not only from a livestock production point of view but from a human health point of view, to maintain the highest possible standards of animal health.
The original act to control and eradicate animal diseases was passed by this House in 1869. Since that time it has been amended as needed to keep pace with changing conditions. We are now at a point in time when the act must be further updated if we are to protect Canadian farmers against livestock losses due to disease, and retain our international reputation and markets for high quality livestock.
This bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act provides, as set out on pages 14 and 15, clauses 31 and 32, authority for the development of a program for reducing the incidence of disease and sickness in animals entering

October 31, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
or leaving Canada or being transported within Canada, and provides for humane treatment of animals. Over the years there has been an increase in the percentage of livestock losses sustained during long transportation across the country. In order to reduce and, if possible, eliminate these losses, regulations must be introduced to cover the movement of animals by truck, rail, air and ship within and out of Canada.
The bill, as set out on page 6, clause 4(3)(p), extends the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to regulate the construction, operation and maintenance of animal deadyards and rendering plants. It is important that the carcasses of animals that have died do not enter the human food chain. The bill provides us with such authority, including the important authority to regulate packaging and marking of the products of such yards.
The provisions for compensation payments to livestock owners whose animals must be slaughtered under disease eradication programs must also be amended. I am referring to clause 9 which amends sections 12(1) and 12(2) on pages 10 and 11. The present system provides for compensation values with the owner also receiving the slaughter value, where this is permissible, of the animal. The current compensation rates have created inequities. Many cattle have varying values due to various factors including breed, genetic value and resale value. The present system is also inequitable because dairy cattle have lower slaughter values than beef breeds. Those changes are also included on pages 10 and 11 of the bill.
The proposed amendment will change the basis for compensation to be the fair market value of the animal up to a maximum amount prescribed by the governor in council, less the gross slaughter value received by the owner. The change in the act provides for more equitable returns to the owners of livestock ordered destroyed under the provisions of the act.
Another area added to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act is extended authority for the control of artificial insemination centres. The artificial insemination industry in Canada has undergone marked growth in recent years, to the point where approximately 52 per cent of dairy cattle and 10 per cent of beef cattle are bred by artificial insemination and, in addition, exports of frozen semen have in recent years exceeded $13 million annually. In its present form, the Animal Contagious Diseases Act provides for the control of the health of all bulls entering artificial insemination units; but because of the rapid development of the industry, both in domestic and foreign markets, it has become necessary, in order to further eliminate possible disease spread, to extend the control of such units to include the collection, processing, storage and identification of animal semen.
At present, Mr. Speaker, there are no regulations requiring disease-free certification of animals exported from Canada. While we do test and certify the health of all animals being exported, it is considered that if we are to keep the foreign markets we have on the basis of our high health status-and people all over the world recognize that we have one of the healthiest animal populations in the world-there must be adequate authority to require such certification should we be faced with a situation where

someone wishes to take animals out of the country without adequate disease certification.

Animal by-products, fodder and other articles are sometimes ordered destroyed to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Bill C-28 extends compensation so that appropriate payments can be made to owners when this occurs.
As new or different methods of feeding livestock are introduced, there are new threats for spreading contagious diseases. The practice of feeding garbage to swine and poultry, for example, threatens to spread many diseases. The food that people in Canada throw away could feed our total hog population. Some of this is used to provide energy, but most is thrown away in the form of garbage. This could be used, but we must be certain that the disposal of both domestic garbage and garbage brought into Canada on ships and aircraft is adequately controlled in so far as possible livestock usage is concerned.
While the control of garbage is presently, and has been for a number of years, carried out under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, our legal advisers tell us that authority for such control is not sufficiently clear in the present act. Therefore, the necessary authority is being more adequately stated in this bill. Again, while control of veterinary biologies, both domestic manufacture and imports, is carried on under the present act, it is considered that clarification of this authority should be more explicit.
The changes to the act will also allow for the setting up of health and disease control standards for zoos and game farms, make provision to require dairies, creameries and cheese factories to provide product samples for disease testing, and require foreign ships to seal their meat lockers and use Canadian meat while in our waters. This may seem rather extreme, but several years ago some sausage was illegally imported into western Canada and then thrown away. It cost this nation about $881 million to clean up that mess. Therefore, we feel that ships using our inland waterways should be forced to use Canadian meats. In this way, no meat from foreign countries will be dropped overboard or given to friends in ports.
In addition, a number of existing areas of authority under the act are being amended to make them more clear and effective. For example, Agriculture Canada has been working under the act to eradicate tuberculosis, brucellosis and other diseases on an area basis for 40 years. The existing legislation does not clearly provide for the establishment of such areas and this, therefore, is being corrected. In the same vein, animal semen, poultry, other birds, bees, reptiles, hatching eggs and fertilized ova are specifically included in the jurisdiction of the act in order to eliminate confusion or misunderstanding with respect to definitions.
I have recently received correspondence from some members of parliament and others with regard to the spraying that took place in Winnipeg, Windsor and other areas which caused damage to the bees. Under the present act, there is no way for the owners to be compensated for the loss of their bees. This amendment will allow compensation to be made. Imported hides and wool as a possible disease source are already dealt with under the act and the
October 31, 1975

regulations made thereunder, but the authority for this control is again being clarified with the new definition of animal by-products.
I know all hon. members recognize that a strong act, with adequate authority to control and eradicate animal diseases and to prevent the possible introduction of contagious and infectious animal diseases into Canada, is absolutely essential for the well-being of our livestock industry. I am sure that members of this House, when giving consideration to this bill-and I must say we have waited a long time, as it is over a year since it was introduced in the House-will recognize the essentialities involved in order that it can be put into place as soon as possible.
I am convinced that Bill C-28, involving the control of infectious and contagious diseases of animals, including a number of such diseases transmissible to man, will be of benefit to all Canadians.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in this debate on Bill C-28, an act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. The Animal Contagious Diseases Act is administered by the Contagious Diseases Section of the Health of Animals Branch of Agriculture Canada. For the knowledge of hon. members, it does not have anything to do with the inspection of meat; it is a different section of the act.
The objective of the legislation and of the division is to keep and protect the nation's livestock population from contagious and infectious diseases. The division, operating under the authority of the act, controls and regulates the importation of animals and animal products, eradicates exotic diseases when they gain entry into the country, controls and eradicates established diseases, and is responsible for the certification of livestock for export.
Such an act, or something similar to it, first made its appearance in 1865. Since that time it has had many revisions and changes. Up to 1970, when the last revision was made, there had been 25 revisions and changes. The act has not been amended since that time except for the coming into force of section 14 on January 1, 1972. That is the date on which the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act came into force.
The Animal Contagious Diseases Act confers very wide powers and regulations for the achievement of the objectives of the act, namely, to prevent the entry of animal diseases into Canada and to eradicate or control those that are already established in this country.
It would be, perhaps, more convenient to summarize the legislation within the context of the three classic procedures for combatting disease, namely, exclusion, eradication and control. Under exclusion, the procedure includes measures to reduce to a minimum the means by which disease is introduced. Such measures include compulsory quarantine and inspection, embargoes, the importation of animals, animal parts and products from places where diseases are known to exist or not known to exist.
The act provides for the establishment of quarantine stations and for the destruction of imported animals known to be diseased or suspected of being diseased. Inspection is also carried out in ports on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, along the Canada-U.S. border, and airports, to enforce the provisions of the act. With regard to eradica-
Animal Contagious Diseases
tion, the legislation recognizes that in spite of the most rigorous inspection procedures, disease will from time to time be introduced into Canada from abroad. The act, therefore, confers very wide powers to test and, if necessary, destroy infected animals and animals suspected of being infected with or exposed to disease. If possible, destruction is avoided by quarantine of animals within designated areas, and subsequent treatment until authorities are satisfied that the disease has been eliminated.
All affected areas and premises are included under the legislation, as are all infected vehicles and vessels associated with the disease in question. The requirements of the law make it incumbent on all owners, breeders, dealers and importers of animals to give immediate notice to the Department of Agriculture of the appearance of any disease. Veterinary surgeons are also included under this requirement. The marketing, sale, exhibition, and so on, of animals is covered by the legislation, as is the removal of animals from an infected area. Where the diseases are eradicated by the slaughter of animals, the legislation provides for compensation to the owners.
Under control, where a disease has become established in Canada the legislation facilitates the investigation and reporting of outbreaks. Quarantine procedures can be instituted, and therapeutic measures, including vaccination, are carried out where possible. More than 600 individuals, including veterinary inspectors, are employed by Agriculture Canada to carry out the provisions of the act. Inspectors have full power of entry into "any place or premises or any steamships, vessel or boat, or any carriage, car, truck, airplane, horse-box or other vehicle used for the carriage of animals." Inspectors are empowered to make official declarations as to the presence of disease, and they also have the power to arrest offenders.
The foregoing is just a brief introductory summary of the main provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. Bill C-28 calls for the changing of the name of the act from its previous name to the Animal Disease and Protection Act, which more clearly describes the purpose of the act as amended. Much of the preliminary work regarding Bill C-28 was undertaken by the Senate Committee on Agriculture back in the spring of 1974 when it was introduced there as Bill S-2. At their hearings, which lasted for several weeks, the Senate committee heard representations from Mr. Charles Gracey, manager of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, from Mr. C. G. Munro, president, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as well as from representatives of Canadian Pacific Railway, a representative from the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture, representatives from the Canadian Council on Animal Care, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science, the Department of Justice, and others. In my opinion, the Senate Committee on Agriculture did a very thorough and excellent job and should be commended for their hard work. Much of Bill C-28 as it is now written has resulted from findings and information compiled by that committee on Agriculture.
Most of the changes advocated by Bill C-28 are progressive and timely. The new provisions call for the examination of all animals prior to being loaded in aircraft, railway

October 31, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
cars, ships or other vehicles. This was not previously carried out. Overcrowding will now be controlled. There are to be more adequate provisions for feeding and watering animals transported by rail across Canada. The maximum number of hours animals can be transported before being unloaded for rest, food and water will be more adequately established. The act will establish guidelines in accordance with the specifications set down for the construction of animal stalls, pens, fetterings, containers, etc., and how they are to be maintained. There are also new provisions for the payment of compensation for hay, straw, fodder, foodstuffs, fertilizer, manure, containers, etc., if they are infected with an infectious disease. The compensation would be at market value.
One of the very few objections I have to Bill C-28 concerns the provision for paying farmers compensation for animals ordered destroyed by the Health of Animals Branch. Section 12(2)(b) provides:
In ease of cattle or sheep destroyed pursuant to any area or herd disease eradication program instituted pursuant to the regulations, such maximum amounts will be paid as may be prescribed by the governor in council for pure bred or grade animals minus an amount equal to the value of the carcass, as determined by the minister or a person appointed by him for that purpose.
This clause could cause considerable hardship to farmers if it is not interpreted sympathetically. If a farmer is called upon to suffer considerable loss as a result of disease such as brucellosis and tuberculosis and is forced to destroy all or most of his herd in order to eradicate the disease, his loss could bring him to the verge of total ruin should the compensation he receives be insufficient to replace his herd. I do not think a farmer should have to face losses of any kind when faced with such a problem. He has a hard enough time making ends meet, without having to risk losing his herd.
I believe the Department of Agriculture should take a much harder look at this section with the purpose of treating farmers more equitably in this regard. I am suggesting that a farmer should at least break even, enabling him to recoup his losses at no cost to himself. We should do everything possible to keep farmers producing and on the land. We should not discourage them, as this section could easily do. I urge the department and the Standing Committee on Agriculture to give more consideration to this provision, when it is brought before them for further examination, and to spell out exactly what amount of compensation they have in mind so that we may all know where we stand. The future of many farmers, whether they decide to stay in farming or not, may well depend on it.
One way to handle the problem of compensation equitably would be to pay a farmer replacement value for an animal ordered to be destroyed. Determination of this value would be made on the basis of the age of the animal, its quality and its probable usefulness in a producer's operation. Regard will be paid to the cost of importing new breeds of animals as well as to cross-breed programs involving beef cows and dairy stock. Compensation of this type would mean more flexibility, range and realism in the level of compensation paid. It would also make farmers better inclined to co-operate even more fully with the Health of Animals Branch in animal disease eradication programs, knowing that their personal losses would be 
recompensed and that they would be in a position to start again with new herds.
I should now like to say a few words about brucellosis. Brucellosis is an infectious disease of cattle characterized by abortion, retained placenta and infertility. The disease can cause undulant fever in humans and can be contracted if a person drinks raw milk from an infected cow or comes into direct contact with infected material. For many years, the control and elimination throughout the world of communicable animal diseases such as brucellosis has been the goal of the veterinary profession and of the livestock industry. The main reasons for this effort are that such diseases not only cause high economic losses to farmers and to the agriculture industry, but also that many of them, as the minister has pointed out, may be transmitted to man. We are fortunate in Canada that, through the concerted efforts and understanding of our livestock industry and the veterinary profession, Canadian livestock is now free from many of the foreign animal diseases which plague most countries throughout the world. '
This is never an easy task, however. The prevention, diagnosis, control and eradication of communicable diseases are always complex because of the many and varied factors associated with their dissemination. When these problems are compounded by the use of vaccines and dependence upon a biological test for diagnosis, eradication becomes even more difficult to achieve. Brucellosis is one of the serious communicable diseases of animals. It has cost the livestock industry of this nation many millions of dollars each year. At the same time, it exposes the human population to undulant fever, causing suffering, misery and high costs in medical treatment and hospitalization. I, for one, am a prime example of that: during my practice I did get undulant fever and had a difficult time getting rid of it.
The obvious manifestation of brucellosis most often results in the abortion of the foetus, together with the decrease or total loss of milk yield of the dam. However, we are sometimes inclined to overlook the losses caused by temporary or permanent sterility and the reduced sale value of cattle in infected herds. In the early 1950s, these losses to the cattle industry in Canada were estimated at well over $10 million annually when the brucellosis infection rate for cattle was calculated as being between 8 per cent and 9 per cent.
Brucellosis control in Canada was started about 40 years ago in the early 1930s with the introduction of the voluntary brucellosis-free herd program. While the program was effective, primarily in closed pure bred breeding herds, it did little to reduce the national infection level. Therefore, in about 1950, following a national survey which showed an infection rate of almost 10 per cent, it was decided to institute a national program directed in the long term toward eradication of the disease. The first step toward this eradication was the establishment of the federal-provincial calfhood vaccination program. This program was the combined effort of the Department of Agriculture and the provincial departments of agriculture, with the federal department providing the vaccine and the provincial departments carrying on the program.
October 31, 1975

At this time it was recognized that actual vaccination itself was not the answer. We knew at that time that it would not completely eradicate the disease, but would lower the percentage of infection. I think the problem today is that some people have placed total reliance on the vaccination program in order to eradicate the disease, and the program will not do this. The fact of the matter is that we must have a test and slaughter program if we want to get rid of the disease completely. In addition, vaccination is only about 66 per cent effective and only two out of every three calves that are vaccinated are protected.
Despite this, the program was to a certain extent a success. In 1950-51 there were almost 150,000 calves vaccinated. By 1963-64 almost IV2 million calves had been vaccinated. By 1973-74 the number had gradually dropped off to almost 27,000 calves. In 1957, when the infection rate had come down approximately 4.5 per cent, we decided that a test and slaughter policy was the only way we could completely eliminate the disease. This test and slaughter, or eradication program called for the establishment of brucellosis areas throughout Canada with all cattle, excepting calves under eight months old, steers, spayed heifers and official vaccinates up to 30 months old being tested by the agglutination test, and reactors were slaughtered, with compensation being paid. By the fall of 1966, all of Canada had been brucellosis tested and, where necessary, retested to reduce the infection rate to .2 per cent. As a result, areas were considered brucellosis accredited for five years. During the period 1957 to 1966 approximately 191,000 reactors were slaughtered, with the high point being 33,000 in 1960-61, gradually reducing to 12,000 in 1965-66. During the same period, some 10,700 cattle were blood tested, with a total of $13 million being paid in compensation.
Again recognizing that total eradication could not take place in conjunction with mass calfhood vaccination, together with the fact that the national infection rate was below .2 per cent, it was agreed that the next step toward total eradication should be taken. This next step was a gradual de-emphasizing of calfhood vaccination which was commenced in 1971. It was pointed out by others that de-emphasizing vaccination was not in any sense the elimination of vaccination, because the elimination of vaccination would have to come gradually. Even at this, it was recognized that there would be difficulties in eliminating the last vestiges of infection, inasmuch as we would have to go through a period of vaccinal withdrawal. This means that as herds in which infection was being masked by calfhood vaccination gradually discontinued vaccination and developed susceptible cattle, the residual infection rate did begin to show up. In addition, as active infection showed up in these problem herds, it followed that there would be minimal spread to other herds, for we now had the bulk of our cattle totally susceptible.
A number of countries throughout the world have eradicated brucellosis, namely, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and West Germany. As vaccination was withdrawn, these countries experienced difficulties in the elimination of the last vestiges of infection, similar to our present problem in Canada. However, they are now free and prohibit use of brucellosis calfhood vaccine. These countries
Animal Contagious Diseases
reiterate and continue to report that in their view brucellosis vaccination causes confusion of the picture when eradication measures are in fact the goal.
Throughout Canada, in the fiscal year 1970-71 we had 3,884 brucellosis reactors in 170 herds. In 1971-72, these figures were 3,806 cattle and 153 herds, but in 1973-74, as the number of susceptible cattle increased and as the endemic herds began to show up, these figures rose to 8,849 cattle and 297 herds. When the 1974-75 figures are completed it is expected that the cattle number will be up slightly but the herd number will be up considerably because of herds having single reactors.
There has been a problem of complacency both in the veterinary profession and among livestock owners. Brucellosis being reduced to less than one-tenth of 1 per cent was unheard of or was very rarely seen in herds, and when abortions did take place one of the last things that herd owners thought of was brucellosis. I am just as guilty as anybody else in this regard. In my last three years of practice I never thought of brucellosis when I had cases of abortions, much to my sorrow when I found out by testing that brucellosis was the cause.
In addition to this complacency, less care was taken with respect to the movement of cattle from one herd to another. Less care was also taken in the purchasing of cattle, which meant, in fact, that infection did take place through movement of cattle. In days when the infection rate was high and everyone was conscious of brucellosis, infection did not take place.
What is being done in an attempt to eliminate this problem that we are facing today? What are we going to do about it, and how are we trying to combat it? First of all, in community auction sales, of which I have had two or three, all cattle going back to farms are being tested and, of course, backtagging of slaughter cattle is being done at these community auction sales. We are also ordering the slaughter of calves from infected cows and encouraging owners to get rid of reactors promptly. The cleaning and disinfecting of premises quickly and effectively has also been advocated. Again, this has been part of the complacency problem: there has been some difficulty persuading owners to dispose of reactors and they have been left in the herd. Perhaps it can be said that there has been too much leniency in letting owners keep these reactors in their herds to the point where they have spread infection before being removed and in the meantime additional cattle have been infected.
All livestock owners should take every necessary precaution possible with respect to brucellosis. No owner should add cattle to his herd unless the animal has been tested beforehand, held under isolation for 30 days and rested. It is imperative that owners report any abortions immediately and take precautions with respect to visitors to his herd. If these simple precautions are taken, the spread of infection from one herd to another, we can be assured, would almost be eliminated.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are now faced with a choice with respect to brucellosis, having gone through national calfhood vaccination schemes, national testing schemes, a gradual drop in vaccinations and a gradual increase in the number of susceptible cattle in the country. We can keep the disease at a low infection level by carry-

October 31, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
ing on with the present methods and continuing vaccination. This will not eliminate the infection, as I have said, but it will permit us to carry on with a low level of infection. This choice provides that if mass vaccination takes place throughout Canada, it will involve approximately three million calves a year, if we vaccinate all the calves in Canada, at a total cost of $12 million to $15 million annually.
The second choice which has been proclaimed-I certainly agree with it-involves the decision that brucellosis should be eradicated. In fact, brucellosis can be eradicated. As I have said, this has been done in other countries-and I mentioned them-and it can certainly be done here. With total eradication, I suggest that now or in the immediate future vaccination will be eliminated. It will take a while to do this, but if owners go along with the idea I think it is the only solution we have. It involves totally eliminating vaccination of calves against brucellosis.
In spite of the present opposition, I think we are making progress. With the co-operation and support of the livestock industry, it is felt certain that eradication can be accomplished. But the livestock industry must want eradication and must not want to live with infection. If we can convince the livestock industry of this fact, I think we will be well on the way to totally eliminating this disease. All of us working together in federal and provincial jurisdictions to fight this disease is the only way we can hope to eliminate it once and for all.
Our party supports the principle of Bill C-28, and except for a few changes that may be advocated at the committee stage, which may hold it up slightly, I see no reason for not passing the bill with the minimum delay.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who had to be in his constituency yesterday, would be here in time today to speak on our behalf in respect of Bill C-28. Since he has not arrived yet, perhaps I might say a few words to indicate our support of this bill. Indeed, I hope that it will not take long for it to be put into effect.
As the previous speaker, the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) indicated, there may be some details to examine more closely when the bill is before the standing committee, but in general we welcome this legislation. We are sorry it has had to stay on the order paper for a full year before getting to the stage of second reading.
As the previous speaker pointed out, perhaps one of the significant points to note is that the name of the act is being changed, and I suggest it is more than just a change of name. From now on, instead of this legislation being known as the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, it will be known as the Animal Disease and Protection Act. As the minister put it, and as notes in the bill make clear, this is consistent with the fact that provisions are being made in this legislation to deal not only with diseases that may affect animals but also with things that can happen to them in the process of transportation, and so on.
As the minister reminded us, this legislation has been around for a long time, having first been passed in 1869,

and it is understandable that some updating is necessary. One of the ways in which that updating is clear, it seems to me, can be seen when one looks at some of the definitions that have had to be enlarged. For example, we now have a definition of "animals" which, as the minister says, includes a bee. We also have an improved definition of "animal products," "animal by-products," "infectious diseases," "reportable diseases," and so on. It is our view that these are all improvements, technical though they may be, which will make it possible for the department to administer this legislation in the interests of all farmers in this country and also in the interests of the consumers of livestock products.
I note in particular that there is a whole new part of the bill having to do with transportation. This seems both necessary and welcome. We note, also, the parts of the bill having to do with what can happen, or what must not happen to dead animals. This is something that has been of concern. I realize we are not now talking about matters that come under the Department of National Health and Welfare, but we are talking about a related matter. There is some public agitation and concern about this, and it strikes us that the minister's bill will meet these concerns.
Like the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe, I think a further look may need to be taken in the committee at the whole question of compensation for animals that are ordered to be slaughtered under the terms of this legislation. I join with him in saying a few words, particularly about the question of brucellosis. I think the speaker who preceded me, professional that he is in the field, was very much on the beam when he said the time has come to resolve the question as to whether we are going for vaccination or for the eradication of this disease.
As the minister knows, back in in the 1940s a very elaborate campaign of vaccination against brucellosis was launched. I understand at the height of that campaign it reached the point where a million or more animals had been vaccinated against brucellosis. More recently, the government has been de-emphasizing the brucellosis vaccination campaign and emphasizing the greater desirability of eradicating the disease completely. That, of course, means that the slaughtering of animals comes more and more into the picture.
I understand that in most parts of Canada the problem is reasonably well under control. In western Canada, I think it is under control in all provinces but Saskatchewan, and the authorities there are making progress. I understand it is under control in the Atlantic provinces. I am told that the worst problem is right here in Ontario, and perhaps the worst of all right here in the Ottawa Valley. While it is not something to be alarmed about, it is nevertheless a problem that should be conquered.
It seems to me that the criticism is valid when it is said the levels of compensation the government offers for animals that have to be destroyed because of brucellosis are not high enough to encourage the owners of stock to go for the eradication route. If you do not pay these owners enough for the animals that have to be slaughtered, then they are more interested in vaccinating, hoping they can gain by that economically. I suggest that the previous speaker was quite right in saying that the vaccination
October 31, 1975

route is not a good one, but that eradication of the disease is what we must seek to achieve.
If this is the case, the amount of compensation must be sufficient to encourage stockowners to support the eradication program. To offer the owner of a good herd $500 per animal, when some of those animals may be very valuable breeding stock worth several thousand dollars, is not to encourage cattlemen to support the eradication program. I know that the government's approach to this problem is to suggest that owners of valuable breeding stock take out insurance against disease. Let me get my lick in by saying that is a good idea if the government will provide the insurance arrangement, but to leave it on an ad hoc or helter-skelter basis, I suggest, will not solve the problem, especially when such insurance is very costly or perhaps not even available.
I gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe that his party will support the bill generally, and in fact that most of the details are acceptable. I agree with him that there needs to be a good deal more discussion in the standing committee about the rates of compensation for slaughtered animals, and I hope such discussion will take place. I join the hon. member, on behalf of my party, in supporting the eradication route with regard to brucellosis as better than the vaccination route. But if we expect the farmers to join in supporting such a program, I believe we shall have to do a lot better than this legislation provides in respect of providing compensation. With those few remarks, I am happy to indicate that this party will be voting for second reading on Bill C-28.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-28, the amendments to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. This bill has been on the order paper for over a year now and I think it is important that it be dealt with now. This is very important legislation. As previous speakers have mentioned, its predecessor was one of the first acts passed by the new parliament shortly after confederation in 1869.


An hon. Member:: Stanley Knowles should know.


Maurice Brydon Foster: There is an important change in the name of the act which reflects the change in direction. I refer to the change from an act of parliament that was essentially introduced on the premise of contagious diseases to one which deals with other aspects such as the protection of animals, especially during transportation.
As I understand it, the control and regulation of the shipping of animals has been limited in the past by a section in the Criminal Code which specifies that every 36 hours animals must be unloaded, rested, fed and watered. However, there is no provision under this act or through the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture to control transportation of animals. However, there has been co-operation by the transportation companies with the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture in exercising control in this regard. Important research studies have been carried out in regard to transportation and the results of those studies which are still being carried out will be reflected in the new regulations
Animal Contagious Diseases
which will be written when these amendments are passed. This really adds another important dimension to the regulation and control in respect of the health of animals moving from the narrow limits of contagious diseases into the matter of the protection of animals, especially during transportation.
I am not sure people in this country fully appreciate the importance of our animal contagious diseases control program as it is carried out by the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture. In 1973, over 120 countries received either live animals or animal products worth some $700 million that were stamped "Canada Approved". This stamp indicates approval by our veterinarian inspectors under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. It became apparent to a recent parliamentary delegation which recently visited Cuba that perhaps the most important trading link Canada has with that country is the exportation and importation of many thousands of dairy cattle. This has improved Cuba's whole economic situation and the nutritional position of that country. The co-operation in this regard, I must say, is very much appreciated. Other countries such as Ceylon or Sri Lanka have benefited because of co-operative programs involving exchange of our professionals and information, as well as the supplying of a veterinarian college to Ceylon several years ago.
Few Canadians are aware of the fact that we have two quarantine stations in the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. There is one at Grosse Isle and one at St. Pierre Island. At these two points we regularly inspect and carry out a quarantine program in respect of the importation of cattle from other countries, especially western Europe. This involves the breeds that are not so familiar to us here in Canada. In this way we are in a position to test these animals and bring them in with an assurance that really serious diseases such as foot and mouth disease will not infect our Canadian livestock. At the same time, we have an opportunity to bring these breeds in for breeding purposes and thereby improve our general livestock population.
It seems to me there are three or four important aspects of this bill. One is transportation. Another is the change relating to compensation and the technical changes that are applied in this bill. I have already mentioned the important changes that are proposed to control transportation of animals. Surely, it is more appropriate that these be carried out under the Department of Agriculture than under the Department of Justice, and the Criminal Code.
I should like to refer briefly to the compensation sections which the hon. member, my colleague in the veterinary profession, the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) has mentioned. He referred to the importance of this change in the compensation program and that it will be more adequate for ensuring that the agricultural community is adequately compensated for animals which must be slaughtered. I think the present system provides that the livestock owner who has an animal which is condemned for slaughter receives a fixed amount plus the salvage value of the animal that has been ordered to be slaughtered. This creates inequities, because if the animal is slaughtered and the meat is suitable for human consumption, the farmer receives a fixed amount plus the

October 31, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
value of the animal, but if the animal is condemned he merely receives the flat compensation amount.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is one o'clock. Perhaps I could call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for lunch I was talking about the compensation provisions under Bill C-28. The present method of compensation for livestock owners who have animals which are condemned because of disease provides a fixed amount of compensation. In some cases, on top of this the owner is able to realize the salvage value of the animal. However, this varies a great deal depending on the circumstances and whether the animal can go for food purposes or whether it has to be condemned for food purposes. Under the bill before the House, the livestock owner will be compensated to the fair market value. It seems to me that this method of compensation is much more fair to the livestock owner.
Also, there is provision in the bill for compensation for fodder or feed which has to be destroyed because of the diseased condition of the animals on the premises. I think the committee should look at other aspects when a complete herd must be depopulated and income is curtailed for short periods of time. This is something which requires much more study, but I think the committee will want to look at the idea of making provision for this in the act. At some time in the future it may be deemed advisable to write regulations in this regard. That is not to say that the livestock owners do not have a responsibility. It seems to me that they have a responsibility, when purchasing animals, to take adequate precautions related to sanitation and disease.
Good assistance is available from the Health of Animals Branch with regard to the testing of samples of blood or whatever biologic is used to examine the animal for disease. The bill also clarifies many parts of the existing act which perhaps are not as clear as they should be in light of the existing health programs and disease control programs which are now in effect in the country today. These relate to the designation of areas for disease control. There is further clarification of definitions such as concerning animals, birds, bees and domestic animals which are covered by this act, as well as veterinary biologies which have been covered previously, but the terminology is further outlined.
I think one of the important parts of this bill relates to the section concerning deadyards and rendering plants. In the past year we have had a great deal of publicity in this country concerning dead animals which were diseased finding their way back to the human food chain. This bill makes provision for the regulation of deadyards and rendering plants right to the construction, operation and

maintenance of animal deadyards and rendering plants and the regulating of packing and marking of products of deadyards and rendering plants. Surely this is a very important addition to our health of animals program and further identifies the reason for changing the name of the bill, which refers to animal and human protection, as well as the infectious aspect of the bill.
Another aspect which is covered by the bill is the regulation and control of semen for artificial insemination purposes. Surely this is a very important aspect of Canada's export program. I understand that two million vials of semen are exported to some 30 different countries each year. It is important that there be control of diseases which might be spread in this manner.
I think it is important to recognize how much progress has been made in the control of disease in humans and animals because of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act over the years. Some 40 years ago, the program for control of bovine tuberculosis was initiated and it has been very successful in controlling the disease in cattle and in humans, too, because the disease often came from the reservoir within domestic animals.
In the past few years, a great deal of progress has been made in the control of brucellosis in cattle. This is called undulant fever in humans. In 1951, 8 per cent to 10 per cent of our cattle population was infected with brucellosis, with an annual loss, in terms of milk and calves aborted, of some $9 million. By 1956, as a result of the vaccination program, infection from brucellosis in the cattle population was reduced to 4.5 per cent. The test and slaughter program started in 1957 and the first testing was completed by 1966. The effect of the program can be seen in the reduction of the infection to .2 per cent of the total cattle population of 15 million. This is a dramatic success story.
As one who was engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine when the program was introduced, I must say I was a Doubting Thomas. I did not think a disease as infectious as brucellosis could be handled so effectively through a test and slaughter program, as tuberculosis had been in previous decades. That is not to say that we do not have infected herds in Canada today; obviously, with a .2 per cent rate, there are still some. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his advisers in the Health of Animals Branch will have to decide in the next year or so whether to go completely for the test and slaughter program or continue with vaccination.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) support the idea of the complete elimination of the Calflood vaccination program. I think this is the direction we should move in, and that the continued vaccination, although it may be encouraging and useful to the individual cattle owner, is not as useful in the over-all picture of disease control in Canada. Continued vaccination only complicates the testing procedure and masks infection in animals. I hope in the next year or so the government will move to discontinue the vaccination program which some provinces still encourage. If we do eliminate vaccination, I think we will have to provide a more extensive compensation program, especially when a
October 31, 1975

complete herd is depopulated and the owner's income curtailed.
I believe that the people who administer the Animal Contagious Diseases Act are among the unsung heroes of the public service in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and should be congratulated. Thanks to them, we have one of the most healthy and active livestock exporting countries in the world. They make it possible for us to trade in livestock with 120 nations around the world. They are one of the most important factors of our livestock industry. I believe this bill will strengthen the powers of the government to carry out the contagious diseases aspect of the work of the department and the new area of protection of animals in transit, as well as the other aspects of public health.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to participate in this debate on the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) indicated that Canadians have little appreciation of the bill, and I think that is quite true. If we were confronted with an epidemic of undulant fever, tuberculosis or foot and mouth disease, as in 1952, the case would be different. The bill is important, however, and deserves the attention of this House. Therefore, I am pleased to add my comments.
I was interested in the minister's opening remarks when he reviewed the history of the bill. I am sure he would want me to add one or two points to what he said. The bill was introduced in 1869, as he indicated, but I think he would like to know that was the first agricultural bill introduced in this House, and it was introduced by the Conservative government under Sir John A. Macdonald.


Eugene Whelan: With the co-operation of the opposition.


John Robert Holmes: And we are interested in co-operating with the government on this bill, which we believe is excellent in principle although we have reservations about certain aspects of it. I want to deal in a general way with the bill and then come to some of the specifics, particularly the transportation section, which is new. The bill has been introduced as a vehicle to maintain the country free of serious animal diseases and to eradicate those that can be eradicated and bring under control those that cannot be eradicated.
The minister earlier indicated some amendments to the act. These are in regard to regulations which existed in the past: they are questioned as to their validity at the present time. I think we must realize this is an important feature of the bill before us. In addition, we have a new section dealing with transportation-clauses 31 to 34. I will deal with them in more detail in a few seconds. I am concerned about the issue of regulations. I have mentioned my concern in the past. In effect, the operative part of the bill cannot be analysed by the House, nor in committee. I saw the same situation earlier this week in connection with the environmental contaminants bill and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act.
The operative parts of this particular bill cannot be analysed in detail. I agree that orders in council are important and must be introduced from time to time. In cases
Animal Contagious Diseases
where regulations are to be enacted-and I strongly suggest that the government will enact many regulations affecting the operative parts of the bill-I suggest that those regulations should be made known to members of the House so that those who are interested in and affected by the bill will be aware of the regulations when the bill is approved by the House. I suggest that a mechanism should be established to this end. This would remove some of the apprehensions of some hon. members, and some individuals who will be affected by this type of legislation. I suggest that the minister should seriously consider amending the bill in such a way as to enable people more readily to assess the impact these regulations will have on them in the future.
The hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) spoke this morning about evidence taken before the Senate agriculture committee in connection with Bill S-2. In this regard, the presentations made by Mr. Charles Gracey of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and Mr. C. G. Munro, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture on April 24,	1974, are germane. Mr. Gracey stated in
testimony:
While we support the obvious intent of sections 31 and 32, we cannot state unconditional support for the various clauses, in ignorance of the regulations alluded to but not stated.
I think the presentations made before the Senate agricultural committee are relevant to the present debate and it will be useful to summarize and perhaps paraphrase a portion of the testimony relating particularly to sections 31 and 32. Generally, the regulations relevant to those proposed sections ought to embody two fundamental principles. First, the regulations ought to ensure the safe and humane transportation of livestock. Second, they should promote maximum efficiency and speed in livestock movement. As the minister knows, total time spent in transit has a most important bearing on the welfare of livestock, but this matter has not been defined in the act and is not defined in the bill.
I suggest that proposed new section 32 will need to be considered carefully in committee. The discussion will interest many who are following the progress of this bill. Proposed section 32(1), on page 14 of the bill, proposes regulations-
-requiring, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, the examination of animals before being loaded on board any aircraft, railway car, vehicle or vessel for transport.
This section clearly refers to the preloading examination of animals. Where there is general agreement that animals should be loaded in good condition, excessive regulations may be impractical and have an adverse effect. At present, cattle originate from more than 150 points in western Canada and there is an obvious need to clearly define the regulations and the inspection procedures contemplated by the government.
Second, to a great extent there is a built-in safeguard in the routine transportation of cattle in that livestock producers buying feeder stock in the west are very conscious of needing to load animals in safe condition. Proposed section 32(b) proposes regulations-

October 31, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
-respecting the transportation of animals affected with or suffering from an infectious or contagious disease or incapacitated by reason of age, infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other reason-
Again, it is possible to support in principle this subsection, but the language and implications are such that a more thorough examination of the regulations will be necessary in committee. Proposed section 32(c) proposes regulations-
-establishing the area to be allocated to each animal being transported in relation to the mode of conveyance-
Again, this is an extremely important section and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association have been advocates of "safe loading levels" for various sizes of cattle. This principle should be given careful consideration in the formulation of regulations. A point frequently repeated is the importance of air space, which may be as critical as floor space if decks are too low. If there is to be a standardization in terms of area per animal, it becomes necessary to have the breakdown into various sizes and weights of animals. We should pursue this in committee. Proposed section 32(d) proposes regulations-
-requiring animals to be segregated during transport according to class, age and sex-
This section refers to regulations with respect to segregating livestock as to class, age and sex. Again, it is necessary to ascertain if in fact the proposed regulations are practical and within the spirit of the legislation. Bulls should not travel loose with females, otherwise the major consideration should be size and weight. For example, while it is not common practice to move steers and heifers in the same car, provided their weights are uniform there is in fact no hazard to such movement and arbitrary regulations prohibiting such movement would be undesirable. Proposed section 32(e) says that the governor in council may make regulations-
-requiring any railway company or the operator or owner of any aircraft, vehicle or vessel, when engaged in the transportation of animals
(i)	to disinfect and clean any aircraft, railway car, vehicle or vessel that such company, operator or owner uses for the transportation of animals, and
(ii)	to maintain any facilities for the loading and unloading of animals, including such rest and feeding stations as are necessary-
We recognize the importance of this section and, indeed, I have had representations from sheep producers in my area regarding inadequate care in some yards. In this regard, there are sheep producers who maintain that sheep in transport will fare much better if they are shipped straight through rather than being unloaded within a specified time. There is an obvious necessity to define the specific regulations dealing with disinfecting and maintenance of facilities. New subsection 32(f) calls for regulations-
-(f) specifying the standards of care of animals, including the provision of feed and water during transit, that are to be observed by any railway company or the operator or owner of any aircraft, railway car, vehicle or vessel when the company, operator or owner is engaged in the transportation of animals;
This is another extremely important section dealing with standards of care of animals during transit. Such regulations should be understood by all parties, and because of the obvious importance to shippers and receivers their practical experience should be considered in the formula-

tion of regulations. New section 32(g) calls for regulations-
-establishing the maximum number of hours that animals may be transported in any particular means of conveyance without being unloaded for rest, feed and water-
This is an extremely important section which requires careful examination of the proposed regulations. As the minister knows, section 404 of the Criminal Code establishes 36 hours as the maximum time in transit that animals may be loaded in cars without being offloaded for rest, feed and water. The first point that must be made is that the inclusion of the present section in this bill and its removal from the Criminal Code is indeed a positive step. The second point is the difficulties and dangers in establishing the maximum number of hours in transit. Surely the major consideration should be the safety and humane treatment of livestock. I suggest very strongly that if the only consideration is "X" number of hours, invariably the emphasis will shift from one of humane transportation to one of enforcement of a regulation. Of course, this may well not be in the interests of the stock.
As the minister undoubtedly knows, there are variances between cattle, hogs and sheep in their ability to withstand prolonged periods in transit. I also believe that from the investigators' studies to date this particular issue has not been resolved. We are, therefore, anxious to review this aspect of the regulations regarding time in transit, acknowledging the importance of safety and humane treatment but questioning the benefits of the stated number of hours.
The final point of this section is the delayed time in transit due to the poor co-ordination of transportation systems. I have no intention of getting into the whole area of the transportation system, but I think it is important to note that such a cargo as stock should be considered as a priority project. In this regard, it should receive very special attention by the transportation system. I suggest that this very simple measure would add substantially to the well-being of livestock that are in transit. Subclause (h) reads:
(h)	establishing, where animals are unloaded for rest, feed and water, the minimum number of hours that may be allowed the animals for those purposes-
Again, the emphasis is related to the minimum number of hours for rest, feed and water. Therefore, it will again be necessary to assess the specifics of the regulations. Earlier, I mentioned receiving a representation regarding inadequate care of sheep during offloading. I was surprised and somewhat shocked to learn at that time that herds of sheep arriving in my constituency from the west had been abused on offloading, with obvious injuries and, indeed, with death of the stock at times. Although it is not clear in the language of the bill that it is covered, surely the intent of the legislation would call attention to this particular problem in some demonstrable fashion. Subclause (i) reads as follows:
(i)	establishing the manner in which stalls, containers, pens and fetter-ings in aircraft, railways cars, vehicles or vessels used in the transportation of animals shall be constructed, equipped and maintained.
October 31, 1975

Again, there is no objection to regulations for construction standards, providing the intent is for the safe and humane treatment of livestock. However, there is a risk in government circles to promote uniformity for the sake of uniformity. Of course, we will be very anxious to assess the proposed standards and determine if in fact they are in keeping with the intent of the legislation.
I have dealt in some detail with clause 32 because it is a new and extremely important feature of this bill. I have also attempted to demonstrate the difficulties experienced on this side by interested parties who will be involved in assessing such a bill without a draft form of the regulations or some indication from the government or the department as to what the regulations may include. I certainly recommend to the Standing Committee on Agriculture that there be a clause calling for the establishment of an advisory committee of appropriate groups to assist in the formation of regulations which will apply to the transportation sector.
Before turning from this new and important section on transportation, it should be noted and emphasized that the legislation allows for transportation of all animals. We will obviously be interested in the minister's proposals for the transportation of animals for research purposes, the regulations which will be required for the containing and handling of a large variety of animals, the recommendations regarding the safety and well-being of the animals, as well as the protection of aircraft from unnecessary and dangerous contamination from natural wastes and infectious and contagious micro-organisms. We will also be interested in knowing the priorities which will be established for the transportation of animals, the types of facilities at airports envisaged under this legislation, and the training of personnel associated with the care of animals in transit. I would simply say, with respect to this entire section on transportation, that there are numerous areas we will pursue in the standing committee. I am sure we will have the co-operation of the minister in pursuing these particular avenues.
I want to make a few comments on those parts of the bill that extend to surveillance and increase the mechanisms to keep reportable and non-reportable contagious or infectious diseases in check. Again, I wish to indicate my general support for these measures, but as I interpret the legislation there appear to be some inconsistencies in the penalties. I seriously question whether the desired results will be obtained with some of the restrictive features. I refer to page 8 of the bill, clause 6, which reads as follows:
"9. (1) Every owner of animals and every breeder of or dealer in animals, and everyone bringing animals into Canada shall, on perceiving the appearance of any reportable disease among the animals owned by him or under his special care, give immediate notice to the nearest veterinary inspector of the Department of Agriculture of the facts discovered by him as aforesaid.
This clause implies that the average producer should have the ability to recognize on sight all of the reportable diseases defined in the act or subsequently defined by the minister. With all due respect, I seriously doubt whether the average breeder could pronounce the 26 diseases listed in the act, let alone diagnose their presence. I suggest that the present legislation is unrealistic and the associated penalty excessively severe.
Animal Contagious Diseases
Clause 6 continues:
(2) Every veterinarian in Canada shall, immediately on ascertaining that an animal has a reportable disease, give notice of the existence of the disease to the nearest veterinary inspector.
In my view, this should be more closely interrelated with the previous subclause. During the examination of miscellaneous estimates on November 28 of last year, I asked what I considered to be a very key question as it relates to the total problem of control of contagious and infectious disease. I inquired as to the communication that exists between the veterinary inspectors and the department and the practising veterinarians. The answer clearly indicated there is no line of authority in transmitting this information to the professionals in the field, the veterinarians. At that time Dr. Wells had this to say:
We are, however, developing now and we hope to have very shortly the first issue of a publication which will go forward from the health of animals branch to all practising veterinarians in the country and this will list areas in which these diseases are found.
It is not my intention at this time to list instances in which reportable diseases have been present in a district and where the practising veterinarians have had no knowledge of its existence, but I wish to emphasize in the strongest terms possible that this practice is wrong and is not in the best interests of controlling infectious diseases.
I have no difficulty in accepting the principle that this is a confidential matter between the owner and the Department of Agriculture. But surely there is an overriding principle here, and that overriding principle must be the dissemination of information rapidly and accurately to the professionals responsible for the care of animals. Medical ethnics dictate that the present practice should stop and common sense makes it clear that all practising veterinarians must be involved in the control of infectious and contagious diseases. I want to tell the minister that I will actively pursue this matter when the bill is before the standing committee.
I want, now, to turn to the area of compensation which has been alluded to by other hon. members in this debate. The principle that I believe should be embodied in the legislation should be that of replacement value. Again, I suggest that the minister give consideration to establishing a mechanism whereby there is participation by those affected in developing and updating regulations to conform with changes in the industry. The section of the bill dealing with compensation is a very important one. It is an area I have discussed on many occasions with my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), and he certainly shares the view that the market value approach is an improvement. However, I know he feels it would not be satisfactory or as equitable as compensation payments made on the basis of replacement value. If this latter approach could be adopted, particularly for dairy cattle, by using a reasonable base price figure plus an index formula dealing with breed, age, type classification and production records or potential, I know the hon. member feels there might be a much more accurate and acceptable form of compensation payment.
I know the hon. member for Elgin has met with dairy producers in Ontario and that he has in his possession proposals based on this particular theory prepared by Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 31, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
Arnold Stansell in co-operation with the joint dairy breeds organization. The Minister of Agriculture and many members will recognize Mr. Stansell as one of North America's most successful breeders of Ayrshire cattle. It is my intention and the intention of the hon. member for Elgin, when the bill is before the committee, to request that he have the opportunity of appearing as a witness to explain this proposal in detail to all members of the committee.
On November 27, 1974, the minister officiated at the opening of the Animal Diseases Research Institute and graphically described the 1952 experience with foot and mouth disease. As I indicated at the outset, for this type of debate perhaps we need this kind of experience to generate interest in the importance of this legislation. The minister described at the time the cost in terms of cattle lost, taxpayers' money spent to eradicate the disease, loss of exports of livestock and livestock products for a full year, resulting in a bill totalling approximately $900 million. That experience is a constant reminder of the necessity to have legislation that will keep this country free of serious animal disease and to eradicate those diseases that remain with us.
In light of this, during the examination of the Supplementary Estimates B, 1974-75, on November 28 of last year I made reference to the problem of Johne's disease which, to my knowledge, has affected at least four herds in my area. As part of the testimony, Dr. Wells, the veterinary director-general, Health of Animals Branch of the department, stated:
Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, all infectious and contagious diseases are reportable. However, the specific list of diseases that are in the act and listed as main diseases are these for which we have national programs such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, hog cholera, foot and mouth disease, where action is taken to eradicate the disease from the country. In the case of Johne's disease, it is an infectious and contagious disease, and therefore reportable, and if the owner wishes to have the infection cleared up, we are prepared to provide the program to that owner.
If and when the time comes that a better system of eradicating the disease comes about, and when we can clear some of the problems facing the department with respect to disease, it may be possible to move into a national program with respect to Johne's.
I want to emphasize that it is my impression that in my area this disease is highly contagious, consisting of what appears in many instances to be a virulent organism. Responses to my questions at that time indicated that the method of treatment is herd eradication, which is similar to the procedure adopted for brucellosis and tuberculosis. It seems to me that if the minister is desirous of retaining an animal health status that is the best in the world in his view, then Johne's disease should be added to the list of diseases outlined in the bill. Again I ask the minister to give serious consideration to this particular program and to see that it is pursued during the study of the bill by the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
During the same meeting, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and I raised the very serious and important question concerning income tax on moneys received for herds destroyed as a result of brucellosis, tuberculosis or Johne's disease. As the minister knows, if these herds are not replaced in the same calendar year, then the money received from the government by way of compensation is taxed. I am well aware that it is the government's intention to encourage the farmer to reinvest these sums in

establishing his herd, but in many instances this is impossible to accomplish in the calendar year. For example, the lapse of time between the slaughter of the herd and the procedures that must be followed to ensure a healthy environment, free of disease, for housing the new herd may well extend beyond the calendar year, and in many instances the replacement animal that the farmer wants, particularly in the case of dairy herds, cannot be procured during the calendar year. I know the minister is concerned about this problem, and on November 28 he indicated that he was negotiating this point with the departments of national revenue and finance. Since this is an important component of the compensation problem, I urge the minister and the government to correct this present inequity before the bill receives third reading. I know we will be anxious to pursue this point at the committee level.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that we support the importance of this piece of legislation, and I commend the minister and the department of their interest in maintaining healthy animals in Canada. But again I re-emphasize that we believe the present bill can be substantially improved and I have attempted to define some areas of concern regarding various components. We will also be making some constructive proposals during committee stage. Finally, may I say it is our intention to work in a positive manner and as rapidly as possible to implement the improvements I have suggested.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, before I make a few comments about this particular bill I should like to refer to something the minister said just before lunch when he introduced the measure. He alluded to what I am sure was the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Regina and the tremendous loss that took place back in 1952. Let me say to the minister and his staff who are here in the House of Commons at this time that his words took me back very vividly to that time. The minister spoke about the tremendous cost to this country. He did not put a dollar value on it, but somebody behind me mentioned $1 billion. It could well have been that amount. Even if it cost that much to clean up the outbreak, I would suggest that is peanuts-and I mean it-compared to the loss in inventory value to the cattle industry in Canada at that time.
In October, 1951, fed cattle and feeder cattle were selling for $35 and above-at that time the highest price by far in our history. I can remember selling feeder yearlings going at 800 pounds for $36.20 a hundredweight. That foot and mouth outbreak occurred when an immigrant whose first name was Willie came over to that Regina farm and threw out some dried-up sausage. Within a few days the value of the cattle dropped by half. Fed cattle dropped to $18 a hundred and feeder cattle to about the same. It was a great loss. I only remind the minister about this to show the tremendous importance of the Health of Animals Branch to the Canadian economy as a whole. His remarks took me back a few years and prompted these opening comments.
By and large, this is a good bill in that it updates many obsolete portions of the act. It incorporates many new developments, procedures and techniques that are now part of our total Canadian livestock industry. Perhaps the most critical thing I could say about the bill at this time is that it is two years overdue. I suggest that the minister
October 31, 1975

must, surely, take the blame for this. The tragedy is that agriculture apparently has such a low priority on the legislative ladder and the order paper of the House of Commons.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Controls are the thing now.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I want to make some opening comments on the transportation aspects covered by this bill. First of all, I should like to again commend the government and the minister for transferring the authority for the transportation of livestock from section 404 of the Criminal Code to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, under the Department of Agriculture. This is an excellent move and is long overdue.
Most of my remarks will relate to the movement of cattle, especially from western Canada, to so-called central and, occasionally, far eastern Canada. I want to refer, first of all, to a very important brief that was presented to the government back in 1973, entitled "Statement on Livestock Transportation". Even though it was presented on January 17, 1973, I think portions of it are very applicable today. Therefore, I should like to quote from it briefly.
The brief was presented to Hon. Otto Lang, then minister of justice, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It was put together by a joint committee of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Beef Improvement Association, with the assistance and co-operation of Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway. I shall read just a short part of it as follows:
Our purpose is to seek the creation of the type of federal legislation which will permit development of a more efficient and humane system for transporting livestock and specifically feeder cattle. It is our view that the Criminal Code is not the most appropriate legislative vehicle for legislation of this kind. What is required, we submit, is legislation that will control the conditions under which livestock are transported, while at the same time providing sufficient safeguards to satisfy public concern.
Later in the statement we read the following:
Our interest, therefore, is to speed the cattle to final destination as quickly as is reasonably possible and to do so requires some progressive amendment to the Criminal Code.
The statement continues:
We were well pleased with the experience in 1972, and the non-stop run from Winnipeg to Toronto and points beyond brought with it many benefits.
The total elapsed time in transit was reduced in many cases.
Because cattle were kept moving, the rail and stockyards system was less burdened with backlogs and delays.
Rail cars were tied up with one load for a shorter period of time and availability of cars was a less crucial problem.
I think that last point represents the most practical advantage of the faster runs which started back in the fall of 1972. The statement ends with four recommendations which I think are still most important and I propose to read them:
We respectfully wish to close our statement with the following recommendations.
1.	That the Minister of Agriculture be requested to establish a special committee to develop guidelines for the humane, efficient transportation of livestock.
2.	That the committee be formulated to include representatives designated by the railways, the producer organizations (i.e. Canadian Cattle-
Animal Contagious Diseases
men's Association and the Ontario Beef Improvement Association) and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.
3.	That new legislation based on these guidelines, governing the transportation of livestock, and to be administered by the Canada Department of Agriculture, be developed and introduced as soon as is practically possible.
4.	That the procedures for shipping cattle employed in 1972 be repeated in 1973.
Although these recommendations are outdated, they refer to prior runs of non-stop shipments of livestock from Winnipeg through to Toronto. The report is dated January 17, 1973, and now, almost three years later, we are just getting around to making these recommendations part of the act.
I think there are special comments on rail and truck movement of calves to Ontario which need to be made at this time. I might add that these comments are based on my personal experience of well over 25 years. During that period I have been associated with cattle sales at Walsh, in southeastern Alberta. On average during those 25 years we loaded and shipped 25 to 50 carloads-sometimes more-of calves and feeder yearlings per sale to Ontario points. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) was the auctioneer at most of those sales, so he knows very well what I am referring to now.
The greatest concern of Ontario buyers always has been the risk of death, and sickness losses. These are sometimes very expensive. At times these deaths number from 3 to more than 20 animals in a car. This represents a considerable loss. If the animals are not dying, very often the sickenss is considerable and it takes weeks and even months to get over such a loss. Our experience over the years as producers and shippers of feeder calves and yearlings would suggest the following: first, we should load only healthy animals, subject to veterinarians' visual inspection. We should watch for signs of fever, pneumonia and scours, to name only a few.
Calves should not be shipped the day they are weaned if at all possible. As a matter of fact most of them are shipped the day after they are weaned. Second, calves should be offered water before loading on to the stock cars. I think that is most important.
Third, and of the utmost importance, is the fact that the total time in transit, which includes any rest stops, should be kept to a minimum. I think what I should like to stress more than anything else about the shipment of calves from the prairies to Ontario is that the total time in transit should be kept to a minimum.
Fourth, one feeding and water stop only in Winnipeg should be necessary. This implies that a non-stop route from Winnipeg to Ontario designation points should be a reality.
Fifth, a further implication is that the old 36-hour release regulations be changed to at least 48 hours. I hope this specific item will be discussed with the cattle producers in western Canada, with the feeders and buyers from Ontario, as well as with the railway people when that decision is formulated in the regulations. It is well known that a reduction in the total time in transit means that sickness loss can be dramatically reduced. The Winnipeg-

October 31, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
Toronto non-stop run is now reasonably well accepted, but this amendment to section 31 and section 32 is needed for the final authority.
Still on the matter of transportation I wish to make a plea for a speed-up of railway modifications at Midhurst, Ontario, north of Toronto, to facilitate the transfer from railway to trucks and hence to the final destination. This, I am told, will bring about further savings in time and, of course, increased efficiency. This Midhurst decision made by the CPR sometime ago for some reason or other has seemed to have bogged down, and it was only recently that work started again. It is doubtful if it will be completed this fall so as to be availabe for the heavy run of feeder cattle which is now well under way. That heavy run of cattle traditionally amounts to something like 300,000 head every fall in modern times. Some years ago it was much higher. I suggest that the railways have a definite responsibility here in having vastly increased the livestock freight rates.
I think it is appropriate to point out here that another rate increase has now been indicated in livestock rates to be effective November 14. Since January 1 of this year, since the freeze was lifted, the cumulative increases in respect of livestock rates have reached 64.4 per cent for single-deck livestock cars and 86.9 per cent for double-deck livestock cars. This is what the increases will be when this last increase becomes effective on November 14. I think there is an obvious aside I should make. Surely the government's new restraint program should be involved in this.
I wish now to refer to an excellent editorial in the Cattlemen. This is the October issue. The editorial is headed "Railways Should Try Harder". It states:
The railways have a poor reputation for moving feeder cattle. That message came through loud and clear when we researched the West-End trucking-story for this issue.
A sample of the comments: 'The railways just don't care about the cattle business'; 'You can't talk to anybody there; they all pass the buck'; 'The railways could do a much better job.'
Cattle shippers complained about shortage of equipment and wrong allocation of cars. That has a familiar ring to observers of the grain shipping system. But behind these impressions are some examples of real hardship. Extra time in delivering cattle costs producers money. Although some changes have been made recently in Ontario, more must be made to reduce time from ranch to feedlot.
Cattle cannot be treated like bulk cargo. The railways know this. It's just amazing that both CN and CP Rail have done so little to adjust their cattle shipping systems to the demands of feeder cattle transport.
Rates cannot be an excuse for this situation. Rates on double deck 40' livestock cars from Winnipeg to Toronto have increased 49.4 per cent since last December. Rates on single deck cars moved up 43 per cent over the same period.
These figures include the extra rate increase that is coming.
Truckers have now had a taste of the business at these new rates. It's time producers received the benefits of real competition in this area.
As a further aside I might add in respect of that editorial that it seems obvious that the railways are making changes in their livestock rates without the danger of a ceiling being imposed on them, such as is the case with statutory grain rates. The result is rather obvious.
I wish to say a little more about the newer aspects of livestock transportation which is now becoming more important, such as the trucking of cattle over long distances, for instance, from the prairies and even from Brit-

ish Columbia to Ontario. There is a definite increase in this movement. Right now approximately 2,000 head a week are being trucked from the west to points in Ontario. This is the greatest volume ever handled in this way. The delivery time of from 50 to 55 hours from Alberta to Ontario is impressive indeed. That represents about a day and one-half to two days faster than shipment by rail. This again promotes the health of calves and reduced losses although the rate is higher. The rate is approximately $1 higher per loaded mile but there are advantages, especially in time saved, which more than compensate for this.
I should like to commend the truckers for their enterprise in this regard and hope that they will meet their 10 per cent objective in respect of the total cross-country haul. Before leaving the subject of transportation I should like to make a comment about what is an annual situation almost every fall. I refer to the shortages of livestock cars for shipment from west to east. This occurs every fall. I feel this could be helped by two factors. One is the shorter turn around made possible by the non-stop run by rail from Winnipeg to Toronto. The other, of course, is the competition by trucks and the faster turn around also made by the trucking industry.
Now I believe it is appropriate to make some practical comments, as a practising cattleman, about the brucellosis controversy. We have heard much about this over the last year. I should say that these are my comments as a rancher from western Canada. I will go back a few years to the time when the program started.
The vaccination program was introduced in 1950 when we had an infection rate of 8V2 per cent. By 1957 through the use of this program the rate dropped to 414 per cent. Finally by 1966 after the completion of the first general test and slaughter program the rate decreased to .02 per cent. This was quite an accomplishment.
Then the period 1968-1969 was the start of what has been called the de-emphasis of the vaccination program. In this connection I want to recall again one of the factors relating to that vaccination. We were finding out, when we were shipping out vaccinated calves, that those which were vaccinated with strain 19 used in calfhood vaccination had a tendency to be stressed far more than other calves which were not vaccinated. While we were anxious to follow the program that was laid down in co-operation with provincial and federal programs, we developed a feeling against vaccinating calves just before they were loaded into stock cars for eastern Canada, and we were relieved when this de-emphasis program came into being.
I am sure that the use of strain 19 before the calves were loaded into stock cars has contributed to increased losses and strain factors that resulted in sickness. We are now moving through the so called withdrawal symptoms of the whole brucellosis program as we shift to a final clean up. My understanding is that it is the government's intention to try to discontinue calfhood vaccination by the end of 1976 when it is assumed that the vaccine will be outlawed permanently.
It is unfortunate there has been some split in the veterinary profession over this issue. There seems to have been a division between some of the private practitioners and

October 31, 1975

some Health of Animals veterinarians. In many instances private veterinarians have supported the vaccination program in this withdrawal period and they are hoping that it will continue. One can only feel that perhaps sometimes their feelings in this regard are dictated by rather short term considerations. Also, what I think are unfair comparisons have been made with the brucellosis situation in the United States, where it is my understanding that the situation is considerably worse than here in Canada.
My own personal view is that the Health of Animals policy of test and slaughter is the right one and the only one. We have to live with that policy. We can never completely eradicate the disease by vaccination, and surely our objective must be complete eradication. I want to say that I fully support the consistent and long range policy of Health of Animals on this matter.
Now I should like to make a few comments about another subject that has made the news recently. I am referring to the disease blue tongue. The minister recently made an announcement calling for a double test of all cattle imported into Canada from the United States for the disease blue tongue. I know from personal representation that this has caused concern with some U.S. exporters of breeding stock to Canada. I know of some from the state of Montana who have been exporting excellent breeding stock to Canada for many years and who feel that it will almost put an end to that type of specialized breeding program. It will also affect the imports of U.S. feeder cattle coming to Canada, but on balance this is a very small quantity. Because of other tests required and the nuisance value of these tests, in total there is very little likelihood that the volume of feeder cattle coming into Canada will be significant.
I am assured by department officials that there is no blue tongue in Canada in either sheep or cattle, and following on newspaper reports of reactors to blue tongue in southern Saskatchewan I must say I was relieved to be informed that all of those that were found to be reactors were imported cattle from the U.S. and were detected and slaughtered. So again I say it is reassuring to note that there are no infected herds in Canada.
I am told that the decision to call for a double test was arrived at after appropriate consultations with animal health officials from Washington. Of course this is the way it should be. It was considered necessary to protect our own status and our trade avenues, not only for the protection of our own industry in Canada but to assure sheep producers in Australia and New Zealand that our trade avenues with them would be protected.
I want to make a brief comment about warble control. The warble control program in western Canada is well advanced thanks to the excellent co-operation among the provinces, the producers, and the federal government. There has been real progress in western Canada although I am sorry I cannot report about eastern Canada, but I am sure there is equal progress there. This was made possible because of the new systemic insecticides. I mention this only to call for continued support of this policy, which mostly involves the provinces, and I hope that the environmentalists here will not get any ideas against the use of this excellent insecticide.
Animal Contagious Diseases
I want to switch to another topic now which caused a great deal of concern in the House and in all of Canada early this spring. I am referring to the dead meat scandal which took place in Quebec and even overflowed into Ontario. I hope it is not a dead issue, and no pun is intended. I want to repeat what I said at the time of the scandal when it made the headlines day after day.
In those provinces that have provincial and federal meat inspection under our Health of Animals Branch-and this includes most of our provinces-I feel very strongly that it should be the responsibility of the senior government, that is, the federal government, to ensure that all meat sold for human consumption is adequately inspected by some level of government. I am saying that the federal government should co-ordinate this important function, I am not suggesting that it should do it all. Surely the ultimate authority should be that of Canada's Department of Agriculture to ensure the program is properly co-ordinated. In making this comment I hope that the regulations are not so severe as to limit or prohibit the operation of the small town or rural slaughter houses. I say this since their most severe critics are their own neighbours who have to be their customers, and such outlets would not dare sell bad meat.
In closing I want to commend the federal government for its support of our three veterinary colleges and their recent special financing. I want to draw attention in particular to the excellent work of the western veterinary college, the Saskatoon college, and especially their work on calf scours and respiratory diseases. I think they should be commended for this. I know they have had additional financing from the federal government and from the cattlemen themselves who have put up a generous amount of research money for that college. In the animal research departments of these institutions and other federal institutions I have been told there is some concern about the proper authority to deal with the increasing use for animals for public research. Ultimately, of course, it is for the good of the general public. I am not sure whether or not this bill covers this item, and if it does not perhaps it could be covered because this is a most vital part of any research.
The amendment of the agreement with France for a second maximum security staging on the Island of Miquelon is noted with considerable interest. It suggests three things. First, it suggests that exotic import interest is continuing and will likely continue, in the opinion of the government, in spite of the currently depressed national commercial cattle industry. Second, it suggests that Canada must have made a good deal with the government of France to get this service. This is not surprising in view of the value of trade that will come through that security station. Third, it suggests that there are good long range indications of continued and even improved export relations with the United States cattle interests in exotics, since it seems to me that a good many will come through our station and then go to the United States.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to say that I fully support the broad concept of the bill. I commend the minister and the Health of Animals branch for their courtesy in holding advance consultation with representatives of Canada's cattle industry, humane societies, and the railways for the background needed to bring this bill to its

October 31, 1975
Agricultural Marketing Act
present point. I sincerely hope this will continue in the development and promulgation of the regulations that will be so important in its implementation.
In 1952 I had the privilege of meeting the present Director General of Veterinary Services when he was in charge of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It has been my good fortune to maintain an excellent association with him over the years, and I hope it may continue. I look forward to having the bill in committee for examination in detail.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-21, to amend the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did I hear correctly? I wanted to make a short presentation to the House, but you say Bill C-21 has gone to the committee?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Bill C-21 has been referred to committee.


Eugene Whelan: May I ask a question on the procedure we are supposed to follow. I think it is most important that we have an opportunity-maybe I was not listening closely enough, but I had a presentation to make on the bill and I think that is the right of a minister. It is important. I waited over a year for an opportunity to make a presentation in the House. I do not think that is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In future I will pause a few minutes to let the hon. minister speak on the bill.


Eugene Whelan: I wish Your Honour had been in the chair sooner-maybe a year ago-then the bill would be law by now.


FEEDS ACT
Eugene Whelan: that Bill S-10, to amend the Feed Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Madam Speaker, I should like to introduce second reading of Bill S-10, an act to amend the Feeds Act, as passed by the Senate on March 6, 1975, and as read for the first time in the House of Commons on March 10, 1975. Since the bill was not a money bill and since there was a backlog of legislation in the House of Commons, Bill S-10 was introduced directly into the Senate and received intensive study before being passed.
The feed industry in Canada does approximately $llA billion worth of business annually, and is the sixteenth largest industry in Canada. It employs approximately 10,000 persons and produces about nine million tons of feed each year for use by livestock producers in this country.
The present Feeds Act provides for the regulation of livestock feeds as to composition, packaging, and labelling. The provisions of the act include requirements for registration of feeds prior to sale and other measures designed to prevent the marketing of feeds that are not known to be consistent with current nutritional and health standards for livestock. This form of regulation also prevents feeds from causing adulteration of meat products used for human consumption.
The last major revision of the act was made in 1960. As most hon. members realize, there have been many advances in animal nutrition since that time, as well as in manufacturing, distribution, and testing of feeds. There are many new products now used in feeds that are not included under the present definition of feed and hence are not subject to regulation. Bill S-10 extends the definition of feed to all those products and ingredients used or able to be used, in livestock feeding. However, the new definition of feed is not intended to bring veterinary drugs subject to the Food and Drugs Act, or products subject to the Pest Control Products Act, under its control.
The definition of livestock has also been expanded to include fish, because fish are now being raised by commercial farmers for human consumption.
There is increasing evidence that the public interest or that of the feed users cannot be adequately protected with respect to feed quality without regulation in some situations at the farmer or mixer level. Just as with meat quality, effective regulation must involve plant inspection and regulations applying to the manufacturing process itself. This is necessary to prevent harmful adulteration of meats, for example, which may not be easily detected in time in the finished product.
Feeds can be carriers of disease-causing organisms, such as salmonella, and act as a reservoir for reinfection of animals. Eradication of such infections cannot be accomplished by checking feed for sale only. It is important that manufacturing plants be inspected and clean-ups be done. The changes proposed in Bill S-10 will give authority to
October 31, 1975

inspect manufacturing plants and to require certain levels of sanitation.
In passing this bill, the Senate made an amendment regarding penalty clauses. Perhaps, hon. members will recall that the former minister of justice, the Hon. Otto E. Lang, reported to the House of Commons on March 27, 1975, that in his opinion this amendment was inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I am happy that this opinion was expressed because it is important that all legislation be consistent with the provisions of the Bill of Rights. I would ask that this amendment be dealt with by the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons when this bill comes before it.
I note that there was a good deal of discussion about pet foods in the Senate debates on the bill. I would simply say that pet foods have not been named as such in this bill. It will be noted that feeds for any species of livestock have not been named either. The definition of livestock provides the opportunity for pet foods to be brought under the act.
I may say, in conclusion, that the proposed changes have been supported by the various sectors of the feed industry affected by this act. My department held extensive discussions with trade, universities, colleges, and producer groups during the drafting of this bill, and I can report that those sectors directly affected are in agreement with the bill as originally submitted to the Senate.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my comments on the bill will be brief. The bill is short, and basically we support its contents. I understand that the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association which represents some 400 feed manufacturers transacting business to the approximate value of $1.5 million, supports and welcomes this bill. Basically this amending bill is designed to protect livestock producers and consequently consumers of livestock. Technological changes of the past ten years have made it necessary to introduce these amendments, to cover some of the chemical substances and exotic matters fed to livestock.
I note that the definition of livestock has been widened to include fish, rabbits, and mink, and such other creatures as may be designated by order in council or regulation. One wonders why pets such as cats and dogs were not included in the regulations. Their inclusion was suggested when the matter was debated in the Senate. I understand that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is reluctant to see pets included in the definition, as it is felt that it would take considerable manpower and staff to supervise the pet food industry. I ask the minister to consider amending the bill in order to include pet foods under the regulations. It is important to ensure the high quality of pet foods fed to pets in this country, in order to avoid health hazards to our population.
I note, from reading the debates of the other place, that the Senate spent some time considering the penalty provisions. I will not comment on these at this time, but we reserve our right to consider them in committee. I do not anticipate that this bill will take too much time in committee.
Environmental Contaminants Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, this bill, which is to update the provisions of the Feeds Act, is a necessary one and we gladly give it our support at this stage. I am interested of course, in the reference to the Senate's insertion of certain penalty clauses. There may be some question about those provisions in the light of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I appreciate the point the minister made. I suggest the standing committee to which the bill is to be referred should look at these provisions. It seems to me that the point may come at which we may need to do something more than just look if any provisions of this bill run counter to the Canadian Bill of Rights. It seems to me that there ought to be a firm ruling on that point.


Eugene Whelan: That was put in by the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was being polite and not making any reference to the Senate as such. Since this has been done, I suggest that we may need to call on the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to give his opinion on the bill or perhaps on the Chair to give a ruling.


Mr. Paproski:: Why are you supporting it, then?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 24, consideration of Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Clark:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions concerning the minister, her representatives, and myself, and I understand that the parliamentary secretary is to move an amendment to motion No. 3 appearing in my name. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order that we may proceed to the consideration of the motion in my name, and to the withdrawal of my motion, if that is necessary.


Mr. Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Madam Speaker, we propose to amend the hon. gentleman's amendment by striking out all the words following the word "out" and substituting therefor the following-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, should you not first put the motion, then the amendment?


George Baker: I merely intended to indicate that we wish to amend motion No. 3.

October 31, 1975
Environmental Contaminants Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) moves:
That Bill C-25, an act to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be amended in subclause 4(6) by striking out line 4 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"or imported during that year; and, where he has reason to believe that such a compound or quantity constitutes a danger to human health or the environment, he shall notify the Minister of the nature of that danger.".


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I move that motion No. 3 be amended by striking out all the words following the word "out" and substituting the following therefor:
"lines 3 and 4 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor: "compound, of the quantity manufactured or imported during that year and of any information in his possession respecting any danger to human health or the environment posed by the compound".


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak briefly, to say that the concern that had arisen was that there was no requirement for a manufacturer who was introducing a new quantity or new compound, and who knew that there might be some danger to the environment, to report his knowledge of that danger to the department. The original motion in my name was designed to impose the requirement to report. The amending language introduced by the parliamentary secretary is more specific and effective than mine, and we are happy to accept the motion as amended.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Clark), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House will now consider motion No. 4. Mr. Woolliams, for Mr. Brisco, moves:
That Bill C-25, an act to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be amended in subclause 5(1) by striking out line 17 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"reasonably practicable but no later than fifteen days after the said Ministers are so satisfied to consult with". [DOT]


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I might just speak briefly in the absence of my colleague who has to be in British Columbia on constituency business today.
This section of the bill relates to a requirement on the part of the government to consult with other provinces or other departments or agencies before taking action. We were concerned in committee and are concerned now that the language of the bill as it emerged from committee might raise the danger of delay. The minister might conceivably use the requirement to consult to avoid bringing the machinery of the bill into play.
What we are proposing here, and I understand that this proposal is acceptable to the government, is that a time limit be established during which time consultation must begin with the provinces or other departments or agencies.

In other words, if this amendment is accepted, that kind of consultation must begin within 15 days. There is no danger of delay by that means.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Brisco) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 5.


Charles Joseph Clark: That Bill C-25, an act to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be amended in subclause 5(3) by striking out line 18 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Any person, except his cause of objection is shown to be unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious"
He said: Madam Speaker, there is a principle involved here that has to do with who can participate in bringing into play the provisions set out regarding environmental contaminants in the Canadian environment. There is a general principle that it is going to be important to have as broad a participation as is possible in questions relating to possible contamination of the Canadian environment. The disagreement has to do with the legal interpretation of a word. The word that appears in the bill limits the right to participate to those persons who have an interest.
Our concern is that the word interest is subject to very narrow and specific legal definition, such as would mean only a legal interest, excluding two categories of people we believe should not be excluded. First, it would exclude that very large although perhaps undefinable portion of the Canadian public which can be called the environmental public, those Canadians worried about environmental questions. They are often very well-informed about the potential dangers to the environment that can arise from specific actions. Our concern is that this language would not allow a member or an organization in the group broadly called the environmental public to engage in proceedings under this bill unless they had a specific legal interest that was being affected. We believe that is too narrow.
In our view this also excludes the possible participation of communities or individuals who might be affected later by a case similar to the one that would now be under consideration by mechanisms established in this bill. The concern is simply that the language of the bill is susceptible to narrow definition in a way which would exclude the participation of people who should have a right to participate in matters concerning the Canadian environment.
There is a danger which we recognize. If the door is open to participation by anyone, there could be a number of frivolous persons wasting the time and money of the taxpayer, and wasting the time of the agencies established here. For that reason we have placed in the amendment the right to exclude the participation of anyone whose reason for wanting to participate can be described as frivolous, vexatious, or as unreasonable behaviour. That is the purpose of the amendment. It speaks not simply to the mechanism of this bill but to the much broader public question of who has a right to participate in proceedings relating to the preservation of the Canadian environment. We are concerned that the bill as it stands limits that right to participate to people with a narrow, legal interest. We want it broadened. We believe this amendment will
October 31, 1975

achieve that broadening without inviting a flood of frivolous participation.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, we recognize the hon. member's point. It is a matter of opinion. We cannot accept the amendment.
There are two types of interested persons, those with a legal interest, and those whose interest is a concern, to be decided by the minister. Those persons covered under subclause 5(3) have a particular legal interest. Subclause 5(3) should be read with subclause 6(2) which provides that the board of review shall hear the person filing the notice of objection and any other interested or knowledgeable person. "Any concerned person" means that the minister will have to appoint a board at great public expense, even if it is clearly not justified. However, as the minister is more likely to be criticized for not appointing a board than for doing so, she will tend to appoint one on notice of receiving an objection, even if it appears frivolous.
Who is to say that a person's objection is unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious? This could lead to serious argument. To some degree it would restrict the rights of the public. Therefore our position is that we cannot accept the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Clark) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House will now proceed to the cooperation of motion No. 6.


Charles Joseph Clark: That Bill C-25, an Act to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be amended in subclause 6(1) by striking out line 33 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"persons representative of industrial and non-industrial interests and
whose chairman shall not be a member of the Public Service of
Canada; and shall refer the proposed order'*.
Environmental Contaminants Act
He said: Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief in pointing out the reasons behind the amendment introduced in the name of my colleague, who is unavoidably away on parliamentary business. Again the matter deals not simply with the particular practice in the bill but also with a principle of much broader application having to do with the representative nature of the board established under government legislation. What we are dealing with here is an environmental contaminants board of review having the powers set out in the bill. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that this board is a representative board, that it will not be captive either to a particular point of view, whether industrial or anti-industrial, or to a bureaucracy that might be less sympathetic than it should be to some of the representations that will be made to the board.
We believe that the important principle of ensuring an adequate public hearing has two elements. First of all, all those individuals or groups who have something important to say should have the right to have it said. Secondly, the board should be given sufficient breadth and fairness that all reasonable points of view also receive a fair hearing. We think it is important to build this principle into the legislation.
We believe the best way to do that is to add the amendment in the name of my colleague, and this would have two effects. First, it would ensure that the board which deals with questions often of conflict between the industrial and non-industrial sectors of Canadian society reflects both sectors as a matter of statute. Secondly, we suggest that the chairman of the board be a person whose non-partisanship and independence are beyond question.
Since the Public Service of Canada, as an enforcing agency, is often regarded as something other than independent from time to time in circumstances of this kind, we think it important, in the interests of guaranteeing independence, that at all times the chairmen of boards of this kind come from outside the Public Service of Canada.
I would point out to the House that this is not a new procedure; it is a procedure accepted by the House by way of amendment moved by this party when dealing with the ocean dumping bill. Perhaps it has particular relevance to environmental questions where the government, because it plays a regulatory role, is not in a position to be regarded as as independent as it might be in other circumstances. It is an important practice to continue to bring into our law, a practice that is already in the law in the ocean dumping legislation. I hope it is one that the House will accept at this time.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that in selecting the people who will be on whatever board is appointed, the very points the hon. gentleman has made will be taken into account. If they are not taken into account, it probably would not be a very representative board.
There are problems with some of the matters that could be brought before the board. It is possible that we would need experts to evaluate danger. The composition of the
8766

October 31, 1975
Environmental Contaminants Act
committees must reflect the complexities and nature of specific substances. So, as I say, the members of the board would need some flexibility, and this is why we cannot accept the amendment proposed at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Wenman) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motions Nos. 7 and 8 will be grouped for debate, and division if required.
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw) for Mr. Brisco moved:
That Bill C-25, an act to protect human nealth and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be amended in subclause 7(1) by striking out line 4 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"may, by order wherein is the reason therefor, published in the
Canada Gazette, add to the schedule the sub-H
And:
That Bill C-25, an act to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be amended in subclause 7(7) by striking out line 16 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"no longer necessary, he may, by order wherein is the reason therefor,
published in the Canada Gazette,"


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, again the principle involved here has to do with making the Canada Gazette as informative as possible. I hesitate to bring up a revolutionary principle like this late on a Friday afternoon, but this is what we are trying to do with this amendment.
I and my colleagues would have immensely preferred to have required the minister to publish much more broadly than just in the Canada Gazette, which no one but the eccentric reads, any changes to the schedule, whether additions or deletions, relative to substances that might be dangerous in the Canadian environment.
We lost that amendment in committee and there is no question that we will lose it again, but what I want to do now, and what I hope the House will seriously consider in the interests of having a Canadian public informed on environmental matters, is to have the minister tell us why she is adding a new substance to the list of dangerous substances. More important, when she takes a substance

off the list and thus takes it out of the category of substances to which the act applies, she must tell the Canadian people why the danger has passed and why she is taking the substance off the list. I think this is an important principle in terms of ensuring not only the better working of the bill but that fuller information is given the Canadian public in connection with environmental matters.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman has some good ideas but we feel that the Canada Gazette is not the place to start. It just simply is not done. Some of this information might be part of a major report, for example. Therefore we would have to vote against this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of motion No. 7 please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 (Mr. Brisco) negatived.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, as a result of conversation that I had with the Minister, and some of the developments that ensued from that conversation, I request the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the amendment appearing as motion No. 9 in my name.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that motion No. 9 be withdrawn from the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Clark) withdrawn.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: With leave, now.
October 31, 1975


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-25 be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. [English]


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) will indulge me for just one minute. During the course of the proceedings at the report stage there were a number of amendments referred to as having been seconded by Mr. Baker. I want to make it clear for the sake of the parliamentary secretary that the Baker therein referred to is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and not the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed with the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is motion No. 8 in the
name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is motion No. 34 in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is motion No. 4 in the
name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is motion No. 24 in the name of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is motion No. 37 in the name of the hon. member for Trinity (Mrs. Nicholson) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Sea Coast Conservation Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is motion No. 38 in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, to save time I think there is an agreement that we proceed to order no. 53.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA SEA COAST CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie) moved: that Bill C-253, to provide for the establishment of a Canada Sea Coast Conservation Authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill which is entitled "An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada Sea Coast Conservation Authority" is to preserve for all Canadians the seacoasts of this country on the east, the west, and perhaps even in the Arctic, although at the moment that is not a pressing need.
The object is to protect the beauty of our coastlines and to oversee the conservation for public recreational use of those seacoasts of Canada that are accessible to the general public. In carrying out this objective I feel it is totally essential that a number of things be done.
First, we should carry out an inventory of the seacoasts to determine which are relatively easily accessible to the public, and which have recrational potential. We must determine the cost involved in either acquiring the areas outright or protecting the environment of these desirable seacoast areas.
When I refer to protecting the environment I mean that where there is agricultural land in use we should pay the owner of that land to maintain his land in its present state. If a fisherman is farming as well as fishing we should pay him to leave the land in its existing state instead of selling his plots to somebody who might want to put up poorly designed cottages.
The authority I envisage would be required to collaborate with not only the provinces but, if there were provincial consent, with the municipalities in such provinces. To make the thing work in the way it must if it is to be successful we would require very major citizen involvement through the various local associations such as historical societies, conservation associations, and other local groups who would join the effort to keep these beautiful areas beautiful. The bill allows for a wide variety of collaboration with governments and groups of private citizens.
29956-3Vi

October 31, 1975
Sea Coast Conservation Authority
As the bill indicates, it would be useful for such a conservation authority to take over all existing federal Crown sea coast lands. The authority should also be empowered, if it can work out agreement with provincial governments, to take over the provincial Crown sea coast areas. As I suggested earlier, the authority would be albe to enter into agreements with the municipalities concerned, with provincial consent, to assure the existence of whatever local regulations and by-laws are necessary for the kind of environmental and aesthetic protection we seek.
If we do not have the support of the local public in something like this the thing just will not work. All of us who have travelled to the coasts of Canada, and perhaps even more so to the coasts of the United States, will realize what can happen when there is a total lack of planning and a disregard for the original beauty of the sea coast areas. In this case human greed takes over. Private developers and other groups determine what kind of landscape future generations will face, and that is a pretty miserable and awful prospect. This is the situation now being faced by most citizens in the United States along the east coast, and I suspect along the west coast as well, although I have not visited there. I do not want to see the same thing happen here in Canada.
We still have huge areas of coastline that are relatively unspoiled. We have many thousands of miles of coastline that have retained their beauty, and this bill provides one way by which we can prevent the spoilation of what is unquestionably one of our most important heritages.
I hope no one is under the impression from a first glance at the bill that it is designed to create tourist preserves for the benefit of central Canadian tourists to the disadvantage of the local inhabitants of the sea coast areas. To the contrary, it is designed to prevent our sea coast lands falling into the hands of fast-buck operators from central Canada, the United States, and sometimes from outside North America, to the detriment primarily of the local inhabitants, and to the detriment in the long-term of all Canadians who value the beauty of our seascapes.
While the beaches themselves are and always will be public, it is the area immediately behind these beaches with which we must concern ourselves because they are now threatened in many parts of Canada with the same kind of unplanned and unco-ordinated construction which afflicts the road approaches to practically every town and city in North America.
Whether it is thoughtlessly located or designed commercial building, a third-hand house trailer, or a school bus converted to a seasonal or permanent dwelling or even, in some cases, an attractive summer cottage, it all will contribute to the spoilation or our coastal areas if we do not have better control than we have had up until now.
I said earlier that I envisage a situation whereby we would be paying people to leave land in its existing or original state. It would be a situation in which we would indemnify farmers and fishermen adequately in a way that would make it well worth their while to agree to preserve their land in the form in which it is now providing them a living. It is all very well to suggest that we would not prevent anyone making money through the sale of his land

to someone who wishes to build cottages. Individuals have and will continue to have a right to sell land for these purposes, but, in an area of particular scenic beauty we should be prepared to put up the necessary money to make it worthwhile for the owners to preserve the area for future generations rather than sell out to individuals who obviously will benefit from beautiful cottage locations.
If we continue to let this happen in all the beautiful areas of Canada there will not be anything left for the public to enjoy. Unfortunately many of the most picturesque areas have already reached the point where it would be very expensive to back-track and to try to put things where they were 10 or 15 years ago before this movement to our sea coasts really began to take hold. I am encouraged now by the attitude of Canadians toward the preservation of our past.
Certainly when it comes to a public appreciation of the furniture or our past, of the 18th and 19th century produce of Canadian craftsmen, particularly in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario, there is major public interest. Our museums are promoting this as well as our historical societies, and the historical societies are doing it as well with respect to our early architectural forms. With the exception of a few areas in the centres of Montreal, Quebec City, now Ottawa and a few other areas like Kingston, our governments have not been encouraging the preservation of our architectural heritage. These architectural forms took many generations to evolve and were based on a fantastic amount of thought.
One needs only to be in one of these older homes for a while to realize how much more thought went into them than into any of the homes being built today. While we have been spending all this money preserving the architecture in the centres or our cities we have been ignoring the early architecture of many parts or our sea coast area which is extremely typical of that part of Canada, and which is almost unique in the world because of the combination of the architecture and the building products that were available at that time.
Certain combinations of architecture and material are unique to the east coasts of Canada and the United States. We have done absolutely nothing to encourage the preservation of this. We should be encouraging the use of the architectural forms, which would not cost more, and would blend with the landscape. Yet, we have done nothing in this regard.
The government should consider granting a lower interest rate to encourage people to build the kind of houses which, for example, in Quebec are traditional to a given landscape, and which on the sea coast of Nova Scotia blend into the scenery. Although this would not represent a great expense to the taxpayers it would preserve for future generations a form of scenery which is unique to our country. My God, Madam Speaker, it seems that wherever one goes in this country one sees the same kind of construction, the same kind of houses from Montreal to Vancouver. Where we have uniqueness why should we not provide some encouragement?
This bill provides for collaboration with CMHC and Heritage Canada to evolve programs designed to encourage the use of these original forms of building and material, as well as the colours which characterize these coasts. This
October 31, 1975

would not in the least restrict some of the newest developments in architecture which, because a great deal of thought has been put into them, have evolved forms of buildings which do integrate well with seascapes.
There is no need for anyone to feel in respect of this bill that they would not be allowed to build summer cottages. That would not be the case. I have often repeated that one of the tragedies in this country is that CMHC has never used its power as a lender to require across Canada, wherever it lends money, the kind of planning which involves not only construction but green space, architecture, aesthetics and land use, the kind of planning that maximizes the use of all available technology and knowledge.
We have had the ability to build useful suburbs since the Second World War, and yet most of our suburbs do not and will not stand the test of time. Sure the houses are well built, but the context in which these houses are built is a poorly designed one. There are no pedestrian or bike paths, there are not enough green spaces.
We could have done everything far better with the technology that was available had CMHC imposed the ideas they had. Deliberately government after government did not give CMHC that kind of power. Successive governments felt that it was a constitutional infringement on the powers of the provinces. It has been my view, and still is, that we should use the leverage instruments we have with CMHC to push provinces and municipalities into doing the things which will assure for future generations the kind of living environment which they deserve. We have all the physical assets in terms of landscape beauty that any country could wish for, and yet we are not taking advantage of them. We have the people in this country who are capable of telling us how to do it. Let us give them an opportunity to do it.
I believe that the bill before us will achieve this aim. I know it has found sympathy among officials in two or three government departments, and I hope that hon. members here will see fit to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that we can put additional pressure on the government to bring forward a bill similar to this which would provide us with the means to achieve what I hope hon. members will agree is a necessary objective.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to commend the hon. member for bringing forth a bill of this nature the purpose of which is found in one of the words of the title of the bill, namely, conservation, and I am delighted to see that really he is a Conservative at heart-


Some hon. Members:: No, conservationist!


Walter David Baker: -because there can be no more important thing for us to consider than the importance of preserving all kinds of things in this country, preserving a reasonable economic system, preserving values, and preserving natural resources. But, perhaps more important, we should be preserving the quality of life, and I think that is perhaps what the hon. member intends by this bill.
Sea Coast Conservation Authority
The hon. member mentioned the fact that there seems to be a difficulty in Canada in this kind of preservation in that quite often these things are sacrificed on the altar of profit. I think that he is right to a great extent, that perhaps we had leaned in the direction of sacrificing everything on the altar of profit. However, I would not want to stand in this chamber, representing the interests that I do, and say I am opposed to the operation of the profit motive in our society. Indeed it is the reasonable and enlightened operation of the profit motive that has built this country.
On the other hand the job of legislators, I think, is to find the balance somewhere between the legitimate operation of the profit motive in the business life of the country and the protection of the public interest. That, I think, would be one of the objects of the authority, not to interfere wilfully with the rights of Canadians to pursue what has been traditionally given to us by our heritage-that is the right to own and develop property-but to temper that right in some way with an obligation that is growing, even in the field of private property, the obligation to consider the larger public interest.
This is the difficulty that faces municipalities when they zone property, restricting the right of people to deal in property; it is the right that comes to play before planning boards and commissions of provinces, so they can in fact accomplish within their sphere what is the object of this bill, namely, the preservation and conservation of Canada's sea coast.
The concept of the bill is not new, it has been with us for some time, and I hope I can be forgiven if I refer, in support of this bill, to the excellent work being done in this province by the conservation authorities of Ontario which are analogous in object and intent to what, as I gather from the hon. member's remarks, he would consider for the sea coasts, of Canada.
The Ontario conservation authorities are in fact now engaged in the development of parks for public use, for the travelling public, and for the public who want to go there for rest and relaxation to get away from the hurly burly of life, and in the preservation of the great forest areas and the development of the banks of the rivers. They are involved as well in assuming the title to property for access to the banks of our rivers, lakes and streams, just as I would imagine the hon. member would like his authority to have authority to deal with these in the case of our sea coasts.
The hon. member mentioned the preservation of our past in terms of retaining for the future historical buildings and places. That has been the job of this kind of authority, in all parts of Canada and the best instance within the national capital is the work of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority at Manotick in their preservation of the Watson Mill and the Dickinson House. I had the privilege of being there for the opening of that institution and I think all hon. members should go there and visit it. I think they would be quite moved by the work of preservation that has been done.
All too often our sea coasts, our river banks, the centres of our towns, the concession roads of our townships where there are things worth preserving in the urban and rural setting, are set aside because we have been too busy to stop

October 31, 1975
Sea Coast Conservation Authority a while and look to see how important these things are to the preservation of our heritage. We have been too concerned with what is ahead rather than looking to the foundation stones upon which our society was built. It is in that sense I think that the hon. member has raised the matter.
The hon. member spoke about the work of historical societies, and I am sure this would fall within the objectives of this bill. I see he is nodding his head in agreement.
I am to have the honour of attending the unveiling ceremony of a historical plaque commemorating the forwarding trade on the St. Lawrence River erected through the auspices of the Grenville Historical Society. In every part of my constituency there is an active group of people willing and able to ensure that the heritage of our past is not forgotten. I think there could be co-operation between groups of that sort and the kind of authority that the hon. member has proposed.
It would not be the first time for the federal government to be involved in such things. The federal government works actively on the preservation of historical places, and that is commendable. The work should be supported in this House and by all members promoting such things within their constituencies.
Fort Wellington at Prescott is in my constituency, and I have always been grateful for the minister's co-operation with the local people in that undertaking. The Department of Transport has co-operated with the local historical society in the preservation of the locks on the Rideau Canal at Merivale.
The National Capital Commission is another example of co-operation. The entire matter is under study by a committee of this House and it is not being treated on any partisan political level. We all hope that machinery will be developed for the consultation between the national government and the local authorities which is so valuable to that committee. It has the grave responsibility for the very things which are the object of this bill as they refer to the sea coasts of Canada.
I am concerned that the economic difficulties which face us in this country mean that projects important in our history and in the spiritual sense and conservation sense will have to be abandoned or delayed. The blame lies with the government for failing to control inflation. As a result, commendable projects such as suggested by the hon. member must be put aside.
In the House yesterday the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) asked members on all sides not to call for programs that needed extra funding because the government intends to cut back, to slice the fat off the estimates by curbing the size of the public service. Many worth-while projects will be set aside as a result, and perhaps this is one of them.
For the last five years in this country we have been tempted to live beyond our means, and now the government says that many of these worthy projects will fall by the wayside. In face of what the President of the Treasury Board said yesterday about cutting back, I do not see how we can honestly support the creation of another bureaucra-
[Mr: Baker (Grenville-Carleton).]
cy such as would be required to carry out the objects of this bill. I think there is general agreement on all sides of the House that the intention of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) for the preservation of those things precious to us is commendable, but surely we cannot support another bureaucracy.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate having some time this afternoon to comment on this bill. I congratulate the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) for his good work, and my friend across the way for his attitude.
As a member of the Standing Committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I am interested in this subject, and I have also done research work on the environment as it affects many of the points the hon. member raised. I think all members in the House would support the objectives set out in the bill, mainly the preservation of our sea coast. There may be some difference in approach to these objectives, however. One question is whether the hon. member would want to establish a new authority or use existing authorities and government agencies. At this time of restraints perhaps we should opt for the latter. I hope the hon. member for Laprairie understands that I am not in any way questioning his objectives or viewpoint when I say that there could be cheaper and perhaps more effective ways of accomplishing this.
I am rather concerned about the constitutionality of what is being proposed, but of course I am not a constitutional lawyer. I understand that the management and sale of public lands is in the hands of the provinces, and I agree with the previous speaker that if the provinces owning coastal waters have conservation authorities already, perhaps it would be best to add to their funding in order to accomplish the things that are desired. In Ontario, conservation authorities are involved with municipal councils not only on an input basis but also in the financing of the authority. It seems that in some provinces we already have certain bodies which combine the provincial and municipal arms of government. Perhaps some of the objects set out by the hon. member can be handled that way.
We should not overlook the work of Canada's historical societies. In my riding there is a tremendous new awareness of our historical heritage and many people are involved in identifying and recording matters of historical interest. I, too, spend much time in this way. I should mention Heritage Canada. I am impressed by some of the work they have done in identifying historical areas which are of National significance, and in promoting public awareness.
I think we should be particularly proud of the job that Parks Canada has done. Parks Canada is a well established government agency and has done many of the things about which the hon. member talked. Probably in the past five or six years we have established more new parks in Canada than were established in the previous 50. At least nine parks are coastal in nature. They have been primarily established for the purpose of preserving coastal zones for conservation and recreation purposes.
October 31, 1975

The shoreline protected by these parks is approximately 400 miles long. We have, for example, Pacific Rim National Park, with approximately 70 miles of coastline proposed for inclusion; Auyuittuq, which takes up 112 miles of the Baffin Island coastline. I suggest that there we have some of the most precious coastline left in Canada. In addition, Prince Edward Island parks account for 30 miles, Fundy National Park for 11 miles, Kouchibouguac for 18 miles, Cape Breton Highlands for 11 miles, Forillon for 22 miles, Gros Morne for 70 miles and Terra Nova for 56 miles. I placed these figures on record to indicate the extent to which Parks Canada has established parks in coastal areas. Of course the primary purpose for which the parks were established was that of preserving the coast.
It is also interesting to note the action taken by a number of provinces with jurisdiction over coastal areas. They have ensured that their coastal land stays within Canadian ownership and is not available for sale to non-Canadians who might perhaps develop it for uses not compatible with the aims set out by the hon. member for Laprairie.
I am interested in most of the aims set out by the hon. member, and I am especially interested in preserving many buildings around the sea coast as these obviously are among the oldest in Canada and, architecturally, are some of the most precious in Canada. They should be preserved if possible.
As the hon. member suggested, we must ask who is to pay for these properties to ensure that they will never be sold or used for any purpose except that of history? Once a building or historical site is identified, if it is important to Canadians it ought to be preserved and maintained by the use of already existing agencies. I suggest that the federal government can help in this regard by providing funds on the condition that the aims set out by the hon. member are met. I think the hon. member's aims are worth pursuing.
I spoke for a few minutes this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for his work on the bill, to say that I agree with its objects, but to suggest that it is not necessary to refer the bill to committee for consideration, as what the hon. member has in mind can be accomplished by agencies already in place.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) for this bill. If ever any kind of bill justifies the retention of private members' hour, it is this kind of bill. It is a good bill, embodying sound principles. As its mover is a government supporter one would expect the bill to commend itself to the government, even though the bill commends itself to the House. But being cautious, the government will allow few private members' bills to be read the second time. I suppose that is understandable, as such caution is a safeguard against badly drafted legislation and the possibility that badly drafted bills will become law. Yet the principle of referring the subject matter of a bill like this to committee for study is commendable and should receive the favourable consideration of the House.
I was interested to note that three hon. members representing land locked constituencies, namely, the hon. member for Laprairie, the sponsor, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and the hon. member for
Sea Coast Conservation Authority Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne), spoke in favour of preserving the great heritage of Canada's massive coastline, and rightly so. Often people who live near the sea do not appreciate the sea but tend to take its benefits for granted.
The coasts of Canada are a great heritage. The Newfoundland coastline is over 6,000 miles long. Until fairly recently there were 1,300 towns and villages along that massive coastline. I am sorry to say that their number has been reduced, because of the declining inshore fishery and other economic factors favouring centralization, to about 900. Nevertheless, Newfoundland has a magnificent coastline, with its great bays, beautiful fjords, magnificent coastal panoramas, and bird sanctuaries where one will find nesting many of the great sea birds of the world.
The great danger to our coasts, both in the east and the west, and in the Arctic, comes not from the intrusion of man, not from the commercial exploitation of resources. In a sense the chief enemy is the sea itself, the sea which is rapidly becoming polluted. We remember only too well the accident of the tanker Arrow and the consequences of that accident.
Hardly a day goes by without some oil slick being washed up on some shore somewhere in Canada. Where does the oil originate? It comes from the many ships at sea which disobey maritime laws and dump ballast, bunker fuel, etc. at night when detection is almost impossible. The oil is washed ashore as an oil slick and does irreparable damage to the environment. We have not as yet devised technology to clean up this kind of pollution, especially in Canada where the climate is cold. The colder it gets, the more difficult it is for this kind of oil pollution to break down and disappear into the environment. It is a very serious threat. The further north you get, the more complicated and serious it becomes.
We are probably on the eve of another disaster where somewhere at sea a tanker will run ashore, or an oil well that has been sunk and tapped will start to leak. This happened off the coast of California in the Santa Barbara area with disastrous results. It also happened in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Florida. It is a great danger.
One of the things I like about this bill is that it would put into place in Canada an authority which could provide contingency plans which could be brought into force in the event of such a disaster. Imagine the consequences of an accident in the Gulf or the Bay of Fundy on the magnificent beaches of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick. Think of the damage which could be done to these beautiful beaches, some of the finest in the world. It makes us wonder why we do not have such an authority already.
I believe that the hon. member has brought forward a good idea. It is a good bill. The subject matter would provide a standing committee of the House with the necessary vehicle to look into these questions and make recommendations to the government as to the feasibility of putting into place such an authority as is called for in this bill.
With regard to the preservation of some of the architecture on the east and west coasts of Canada, this bill may not meet that kind of situation. The hon. member for
r

October 31, 1975
Sea Coast Conservation Authority
Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) referred to the great work of historical societies, Heritage Canada, and Parks Canada. I certainly agree they are doing tremendous work in preserving our architectural heritage.
The beaches of Canada belong to all of us. We have an obligation to ensure that they are protected from the kind of pollution which is perhaps most difficult to control, that which comes from without. I refer to tankers that are allowed to operate along our coastlines and in our territorial waters without proper navigational aids, such as was the case with the tanker Arrow. We can pass all the laws to govern pollution that we wish, but it will not prevent these tramp tankers which fly flags of convenience from traversing our coastlines, running the risk of going aground and dumping their cargoes. They not only do irreparable damage to our beaches, but to the fisheries and marine life which find sanctuary within them. This bothers and frightens me.
I love the sea. I was born on the east coast of Canada. I was raised with the sea in my blood. To walk on the clean, wholesome beaches of eastern Canada is a tremendous exercise, a tremendous advantage. I hope that we as a parliament will take steps to put into place some kind of authority, perhaps not exactly as envisaged in the hon. member's bill, but at least set up some kind of authority to preserve this great resource, protecting it from the polluters of this world and ensuring that the quaint villages that are found, especially on the east coast of Canada, are preserved for generations to come. I hope the House will allow the subject matter of the hon. member's bill to go to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise for less than a minute. I should like to join with all others who have spoken in commending the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) for introducing this bill. I am sure that all who have been here during this hour feel it has been a most worthwhile discussion.
The other comment I wish to make is that there seems to be general agreement that the subject matter of the bill ought to be referred to the standing committee. I should like to make it unanimous. I suggest that a way be found to do that before this private members' hour concludes.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to what my friend has said. I hope there will be unanimous consent within the House to
do that. I can certainly say for the Official Opposition that there would be unanimous consent to refer the subject matter of the bill to the standing committee. On the same point of order and alluding to what the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has said, we should consider the importance of the subject matter of private bills generally and consider a procedure by which the subject matter of more of these bills can be referred to committees of the House for consideration.


Ian Watson: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. If we could have unanimous consent I would move that the subject matter of Bill C-53 be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member has already moved second reading. This would require unanimous consent.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, while I certainly agree with the points expressed, I think we are asking something of the House and the minister without him knowing exactly what is going on at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where are the ministers?


Crawford Douglas: There are some ministers here, but not the minister responsible. We are asking him to accept something without any indication from him or his parliamentary secretary as to whether they agree to it. While the subject matter is certainly one that deserves consideration-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: You just killed it.


Crawford Douglas: I am sorry, but I think we are talking about a situation and we have no right to take advantage.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 3, 1975