1976-05-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has given the Chair notice of a question of privilege and also advised the Chair that there seems to be some disposition in the House that the question of privilege is of such a nature that it ought to be taken forthwith.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues with respect to this matter. I regret very much that it is necessary to deal with this question on a day set aside for the discussion of pollution and its effects on native people. Therefore, I shall be very brief with respect to this matter.
Mr. Auguste Choquette is quoted as saying before an open court and I quote:
-if everyone who had ever taken or given $600 or $700 bribes in their life were arrested, 50 per cent of the MP's would no longer be sitting.
He also said:
I know it because I was an MP for five years.
Clearly, he means MP's performing as members of parliament.
The source of these remarks and the wide distribution they have been given forces our attention. An institution as venal and corrupted as Mr. Choquette asserts this parliament to be would have no right to respect from the Canadian people. If true, the remarks must be acted upon and the historical penalties exacted; if they are false, a public declaration by Mr. Choquette must be made withdrawing the slanderous accusations against half the members sitting here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the remarks are almost certainly a question of privilege. Standing Order 76 and Beauchesne citations 434, 435 and 108(5) deal directly with bribery. The last citation calls the offering of a bribe "an insult not only to the member himself, but to the House"; and the acceptance of a bribe has always been "a grave offence, which has been visited by the severest punishments". On page 138 of May's 18th edition, the penalty described is imprisonment or expulsion from the House.
Acceptance of a bribe is a serious form of corruption and Beauchesne 111(h) states that "imputations against members of corruption in the execution of their duties" is a breach of privilege. Citation 110, in describing "high violations" against the House, provides:
The same rule applies to a charge against a member for conduct which renders him unworthy to sit in Parliament and to criticize the House for not expelling him.
So gross an accusation, Mr. Speaker, must surely be justified with facts, or apologized for at the bar of the Hoilse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It seems to me important that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections examine Mr. Choquette and establish the facts for the sake of the reputation of parliament and all its members. I therefore move:
That the accusation that a substantial proportion of the members of the House of Commons have been in receipt of bribes be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I eagerly support the comments of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I am certain, for that matter, that all members of the House will agree with me. Mr. Speaker, like all members I was appalled at the report of Mr. Choquette's statement.

It is essential, and no one will question, that the integrity of all members of this House be protected. It is with that thought in mind that I fully support the motion made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all pleased that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has raised this important issue at the first opportunity. I think both he and the previous speaker are to be commended for the brevity of their remarks. It seems to me that the case is so clear that it does not need extensive debate. I hope that Your Honour will find there is a prima facie case of privilege and that the motion made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton will therefore be ruled in order.
We all feel that when someone like our former colleague, Mr. Auguste Choquette, makes a statement of this kind, especially when he makes it in open court, he should be called upon to answer for it, to substantiate it or to withdraw the serious charges he has made. I hope that very shortly this matter will be before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo
something the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) said the

May 7, 1976
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
other day in another connection, and that is that when things like this are said, or when improper things are done, it is not just one party in the House or a few individuals here, but it is the whole institution of parliament that comes under a shadow. It is really serious that there is such cynicism in Canada, as there is today, about this institution and about democracy, and we should be taking the most positive steps we can to correct this situation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I indicate our readiness to support the motion that has been presented to you this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion which has just been presented should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections because, on the one hand, if false allegations have been made, I think it is the interest of all members to protect themselves; this is the only way they can protect themselves; and on the other hand, if the allegations are true, the public will know what is going on in Parliament. I for one am very satisfied with the motion, and I think that we must clarify all these allegations coming from all sides and all these so-called bribes we hear about every day. It would be one of the first opportunities for the Committee on Privileges and Elections to shed some light on these matters, and if it is successful in doing so, we will have to continue. That is why I am in favour of this motion.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to add one word. I endorse the motion, but I want to emphasize something that may have been said in order to make it very clear. Traditionally, we in Canada have had very dedicated men and women in our public service, and traditionally they have been known as people of high integrity. As I read the statement, if it is correctly reported, it is not only a slight on every member of parliament, as well as every person who has been a member, but also a slight on the dedicated people in the public service of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For very obvious reasons it is clear that the motion enjoys widespread, if not unanimous, support, and I would be surprised if it were not unanimous. If the Chair were to have any hesitation in putting the question at this time it would only be in respect of the ironing out of procedural difficulties which might be involved. I do not see why that cannot be done in a preliminary way by the committee, if in fact the matter were to be referred there.
For example, in respect of the motion it does occur to me that some reflection should occur, until perhaps later in the day or until Monday, regarding the form of the motion itself and other paragraphs that may be added. I wish to make it very clear that there is not the slightest doubt in the Chair's mind that the question ought to be put to the House. After all, it should be stressed that a decision which is made by the Chair is often referred to as a decision as to whether or not a prima facie question of privilege exists. That is a convenient phrase, but the fact of the matter is that it is not entirely correct. What the Chair is doing is

simply making a decision as to whether the proceedings ought to be stopped in order to give priority to a motion which has been raised under the title of a question of privilege. There is not the slightest doubt in the Chair's mind that this ought to be done either now or at an appropriate time.
The only reason I suggest a time lag before putting the question is that there are things to be considered as, for example, the language of the motion, which obviously had to be prepared very hurriedly, and, secondly, the powers the committee ought to enjoy, as well as the other powers the House may wish to exercise in respect of this sort of thing. After all, this is a statement not made by a member over whom the House has some jurisdiction, but a statement made by someone outside. It may be necessary that the House exercise some special powers in that regard. It may also be that there may be some conflict with some privileges of a lawyer pleading a case in open court; I do not know. However, it occurs to me that the Chair ought to make clear, and I now wish to do so, that I am prepared to interrupt the proceedings now to put this question or I am prepared to give the House a bit of time to reflect on the polishing of the motion, only from a procedural point of view, to make sure that after reflection the motion in fact does include all the powers the committee ought to enjoy to investigate a matter of that sort. I would appreciate some guidance from the members in that respect.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what you have said and I think, having regard to the importance of the question, it would be the wish of all members of the House that the committee be completely empowered having regard to the subject matter or empowered to the extent it can be. I for one, as the mover of the motion, would certainly have no objection. I hope those who spoke in support of it and the members of the House generally would have no objection to the delay for the reasons you suggested.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse the position taken by the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party on behalf of the government. We are very anxious that this question of privilege should be thoroughly aired and that everything should be done to minimize the effect upon this honourable House of the alleged statement by Mr. Choquette.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to the delay, but I think it would be a good idea to have the motion finally drafted and presented sometime later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair certainly understands that sentiment. Certainly, from my point of view it would be most undesirable to give any indication at all that the House is in any way delaying dealing with this matter. It is a matter of the utmost importance. I wonder, in light of the absence for example, from the motion of the name of the person who is connected with the statement, whether there should be some consideration of the power that the committee ought to have. It might be that during the question period some consideration could be given to
May 7, 1976

that, and some polish could be given to the motion, so that at the end of the question period there might be an appropriate motion to be put. I might invite the co-operation of the House later in that regard and re-raise the matter at the time the question period concludes which, I would think, should be in about 50 minutes from now bearing in mind the ordinary duration of the question period on Friday.
Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the meeting with the United States Commerce Secretary the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce agreed that there is no need to renegotiate the auto pact. I appreciate the minister's desire to be a good host. However, I think the Prime Minister should give this House a full explanation as to how that position enhances our national interest. Would the Prime Minister explain the government's position on this and table all the background material that led the government to this position.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me for a statement. I will convey the question to the minister concerned.


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again directed to the Prime Minister. I understand there are differences of opinion about the timing and nature of any changes. However, I would have thought the government at least would have kept the option open on the matter of renegotiation. Is it the position of the government that the existing terms will ensure in 1976, and over the medium term, balance in all aspects of automotive trade? If so, would the Prime Minister explain the basis for such confidence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to draw these further remarks to the attention of the minister.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE EFFORTS TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I appreciate the difficulty here because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who was involved in the negotiations is not here today. On April 30, 1976 the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advised the House that political events in the United States during the balance of this
Oral Questions
calendar year may make it difficult to complete negotiations for any changes in the auto pact. That is recorded at page 13029 of Hansard. However, the United States Secretary of Commerce indicated that the United States election would not stand in the way of further talks on the auto pact this year. Would the Prime Minister assure this House that every effort will be make to resume talks on the renegotiation of the pact, as soon as possible, now that the assurances have been received that the political climate would not preclude such talks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that hon. members are making various representations. I understand also that the minister is travelling with the United States Secretary of Commerce and is in Toronto, I believe. I, myself, was engaged in a meeting with the first ministers, so there has been no discussion between Mr. Jamieson and myself. I will draw these various questions to his attention or his excellent parliamentary secretary will do that on my behalf.


PROPOSED COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
William James Kempling: My question is again for the Prime Minister. Reference was made in Mr. Richardson's remarks yesterday to the fact that major auto firms were ordering parts from third countries, which may be a factor contributing to the serious deficit of the auto parts industry. This reflects the fact that the auto pact is a bilateral agreement from the U.S. side and a multilateral agreement from Canada's side. Would the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the establishment of a special committee of this House to inquire, report upon and make recommendations with respect to the difficulties in the Canada-U.S. auto pact and of the auto parts industry under the Canada-U.S. auto pact?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the hon. member could raise that with his own House leader and it will be discussed with the House leaders of the various parties.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF NEED FOR CHANGES IN VIEW OF DEFICIT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Prime Minister. Although it concerns automotive trade it is not a detailed question which would require a ministerial reply. It concerns overall government policy. In view of the minister's statement that no changes are required in the autopact,-presumably reflecting government policy-and given the fact that the purpose of the pact, and I quote from the preamble, was to ensure "fair and equitable" growth in the industry for both countries, and since we now have had a cumulative deficit of more than $5 billion in the 111 years of the pact, $2 billion of which came last year, does the Prime Minister agree that it is government policy that no changes in such an unbalanced situation are required?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, here again the hon. member is asking me a question about a statement made by the minister which obviously I

May 7, 1976
Oral Questions
have not had time to see. If he is asking a general question about changes, let me remind him that a couple of years ago on this side we were talking about changes in the auto pact and the hon. member was awfully shocked that we would even be contemplating them. So the government's policy changes, and so does the opposition's.


John Edward Broadbent: As is frequently the case, the Prime Minister has his facts wrong. The changes the government was talking about a few years ago were to remove the safeguards in the pact, at which time the Prime Minister was under pressure from the U.S. because they had a slight imbalance of $200 million in 1970, and they were raising hell. We now have a deficit of $2 billion, and I would like the Prime Minister to tell the House when the Canadian government will start raising that issue in a forceful way with the Americans.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not accept the facts as stated by the hon. member concerning the attitude of the government, but it does point out that sometimes the pact works to the advantage of one country, sometimes to that of the other. The hon. member certainly cannot blame the government for having wanted two years ago to look at the pact so that in the long term it would work in the interests of Canada. What I am saying is that then he was afraid of any change and now he wants changes. He should be more consistent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the changes we favoured a few years ago are precisely the ones which, had they been implemented, would not have led to the kind of massive deficits we have today. When the Prime Minister says that sometimes the pact works to the advantage of the U.S. and sometimes to the advantage of Canada, does he see that a deficit position for Canada in eight of the 11 years with a cumulative imbalance of more than $5 billion is the kind of ebb and flow in such an agreement that his government favours continuing in its present form?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What the hon. member conveniently forgets is that before the pact came in we had an enormous deficit, and it was this Liberal government under the present Minister of Public Works which brought in this pact, which has worked very favourably for Canada. We now have a much better situation than before the Liberal government brought in this change.


John Edward Broadbent: You had better check your figures.


AGRICULTURE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Having received many complaints from my area about the publication and distribution to dairy producers of the new regulations on production quotas and considering that

such delay hinders the planning of their future production, can the minister tell us today when he expects to send those new regulations to dairy producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the provincial marketing boards, associations, public utilities or whatever they may be are the ones which are to distribute these, and if they are not distributed, I will check and find out why.


OIL-AGREEMENT THAT PRICE SHOULD NOT EXCEED UNITED STATES PRICE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that the first ministers conference is over-and I realize that no agreement was reached on price yesterday-I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House and the country whether at least an agreement that the price of crude oil in Canada should not rise above the average price of crude oil in the United States was reached.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was something we all agreed on, including the producing provinces.


RESOURCES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Arising out of the failure of the Law of the Sea Conference to agree on a treaty governing the exploration of the mineral resources of the deep seabed the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has had conversations with the United States secretary of commerce, Mr. Elliott Richardson, on the subject of commercial uses of the seabed. Given the fact that the United States is keen to proceed with the exploration of the mineral resources of the deep seabed, an activity which has very serious implications for Canada, can the minister tell the House Canada's position on this important matter and inform us if it is his intention to hold immediate discussion with his United States counterpart in order to learn the U.S. position and hopefully to resolve this thorny problem?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that that is a very general question which was part of the discussion which took place yesterday between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his counterpart in the United States. As a minister of energy I do not have any direct counterpart in the United States; therefore, I would expect the discussions to take place between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and perhaps the state department of the United States.
May 7, 1976


CANADIAN RESPONSE TO DR. KISSINGER'S PROPOSALS FOR MINING SEABED
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief supplementary for the Prime Minister. In his address to the Law of the Sea Conference on April 8, Dr. Kissinger said that if the deep seabeds are not subject to international agreement, the United States can and will proceed to explore and mine on its own. However, he said he would favour partial international control through a council which should reflect the interests of producer and consumer states most concerned with deep see mining. Canada is clearly one of these. He also said that the United States would agree to accept a temporary limitation for a fixed period only on the production of seabed minerals tied to the projected growth in the world nickel market. After this period seabed production should be governed by overall market conditions.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister what the Canadian response has been to these proposals as put forward by Dr. Kissinger.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same subject, and it is also addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the failure of the Law of the Sea conference of yesterday, and in view of the fact that the present international law is based on the Canadian proposal of 1958, namely, that the land at the bottom of the sea belongs to the littoral state, would the Prime Minister now consider, since this was a Canadian proposal in 1958, that Canada now should take the lead and call for a conference of the nations of the north Pacific and the north Atlantic to decide what the boundaries of the land at the bottom of the sea in these two respective oceans are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who will be returning from the Law of the Sea conference, will be interested in these suggestions.


PRIORITY OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES CONCERNING EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES 200 MILES SEAWARD
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister can say whether the Canadian government has assigned a very high priority to negotiations with the United States on the determination of the boundaries between our two countries on the west coast, on the north coast and on the east coast, as they will extend out to the 200 mile limit. There are extremely important matters at issue here, and I wonder if the Prime Minister is really aware of how high a priority must be
Oral Questions
attached to those negotiations and when they are going to begin.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of State (Fisheries) answer a similar question a few days ago. I agree that, in view of the results of the Law of the Sea Conference, this question has added urgency. I am sure it has rather high priority.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
With regard to bilingualism in education, could the minister tell the House how federal subsidies for bilingual education are divided among provinces. Can he assure us that those funds are indeed devoted to provincial bilingual education programs?


Hon. Jaynes Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that. In the case of the province with which I think the hon. member is concerned, it is roughly $8.9 million per year. As to exactly how that is expended I would have to give him a more elaborate answer, probably later this day.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I know he was busy yesterday discussing with the premiers the energy problem, but with reference to the constitution, was there any agreement with regard to that? Second, will the Prime Minister assure the House, and in particular the small provinces-I am perhaps speaking now out of a little selfish interest in reference to western Canada-that whatever the mechanisms in the criteria for amending the constitution are there will be some mechanism to protect the small provinces, and that it will not be only Quebec or Ontario which will have the right to veto any changes when the constitution is home?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, the premiers informed me that they are having their ministers meeting, I believe within the next fortnight, on this subject, and that they would be in a position to report to me on the success or otherwise of that meeting at the first ministers meeting on June 14.
On the second part of the question, if the hon. member refers to the letter I tabled in the House which I addressed to all the premiers about a month ago, he will see that under the various options there are indeed ways in which

May 7, 1976
Oral Questions
amendments to the constitution can be stopped by the western provinces if they so desire.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am familiar with the letter, but I should like some assurance. The hon. member for St. John's East raised with the Prime Minister the fact that the various leaders of the provinces are in some accord that the constitution should be home in Canada. However, whatever method is adopted there should be some mechanism to protect the rights of western Canada and other small provinces, and these mechanisms should be spelled out. Under the BNA Act provincial rights are protected.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That seems to be the same question. The hon. member will find the answer in my letters, if he wants to read them. He will find a more detailed answer in the reports on the Victoria conference of 1971 in which he will see the formula agreed to by all provinces, including the western ones, for amending the constitution.


MUSEUMS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Some 28 full time employees of the national museums of Canada have been laid off-many without notice-in an effort to reduce departmental man years. Can the minister explain the rationale in terminating the jobs of experienced security personnel and truck drivers, then hiring employees at public expense through contracts with private firms to replace them?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I answered part of the question yesterday. The hon. member added a few more wrinkles and I shall answer those in more detail later this day.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's statement was a non-answer. As 80 more employees may be declared redundant, will the minister give a commitment that public employees will be given adequate notice of their job termination and not laid off from the national museums or other museums until replacement jobs can be found for them?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely part of the answer I gave yesterday. That was, in part, an answer to the hon. member's question of today.


Reginald Cyril Symes: But it is not being done.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member contends it is not being done. We shall discuss that later.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General confirm the very obvious fear of the hon. member for Montmorency of a coup d'etat in this country by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and, if the minister feels the same way, has he alerted his cabinet colleagues to this terrible and monstrous probability so that alternative security forces will stand by with bayonets drawn au qui vive-such groups as the Armed Forces, the EMO and the Canadian Boy Scouts?


Mr. Paproski:: And General Dare-me and my shadow!


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no evidence to support the allegations made by the hon. member for Montmorency.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is recognized for one serious supplementary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Sir, I wonder if the minister really shares the opinion of his colleague. If he does not, does he not feel that such comments seriously jeopardize the credibility of that great force?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not share his opinion. Members are free in this House to express their opinions, and the hon. member expressed his opinion, but I do not agree with him.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS BY MEMBER OF USE OF PRIVATE DETECTIVES BY CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Solicitor General.
In yesterday's edition of Le Devoir, there is an article in which the following extract is found:
Outside of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) stated that he did not have any evidence that could be connected with the hiring of private detectives ... by the Progressive Conservative Party as such, but that numerous indications suggest a plot being conducted behind the scenes .. .
This statement is strangely similar to the allegations made by Mr. Choquette yesterday, in Quebec City. Therefore, would the Solicitor General be prepared to discuss such allegations with his colleagues and make a report to the House?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I have received complaints about private detectives investigating the public and private lives of members. I am looking into that further. Until I get more information I will not comment.
May 7, 1976


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS FOR RESEARCH INTO DIABETES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because the government introduced an austerity program, the minister cut back on funds for research projects. I suppose people in all fields of research ask for special attention. I am particularly concerned about research projects to do with diabetes and the production of insulin. In view of Canada's enviable reputation in this field, will the minister reconsider what he is to allocate to this particular field of research, and fund it as it deserves to be funded?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member first of all that with regard to production of insulin, I am told that the production in Canada is quite adequate to meet present needs.
As for the allotment of funds for research, in the field specifically mentioned by the hon. member, I must say that admittedly that field is very important. I would remind the hon. member, however, that I am not the one who decides on how those funds are shared among the various branches of medical research. I am not the one, as minister, nor are the officials of my department, the ones who divide them up. The funds are allotted by an autonomous and independent body known as the Medical Research Council whose decisions in the field of medical research are taken by experts and not by myself.


REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR INVESTIGATION OF ACUPUNCTURE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister recommend to the appropriate committee which deals with the allocation of funds to medical research that more funds should be made available for investigation of acupuncture treatment?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the hon. member's representation to the attention of the Medical Research Council. The Medical Research Council receives Hansard and I am sure they will note the hon. member's representation. That is all I can do, I think, about the hon. member's question.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with air safety? As there is a great deal of uncertainty and concern these days about the role of air traffic controllers
Oral Questions
and as the minister replied the other day, as reported on page 13200 of Hansard, to this effect:
... I should like to show the hon. member that we are not at all hesitant about any kind of examination of our procedures in regard to air traffic control and the safety involved.
Is the minister prepared to recommend an examination of the technical aspects of air safety and the cost to the travellers? I ask this because of the additional costs air lines will need to absorb because of some movement in this country with regard to the linguistic re-allocation of air traffic controllers.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises two separate and distinct issues, possible additional costs and the nature of additional procedures which may be involved. I think this involves broad policy which must be judged in terms of balance of interests, or in terms of the kind of judgment made by this House when it showed widespread support for the official languages policy. On the issue of safety, however, I assure hon. members, as I have assured them many times in the past, that we are dedicated to the introduction of safe techniques and procedures before we introduce bilingual air traffic control in Quebec, in the field of instrument flight rules. We have undertaken research and development in this field with our simulator. Actually, the program got under way yesterday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to gather from the minister's reply that the department and the minister do not favour allowing this highly technical subject to be examined by a competent committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that, precisely, is what we are doing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am talking about an independent
committee.


Otto Emil Lang: We have the co-operation of the various air line associations and groups representing pilots and controllers. They are working, with the simulator, in the development of procedures. The question of a specific additional inquiry is being discussed in another context these days. As I said earlier in the House, I have no hesitation with regard to any kind of examination of techniques and procedures we shall be using. We shall be satisfied and I am sure that those involved in the program will also be satisfied that we have evolved safe procedures.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday, a tragedy occurred in northern Italy where an earthquake struck. As tens of thousands of Canadians come from this area, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether a report has been submitted to her on

May 7, 1976
Oral Questions
this subject and whether the government of Canada is taking special steps to help the victims of this disaster?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have received reports inasmuch as telex communications are possible. We were very sad to hear that an earthquake apparently killed at least 132 people up to now, in the areas of Udine and Padua, in northern Italy. However there were no reports of Canadian citizens being involved.
Let me take advantage of this opportunity to express our deeply felt sadness to all Italo-Canadian families of Fri-oulian origin and our sympathy to the Italian government. I shall simply add that CIDA is in close contract with the International Red Cross and the Canadian Red Cross to determine whether we may be of any help.


POLIO VIRUS IN OTTAWA AREA-SUSCEPTIBILITY OF STRAIN TO SALK VACCINE-REASON FOR DELAY IN TESTING
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On May 3, in the minister's absence I directed a question to his parliamentary secretary regarding the five strains of polio virus which had been found in two sewage treatment plants in the Ottawa area. I asked whether these virus samples had been sent to the biology laboratory. The parliamentary secretary stated they had just been sent and that no report had been received. I now want to ask the minister two questions. First, can he tell us whether the report of the biology lab has been received and whether these strains are suspect-ible to Salk vaccine? Second, why, since the department knew of this since last January, were these tests not made at an earlier date.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the data relating to the 15 polio viruses that were isolated in the Ottawa area were reported at the symposium held at the University of Ottawa on January 23, 1976 at which were present officials from the local health authority, the Ontario health authority, and the federal government. Our report to the University of Ottawa indicated that ten of the 15 polio viruses were classified as vaccine-like. The remaining five strains showed no reaction with Sabin vaccine anti-serum, but could not be characterized, I repeat, could not be characterized as virulent strains. I am advised that it is rather difficult to establish the origin of the five polio virus strains, but the polio virus is a relatively stable one. Therefore, immunization with either Sabin or Salk vaccine would be quite adequate to meet the problem in this instance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact there is a difference of opinion among medical authorities as to whether Salk vaccine has only limited application for certain strains and Sabin vaccine 
provides complete immunity, will the minister advise the House whether the tests have been received from the biology lab, as I am sure the minister would not want to carry on or have the province carry on an immunization program only to find out the vaccine they have used provides only limited protection.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, being a layman in the field like myself, will not want to create undue fears vis-a-vis the effectiveness of the existing vaccine in Canada. I might advise him that the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents met last October 30 and 31 to study the matter of all vaccines presently used in Canada, and proposed an immunization schedule. Both Sabin and Salk vaccines were found suitable to fight polio. They are both acceptable ways of treating polio. With regard to these particular strains that have been identified, I am advised that there is no reason to doubt that either vaccine would be adequate to combat them.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
In view of the importance of Bill C-84 and the interest it arouses throughout Canada, would the minister indicate whether he would agree to the bill being referred to the Committee of the Whole instead of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that would be something which should be discussed with the government House leader and the other House leaders. I guess they would have to take that suggestion under consideration.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. With $137 million already spent or committed to be spent on the proposed Pickering Airport, an amount equal to 43 per cent of the amount spent on Mirabel, which may be a white elephant, large in size and small in usage, will the minister indicate if this type of spending on Pickering is to continue with respect to an airport which, if completed, will not be needed and, indeed, may sit isolated without roads or services?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the hon. member's reference
May 7, 1976

to Mirabel which will turn out to be a superb airport available to serve the Canadian people very well indeed. There is a rather greater problem in the area of Toronto because of the decision because on the part of the provincial government to stop completing the Pickering Airport after they had participated in the decision on the location of the airport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: At that time, we had spent most of the money to which the hon. member refers in acquiring the land which was needed for the airport. We had not forecast the strange, quick change of position, on the part of the Ontario government and, therefore, did not build that into our planning. The current costs are essentially for maintenance of the land and for finalizing the purchasing of the land. We intend to maintain that land, certainly for the present time, because all of our figures still indicate the need for additional air services in the Toronto region which cannot be supplied at the present Malton site and, therefore, create real difficulties for the whole Toronto region.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the minister's own parliamentary secretary told this House only ten days ago that there had been little or no growth in Toronto air traffic during 1975, and in view of the minister's inference today that somehow we are heading into capacity problems in Toronto, will the minister assure the House that he is not going to use that trumped-up excuse that there is a limited capacity in Toronto to divert airline traffic through Mirabel to salvage the white elephant they are now living with in Mirabel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the hon. member has put on the record his confidence that there will be no traffic problem in the Toronto region in days ahead. There will come a day when he will be haunted by that remark. The fact is that while the actual growth in 1975 which had been anticipated on the basis of past and other experience did not take place in quite the same way due to a lot of conditions in the economy, the volume of traffic in Toronto at that particular point in time at the end of the year was still higher than had been forecast some years before for a particular point in time for that particular year. There is in fact a real capacity problem facing us in the Toronto area in the near future. I will have to seek many methods of attempting to alleviate that problem in order to minimize the inconvenience that will be caused by people wanting to travel to and from Toronto. That may well include a changing of flights to other airports wherever possible in order to minimize traffic in Toronto. I will have no alternative because of what the province of Ontario has done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the minister's last answer, I would like him to confirm, yes or no: May we anticipate that they will do nothing to activate the Pickering Airport site in the line of completing that proposed airport until at least sometime after 1980? In reference to the Ontario government, can the minister tell us what discussions he
Oral Questions
has been having with the Ontario government, if he feels so frustrated concerning their attitude?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been having discussions with the Ontario government about this problem. At this point in time, the Pickering site is being retained as a real option. There is a difficulty in that, notwithstanding even an early decision to go ahead with construction, there might well be a lag between commencement and completion which would result in traffic problems in the Toronto area. This is the view we have, based on figures which so far as I know have not been contradicted. That is really the fundamental point; these figures stand; they are figures we have produced and no one has argued significantly against them with regard to traffic. We are, therefore, exploring the various techniques but we are not prepared to make a decision to go ahead with an airport at this time when the provincial government is unwilling to build the roads and other infrastructure which would ordinarily be associated with it. Whether we will ever change that position, I would not want to forecast.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On Wednesday the right hon. gentleman denied the suggestion in General Dare's letter of February regarding specific application of guidelines regarding the Parti Quebecois when he said:
This applies, I repeat, to members of the Liberal party, Progressive Conservative party, Parti Quebecois, Social Credit party and to those who do not militate in any political activity.
Could the Prime Minister then explain the statement in General Dare's letter which reads;
Consequently, the security service cannot be expected to provide security screening information to deputy ministers and heads of agencies in accordance with ICSI guidelines relative to "separatist sympathies, associations and activities... "


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads on he will see in the next paragraph that the General is apparently uncertain of the consequences that he must draw, because he is asking for this subject to be discussed in the security panel.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: How about tabling the letter?


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is an inter-office memo from the PMO's office!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems that the Sun forgot that particular part of the letter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Selective journalism.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot find this particular paragraph. The fact is, and I believe it was well explained by the Solicitor General yesterday, that General Dare was a little uncertain of the consequences he could draw from

May 7, 1976
Oral Questions
the cabinet decision. He was stating it and then asking that it be referred for discussion to the officials. As I said to the House a couple of days ago, I think it was an honest error on his part and would have been cleared up by the committee had the letter proceeded in the normal way rather than being leaked to the press. I am obviously still distressed about that aspect of it-that a letter between the highest security officer and the second highest one would be leaked in that way. I think it is of concern to every member of the House, too, that a leak which is obviously destined to destroy my reputation and credibility should have been deliberately put into the hands of the press and treated that way by the press. I am thinking of the editorial in the Sun this morning or yesterday morning which is obviously scurrilous, inaccurate and venomous.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF GUIDELINES ON SECURITY SCREENING-AUTHORIZATION OF ALLEGED RAID ON OFFICE OF TORONTO &quot;SUN&quot;
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider tabling for the House and the country the guidelines in respect of the activities of the RCMP in this area? Also, would he give this House an assurance, since he seems to be rather concerned about the activities of the Sun, that no member of cabinet authorized the raid by the RCMP on the office of the Toronto Sun which just took place this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot believe my ears, Mr. Speaker. If it is true-


AIRPORTS
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Members were advised by his department that in March announcements would be made regarding grants to build airports and to update those already in existence in small communities. Can the minister advise the House when this announcement will be made, as many communities are being seriously inconvenienced by the delay and uncertainty of funding?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no immediate date to announce but I will take the hon. member's representation seriously and look into the situation.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the exchange we had yesterday, it is clear that the minister did have conversations with several ministers of communications, particularly those of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, on the subject of government telephone ownership of cable television, notwithstanding the matter was before the CRTC and parliament. I wonder if the minister could assure the House that before anything definitive on such a major change in government policy as the ownership of cable TV plant takes place, the matter could be either given to the CRTC for an open hearing of all interested parties or at least be referred to a committee of the House, so that other parties could put their views forward?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the question of the hon. member. If he means the ownership of cablevision infrastructure, I can only repeat that there has been no such change in the policy. The CRTC still requires specific conditions before granting a licence, including that cablevision companies must own the largest part of the infrastructure although it has never made it a matter of general policy.
I repeat, I discussed this matter of cablevision infrastructure ownership with the ministers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and with other persons. Did I discuss it with regard to applications now before the CRTC concerning licence granting? No. I discussed it only in general terms because it is a problem of interest to provincial ministers of communications. I do not intend to intervene whatsoever in the process of regulations of the CRTC.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's rather lengthy answer. Because of the importance of the ownership of cable TV plant, however, and the fact that the discussions were with the ministers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba about government telephone ownership of cable TV plants, and that there are other areas of telephone ownership of cable TV plants, could that larger question be directed to the CRTC for a public hearing of all interested parties, some of whom obviously were not involved in the discussions with the minister? If that is not possible could the minister discuss with the House leader if an appropriate committee could have a discussion and hearing on this very important issue?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is an interesting one. I suppose there is a point at which this whole question of ownership could be referred to a public audience held by the CRTC. That is one way of dealing with the matter. Another way, of course, is to formulate a general policy regarding ownership of television plants to be discussed by myself and the provincial ministers. At a later stage when Phase II of the legislation goes through the House, when I table it, perhaps it will be a little more clear how I can impart to the CRTC matters of general policy.
May 7, 1976


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister tell the House if it is true that about half a million dollars is in process of being spent on some bulletproof cash wickets in the new Bank of Canada building on Sparks Street? Is it also a fact that these temporary cash wickets are to be torn down and replaced with permanent wickets in a year's time? If this is the case, does the minister not think some other arrangement could be made so that this duplication would not be necessary?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as I think the House is aware, the Bank of Canada is a semi-autonomous agency and does not come under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. In this instance, this particular bank has not sought our advice.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries but in his absence, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It has to do with remarks made by the provincial minister of fisheries in Manitoba relating to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and his threat to withdraw from the corporation. The reasons he gave were inadequate disclosure by the corporation, high processing costs and low return to the fishermen. In view of these remarks by the provincial minister, would the parliamentary secretary indicate whether or not the corporation now intends to make a full disclosure with reference to their overhead and the real cost of the processing of inland fish?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the remarks quoted by the hon. member but the Minister of State (Fisheries) had to leave a few moments ago to catch an aircraft flight. I will make sure that the hon. gentleman get his answer at the beginning of the week.


REQUEST OF GROUPS TO BE ALLOWED TO SELL OUTSIDE THE CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF FEE FOR SERVICE CONCEPT
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that it is the fishermen's money that has been used for capital investment in this processing plant, would the minister also take into consideration the request by several groups and associations of fishermen- and I emphasize several-that they have the privilege of being a designated area so they can sell their fish outside of the corporation; and would he also give serious consider-
Oral Questions
ation to the concept of a fee for services which has been proposed by several groups of fishermen in Manitoba?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister will take that under consideration, as the hon. gentleman suggests.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Secretary of State which relates to the recent brief presented to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission by the Inuit Tapirisat Association. In view of the fact that there are only 30 minutes out of 112 hours of TV broadcasting directly related to the Inuit community, can the minister indicate whether the CBC will give serious consideration to the Inuit Tapirisat recommendations which include more educational programs in prime time, rather than the consumer oriented and frequently violent program that is radically different from their lifestyle?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister aware that the proposed national park in southern Saskatchewan could adversely affect irrigation projects in that area, which projects fall under his department? If he is so aware, does he see a solution to the water storage problem?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the matter raised by the hon. member. I believe the officials of PFRA are, and I will get in touch with them to find out whether there is anything that I can do.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Central Nova asked whether CAIM, the consortium of consultants retained for Mirabel, has discretionary powers with regard to authorizing changes in tenders or procedures which would permit those who have submitted successful bids to

May 7, 1976
Oral Questions
receive change orders or additional payments without public tender.
The answer is that the CAIM group of consultants has no such discretionary authority. Under the terms of the contract with the Department of Transport CAIM is to assist in the preparation of tender packages and to assist in the assessment of subsequent tenders, but I wish to make clear that it is the Department of Transport that has the responsibility for calling the tenders, reviewing the tenders received, and awarding the subsequent contracts. CAIM may, of course, recommend change orders to the general manager of the Mirabel project but that is as far as their role goes.
There is another question to answer, Mr. Speaker, if I may have the indulgence of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The opposition do not want to know the truth, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again this raises the very difficult problem we face. On occasion it is necessary for ministers to indicate that they will secure information and give an answer at a later date. There was a moment or two before 12.15 when this question period was due to expire, and I gave that time to the minister in order for him to answer the question.
This raises two difficulties. First, the answer is longer than would be permitted in the question period; secondly, the hon. member who put the question is not in the House, and there is no time for supplementaries. There does not appear to be any sensible solution to this problem.


An hon. Member:: It should be done on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: If every time the answer to a question is deferred there is going to be a statement on motions, we would have one every day. There is no simple answer to this, but obviously at this moment I cannot let the minister continue.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that half of what I read was repetition of the question. The question was so long that I had to give an indication of what I want to reply to. But if they do not want to hear the truth, they should stop making smears in the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates his bona fides by making a smear now on our colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova, when he is not in the House. This only underlines the difficulty that you face, Mr. Speaker. With all deference, I suggest that the proper thing for the minister to do is not only to wait until the hon. member for Central Nova is present in the House, and have the courage to face the member who posed the question to him-


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are afraid.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: . . . but it is also incumbent upon the minister to take the opportunity on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once again it is evident that there is no satisfactory solution to this recurring problem; that has been amply demonstrated.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, during the interval that has just been broken by this "friendly" exchange there have been discussions among representatives of the parties respecting the form the motion should take. I think I should say at the outset that all of us are extremely grateful for the assistance of the parliamentary counsel and the officers at the table with respect to this matter.
We considered the possibility of expanding the motion in a detailed way, but it was decided that perhaps that ought not to be done, that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections had sufficient powers and that if they required any additional powers in order satisfactorily to deal with the matter, they could return to the House. I am satisfied the temper and mood of the House in respect of this matter is such that those powers would be given willingly.
If Your Honour finds this motion acceptable, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), has in a preliminary way moved with the greatest speed and I am sure all hon. members are grateful to him for the speed and interest he has shown in this matter.
The upshot of our discussions is that I would suggest to Your Honour a motion which, if it could be, would be seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) but which, for our purposes, will in fact be seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). I would move:
That the alleged accusation by Mr. Auguste Choquette that a substantial number of the members of the House of Commons have been in receipt of bribes be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I hope you will find that motion acceptable, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I stress that the principal question that the Chair has to decide is whether or not the proceedings of the House ought to be interrupted in order to put such a motion. I have no hesitation in making a decision in the affirmative. It is, therefore, moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That the alleged accusation by Mr. Auguste Choquette that a substantial number of the members of the House of Commons have been in receipt of bribes be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
May 7, 1976

Order Paper Questions
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? 4,990, 5,015, 5,017, 5,025, 5,040, 5,044, 5,114, 5,144, 5,153, 5,164. Motion agreed to.	5,182, 5'202' 5>223' 5'236' 5>243' 5,294, 5,338, 5,353 and 5,354.
* *
*


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the twenty-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and finds it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the thirtieth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the fees paid by the British Columbia Telephone Company in relation to Bill S-ll.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion being presented pursuant to Standing Order 99. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3069, 3267, 3470, 3769, 3950, 4116, 4171, 4173 to 4176 inclusive, 4,180 to 4,186 inclusive, 4,188 4,189, 4,191, 4,309 to 4,332 inclusive, 4,505, 4,516, 4,611, 4,771, 4,772, 4,778, 4,841 to 4,854 inclusive, 4,958, 4,970, 4,984,


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 32 on the subject of the Prime Minister's visit to certain places in Ontario commencing April 25, 1974, what are the names and job designations of all persons on any of the flights listed with the exception of the Prime Minister or members of the press?
2.	What was the total cost to the taxpayer of this entire trip and did the trip specifically include a visit to the annual meeting of the Ontario Liberal Party in Sudbury, Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as
the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned: 1. April 25, 1974-Ottawa to Hamilton, MOT Viscount: The Prime Minister; Hon. John Munro; Bob Murdoch, PMO; Colin Kenny, PMO; Peter McGuire, PMO; A1 Donnelly, PMO; Dal Warrington, Press; Fred Chartrand, Press; B. Stewart, Press; Don Dixon, Press; Rudi Wolf, Press; D. Beauchamp, Press; Mike Lavoie, Press; Jim Ferra-bee, Press; Claude Henault, Press; Jack Derouin, Press; Geoff Stevens, Press; Jean-Marc Poliquin, Press; Frangois Rouleau, Press. April 25, 1974- Hamilton to Toronto, DND Helicopter? A. The Prime Minister; Insp. Russ Harding, RCMP; Colin Kenny, PMO; Bob Murdoch, PMO; Dal Warrington, Press. B. A1 Donnelly, PMO; Cpl. Jack Prout, OPP; Dave Isaac, Press; Hal Jones, Press; Jack Derouin, Press; Jean-Marc	Poliquin,	Press;	Frangois	Rouleau,	Press;Claude Henault, Press; Fred Chartrand, Press. C. Peter McGuire, PMO; Sgt. T. Lafontaine, RCMP; B. Stewart, Press; Don Dixon, Press; Rudi Wolf, Press; D. Beauchamp, Press; Mike Lavoie, Press; Geoff Stevens, Press; Jim Ferra-bee, Press. April 26, 1974-Toronto to Woodstock, DND Helicopter: A. The Prime Minister; Hon. Gene Whelan; Insp. Russ Harding, RCMP; Colin Kenny, PMO; Dal Warrington, Press. B. A1 Donnelly, PMO; Cpl. Jack Prout, OPP; Dave Isaac, Press; Hal Jones, Press; Jack Derouin, Press; Jean-Marc	Poliquin,	Press;	Frangois	Rouleau,	Press;
Claude Henault, Press; Fred Chartand, Press; Bob Murdoch, PMO. C. Peter McGuire, PMO; Sgt. T. Lafontaine, RCMP; B. Stewart, Press; Don Dixon, Press; Rudi Wold, Press; D. Beauchamp, Press; Mike Lavoie, Press; Geoff Stevens, Press; Jim Ferrabee, Press. April 26, 1974-Wood-stock to Sarnia, DND Helicopter: A. The Prime Minister; Insp. Russ Harding, RCMP; Colin Kenny, PMO; Bob Murdoch, PMO; Dal Warrington, Press. B. A1 Donnelly, PMO; Cpl. Jack Prout, OPP; Dave Isaac, Press; Hal Jones, Press; Jack Derouin, Press; Jean-Marc Poliquin, Press; Frangois Rouleau, Press; Claude Henault, Press; Fred Chartand, Press. C. Peter McGuire, PMO; Sgt. T. Lafontaine, RCMP; B. Stewart, Press; Don Dixon, Press; Rudi Wolf, Press; D. Beauchamp, Press; Mike Lavoie, Press; Geoff Stevens, Press; Jim Ferrabee, Press. April 26, 1974-Sarnia to Sudbury, MOT Viscount: The Prime Minister; Bob Murdoch, PMO; Colin Kenny, PMO; Peter McGuire, PMO; A1 Donnelly, PMO; Fred Chartrand, Press; B. Stewart, Press; Don Dixon, Press; Rudi Wolf, Press; D. Beauchamp, Press; Hal Jones, Press; Mike Lavoie, Press; Jim Ferrabee, Press; Claude Henault, Press; Geoff Stevens, Press; Jean-Marc Poliquin, Press; Frangois Rouleau, Press. April 26, 1974- Sudbury to Ottawa, MOT Viscount: The Prime Minister;

May 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Marc Lalonde: Sen. Gil Molgat; Bob Murdoch, PMO; Colin Kenny, PMO: Peter McGuire, PMO; A1 Donnelly, PMO; Fred Chartrand, Press; B. Stewart, Press; Don Dixon, Press; Rudi Wolf, Press; D. Beauchamp, Press; Mike Lavoie, Press; Jim Ferrabee, Press; Claude Henault, Press; Frangois Rouleau, Press; Geoff Stevens, Press; Jean-Marc Poliquin, Press; Jim Moore, PMO.
2.	In addition to expenses indicated in reply to question 32, travelling expenses of PMO staff totalled $756.64. The trip included activities in Sudbury.


Mr. Cossitt: What aircraft is the Prime Minister using for his current trip across Canada for the purpose of explaining the government's controls programme to the Canadian public (a) what is the total cost of keeping such aircraft in the air per hour (b) what is the total cost for waiting time of such aircraft on the ground (c) what are the names and job designations of all persons on board the aircraft at any time during this trip (d) what are the names and annual salaries of ail crew members
(e)	what is the cost of the entire trip to the Canadian taxpayer including transportation, accommodation of the Prime Minister and anyone accompanying him, and the accommodation of crew members
(f)	what is the exact flight itinerary of this trip showing the places visited and arrival and departure times?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as
the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned: (a) and (b) $970 (see reply to question 4,110 answered March 12, 1976). (c) and (f) See Statement following. (d) See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976. (e) $1,060.47 (see also (a), (b) and (d)).
Sections (c) and (f)
Date	Depart	Time	Arrive	Time	Passengers	October 21/75	Ottawa	09:15	Winnipeg	12:10	Prime Minister	Winnipeg	17:25	Regina	18:35	R. Murdoch	-PMOOctober 22/75	Regina	16:25	Ottawa	19:00	R. Robert	-PMOR. Coleman	-PMOThe Hon. J. Richardson	-MinJ. Moore	-PMOR. Goodale, M.P.	-M.P.A. Donnelly	-PMOOctober 24/75	Ottawa	09:40	Toronto	10:35	Prime Minister	Toronto	21:55	Ottawa	22:40	Mrs. Trudeau	Michel Trudeau C. Kenny	-PMOP. McGuire	-PMOI. Macdonald	-PMO
Babysitter


Mr. Cossitt: Has the (a) Chateau Laurier (b) Carleton Towers (c) Holiday Inn (d) Skyline (e) Talisman (f) Park Lane (g) Quai D'Orsay received business from the government since June 1, 1970 and, if so, in each case (i) how much (ii) for what purpose (iii) from which departments?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply in its entirety, would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every department and agency including their regional offices. The costs in manpower and time to undertake such a large amount of work would be prohibitive.


Mr. Cossitt: What means of transportation will be involved in the scheduled visit to certain Ontario points by the Prime Minister commencing Friday,

December 12, 1975 (a) how many and what government aircraft are involved (b) what is the cost per hour of keeping such aircraft in the air (c) how many hours of flying time are involved (d) what is the cost per hour of keeping such aircraft on the ground (e) how many hours of waiting time are involved (f) what is a complete list of all flights to be made by such aircraft on the trip including take-off and arrival times and places to be visited (g) what is a complete list of all persons that will be involved on the aircraft at any time during the flights?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: (a) Transport Canada Lockheed Jetstar CF-ETN. (b) and (d) The cost of keeping the aircraft in the air and on the ground is $970 per flying hour, (c) An estimated two hours and 15 minutes, (e) An estimated 10 hours and 30 minutes, (f) and (g) Proposed Itinerary and passengers-see attached list. (All times Eastern Standard).
Note: These answers are based on information available as
of December 11, 1975.
May 7, 1976

Date	Depart	Time	Arrive	Time	Order Paper Questions PassengersDecember 12	Ottawa	0900	Hamilton	1000	Right Hon. P. E. deauHamilton	1015	Toronto	1040	Mrs. P. E. Trudeau Mr. B. Murdock Mr. C. Kenny Mr. R. Coleman Mr. P. McGuire Hon. J. Munro Mr. G. MacFarlane Mrs. P. E. TrudeauToronto	2100	Ottawa	2150	Right, Hon. P. E.deau
Mrs. P. E. Trudeau Mr. B. Murdock Mr. C. Kenny Mr. R. Coleman Mr. P. McGuire


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What has been the total cost to the government respecting the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement by the International Joint Commission?
2.	What was the total cost in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975?
3.	Is there an estimated time for completion of the project and, if so, on what date?
4.	Is there an estimated total cost for the project and, if so, what is the amount?
5.	Has the United States done their fair share in the clean-up of the Great Lakes?
6.	What has been the total expenditure by the United States for the clean-up of the Great Lakes and, what was the total expenditure for (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975?


Monique Bégin: 1. Total costs to the Government of Canada for programs related to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, estimated to the end of 1975-76, were $280,138,000. This figure includes estimated government expenditures of $2,612,419 incurred through the International Joint Commission during the same period.
2.	(a) 1971-72: $31,331,000, (b) 1972-73: $38,928,000, (c) 1973-74: $84,289,000, (d) 1974-75: $66,835,000, (e) 1975-76: $58,755,000.
3.	The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed on April 15, 1972. The agreement specifies that it is to remain in force for a period of five years and thereafter until terminated upon twelve months notice being given in writing by either party. It further specifies that programs directed to the achievement of its water quality objectives be either completed or in the process of implementation by December 31, 1975. That date is not however a termination date but rather specifies a target date for certain activities. The process of cleaning up the Great Lakes is inevitably a
long one, and the IJC, in its Third Annual Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, speaks of a decade or more before the goals of the Agreement can be fully realized.
4.	No. Given the nature of the challenge and the indefinite time frame, it is impossible to estimate the total costs involved to all the governments concerned. Future costs will depend on the degree wo which the parties respond to ongoing recommendations of the International Joint Commission in respect of activities necessary to achieve the objectives of the agreement.
5.	The government is satisfied that the United States is making a sincere effort to live up to its commitments. Despite some delay in early implementation of United States programs, action has now been taken by the United States authorities to accelerate activities required to meet the objectives of the agreement.
6.	According to information provided by United States authorities, the total expenditure to 1975 is $2,353,000,000. This figure represents only costs to the United States government. By years: (a) $225,000,000; (b) $419,000,000; (c) $509,000,000; (d) $900,000,000.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,888, what has been the gradual annual increase of assets for each of the chartered banks from 1967 to 1974?
2.	What has been the main factor causing an increase of assets (a) for each bank (b) during each year?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 
Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at LeClerc and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Nil. However, inmates transferred to medium and minimum institutions from a Regional Reception Centre or a maximum institution are always medically screened. Should an inmate be in need of psychiatric treatment while in a medium or minimum setting, he would either be seen as an out-patient by a visiting psychiatrist or, if his condition were serious, be transferred to an institution that provides such treatment. Inmates who are receiving psychiatric treatment on a full-time basis are detained at one of the three Regional Psychiatric Centres operated by the Canadian Penitentiary Service or, in some instances, receive treatment in provincial hospitals.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Cowansville and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Ste-Anne des Plaines and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Archambault and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Frontenac Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Please see reply to question No. 4,171.
Order Paper Questions PSYCHIATRISTS AT MONTEE ST. FRANCIS 
Question No. 4,180-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Montee St. Francis and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Pittsburgh Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Quebec Federal Training Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Collins Bay Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Warkworth Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question No. 4,171.
95568-7(4

May 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions PSYCHIATRISTS AT BATH INSTITUTION


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Bath Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Osborne Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Ontario Pre-Release Hostel and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Please see reply to question 4,171.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, Nil; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, 1; 1974, Nil; 1975, Nil; Total, 1.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, Nil; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, 1; 1974, Nil; 1975, Nil; Total, 1.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Millhaven Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, Nil; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, 1; 1975, Nil; Total, 1.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at LeClerc?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, 1; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, 3; 1975, Nil; Total, 4.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Saskatchewan Penitentiary?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, 3; 1971, Nil; 1972, 2; 1973, 4; 1974, Nil; 1975, Nil; Total, 9.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Cowansville?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Ste. Anne des Plaines?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Archambault?
May 7, 1976


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, Nil; 1971, Nil; 1973, 1; 1974, 1; 1975, 1; Total,
4.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Frontenac Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Rockwood Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Stony Mountain Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, 1; 1971, 1; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, Nil; 1975, 1; Total, 3.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Joyceville Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Montee St. Francis?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Nil.
Order Paper Questions SUICIDES AT PITTSBURGH INSTITUTION 
Question No. 4,324-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Pittsburg Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Quebec Federal Training Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970 Nil; 1971, 1; 1972, 1; 1973, 2; 1974, Nil; 1975, 2; Total, 6.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Collins Bay Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Warkworth Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Bath Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Saskatchewan Farm Annex?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.

May 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions SUICIDES AT OSBORNE CENTRE


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Osborne Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Ontario Pre-release Hostel?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Dorchester Penitentiary?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, 2; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, Nil; 1975, 1; Total, 3.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Ontario Regional Reception Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, Nil; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, Nil; 1975, 1; Total, 1.


Mr. Holmes: What are the (a) names (b) locations (c) head office addresses of the firms and/or individuals receiving loans in the Province of Ontario under the Small Businesses Loans Act for the period April 1 to September 30, 1975?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: The names and addresses of individual businesses receiving loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act are confidential. Small businesses in Ontario received 380 loans for a total value of $5,657,867 in the period April 1 to September 30, 1975.


Mr. Herbert: By department, how much of the $60,500,000 in the 1975-76 estimates for student summer employment is included in the forecast expenditures in the 1976-77 estimates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Forecast 1975-76 expenditures, by department, for the 1975 Student Summer Employment and Activities Program as provided in the 1976-77 main estimates are as follows:

Forecast
Expendi-
Department Agency	tures
($'000)
Agriculture	100
Consumer and Corporate Affairs	60
Energy, Mines and Resources	100
Indian Affairs and Northern Development	1,276
Manpower and Immigration	40,452
National Capital Commission	182
National Defence	7,665
National Film Board	77
National Health and Welfare	1,046
National Revenue	86
Secretary of State	8,480
Solicitor General	36
59,560


Mr. Herbert: During which months was the $386,000 in the Supplementary Estimates (B) 1975-76, for student summer employment expended and how many persons are engaged in the programme on either a permanent or temporary basis?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The
funds were expended in February and March, 1976. A total of 232 persons were hired during this period on a temporary basis to work in the Student Canada Manpower Centres; an additional 850 students will be hired on a temporary basis for this activity during 1976-77.


Mr. McKinley: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-76, what funds have been disbursed by the government for advertisements of the metric system in Canada?
2.	For the fiscal year 1976-77, what funds have been allocated for advertising of the metric system in Canada?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) In so far as the
Metric Commission is concerned there have been no paid advertisements of the metric system in Canada, (b) For the fiscal year 1975/76, planned disbursements for other information activities were $1,523,800. (See Metric Commission Second Report).
2.	(a) As per 1(a). (b) For the fiscal year 1976/77, planned disbursements for other information activities are $2,737,500.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Ferndale?
May 7, 1976


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Matsqui?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Mountain Institution?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, Nil; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, 1; 1974, Nil; 1975, Nil; Total, 1.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Agassiz Correctional Camp?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Williams Head?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, 1; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, Nil; 1975, Nil; Total, 1.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Bowden?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Drumhelller?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, Nil; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, Nil; 1975, 1; Total, 1.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at British Columbia Penitentiary?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970, 2; 1971, Nil; 1972, Nil; 1973, Nil; 1974, 2; 1975, 1; Total 5.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Pandora Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Grierson Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Oskana Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Altadore Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Scarboro Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Burrard Centre?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Nil.

May 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions LOANS BY CHARTERED BANKS 
Question No. 4,958-Mr. Matte:
From 1973 to date, what was the amount of loans granted each chartered bank in Canada?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: I have been informed by the Bank of Canada as follows: The amount of loans granted by each chartered bank in Canada since 1973 is as follows:
Increase in total loans"1 outstanding
between December 31, 1973
and
January 31, 1976 ($ millions)
Commerce	Total In Canadian $ 4,226.2 3,135.3	
Royal	5,409.0	3,710.2Montreal	3,801.9	2,737.5Toronto Dominion	2,473.7	1,746.7Nova Scotia	3,639.2	1,767.3Nationale	1,093.3	887.1Provinciale	762.6	660.6Mercantile	582.9	507.0British Columbia	203.2	188.5Unity	59.4	53.2Total	22,251.4	15,393.4
(1) These loans include day, call and short loans, loans to provinces and municipalities, and other loans.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since his appointment to the Cabinet, what portfolios has the Honourable C. M. Drury held and what was the date of each appointment?
2.	What (a) are the names (b) were the dates of appointment (c) were the dates of departure of each (i) executive assistant (ii) special assistant (iii) senior member of his exempt staff since his original appointment to the Cabinet?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Sworn of the Privy Council on April 22, 1963; Appointed Minister: Minister of Defence Production, April 22, 1963 to July 5, 1968; Minister of Industry, July 25, 1963 to July 5, 1968; Minister of Trade and Commerce, April 20, 1968 to July 6, 1968; President of the Treasury Board, July 6, 1968 to August 8, 1974; Minister of Public Works, August 8, 1974 to
present; Minister of State for Science and Technology, August 8, 1974 to present; Acting Minister of Finance, September 10, 1975 to September 25, 1975.
2.	(i) Executive
Assistants (a)	(b)	(C)
	Dates of	Dates of
Name	Appointment	DepartureWanklyn, F.	1963	1966Porteous, T.	April, 1966	April, 1968Abbott, T.	April 20, 1968	July 6, 1968Piper, J. T.	May 6, 1968	August 5, 1968Drummond, K.	August 27, 1968	May 1, 1970Szablowsky, G.	June 1, 1970	November 14, 1970Beaulac, A. G.	December 14, 1970	March 31, 1973Lalonde, G. R.	August 9, 1974	present(ii) Special Assistants de Lotbiniere Panet, A.	March, 1968	August, 1968Dunn, P.	August 27, 1968	August 29. 1970Stikeman, T.	July 27, 1970	March 24, 1973Rochon, J. J.	September 1, 1971	September 19, 1973Orange, D.	September 29, 1971	PresentLalonde, G. R.	March 26, 1973	August 8, 1974Brunet, V. P.	September 30, 1974	October 22, 1974and January 20, 1975	April 8, 1975Mathieson, K. D. H.	September 30, 1974	October 10, 1975and December 8, 1975	presentWard. R. E.	April 1, 1975	presentRamsden, J.	February 16, 1976	presentDube. P.	March 15, 1976	present(iii) nil	BUTTER IMPORTS	
Question No. 4,984-	-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):	
For the year 1975, by month, how many pounds of butter were imported (a) from what countries (b) at what cost?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Statistics Canada reports the following: Imports of butter into Canada in the period January to December 1975 amounted to 10,063,900 pounds for a value of $5,897,000. The Canadian consumption of butter during 1975 was 11.53 pounds per capita, or 263,266,000 pounds in total. The amount imported into Canada during 1975 was 3.82 per cent of the total amount consumed. The following table shows the amount imported by month from each country of consignment and the average price in cents per pound.
Imports of Butter-1975
	January	Unit
Country	Lbs. $	PriceUnited Kingdom	
Australia	300 - 1,138,800 705,000	0.62New Zealand	-Total	1,139,100 705,000	0.62Nil	April Nil	United States	July 200	October	United Kingdom	Nil	February	March	Unit	UnitLbs $	Price	Lbs. $	Price4,480,000 2,601,000	0,58	1,962,900 1,135,000	0.58	2,481,500 1,456,000	0.596,422,900 3,736,000	0.58	2,481,500 1,456,000	0.59May	June	Nil	Nil	August	September	Nil	Nil	November	December	Nil	200	

May 7, 1976

January to December 1975
United Kingdom	500	-	-Australia	5,618,800	3,306,000	0.59New Zealand	4,444,400	2,591,000	0.58United States	200	-	-Total	10,063,900	5,897,000	0.59


Mr. Jones: 1.	Have steps been taken to improve the operation and efficiency of railway passenger service between (a) Ottawa and Montreal (b) between Montreal and Moncton and other points east and, if so, what are they?
2.	Is the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport considering meeting with Members of Parliament from the Maritime Provinces to discuss suggestions as to how to improve and create greater efficiency and increased patronage for passenger service in and out of the Maritime Provinces?
3.	Has consideration been given to increasing the quantity and quality of work which can be done at the Canadian Railway Shops in Moncton?
4.	What inspection services are provided for checks of (a) trackage (b) railway equipment (c) rail cars before being released for service?
5.	Does provision exist in Canadian National Railways to encourage staff on passenger cars to report problems with equipment and railway cars and, if so, what is it?


Ralph Goodale: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. As part of the Railway Passenger Program announced on January 29, the railways and the government are now preparing plans for the improvement of corridor services of which the Ottawa-Montreal route forms a part. Some changes will be announced by CN in the April timetable. An announcement on a corridor demonstration project is to be made in the near future. Public hearings on the Montreal-Maritimes service will be conducted by the CTC and will be completed by late 1977. These hearings will follow a similar format to those now underway on the Montreal-Vancouver trans-continental services, permitting the public to comment on and provide inputs to the developments of future plans for these services.
2.	In reviewing the Montreal-Maritimes services the views of all interested parties, including the Members of Parliament from the region will be sought. I would be pleased to receive the suggestions of the Honourable Members on these Maritime services. The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
3.	The quality of work done in the Railway's shops has been and is of a high standard. Canadian National does not normally compete against private industry in the solicitation of work for its shops. Every effort has been made this year to introduce work of a railway nature into the shops to help minimize the effect of lay-offs. A major passenger car upgrading program was approved early in 1976 and, although passenger work is not performed in Moncton,
Order Paper Questions
that shop did benefit because of the need to offload freight car work from other railway shops.
4.	(a) The frequency of inspection varies according to the class of track but generally: 1. Track is inspected so that not more than two calendar days elapse between inspections. These regular inspections are performed by an experienced employee riding on a track motor car or Hy-rail car, at slow speed. The Roadmaster must make at least one of these inspections each week. 2. Twice a year a walking inspection must be made. One of these inspections must be made by the Roadmaster; the other must be made by the Track Foreman. 3. Once every three weeks during summer conditions and once every week during winter conditions the track ride quality must be checked by riding a train. These train inspections must be done by a Roadmaster. 4. If there are conditions anticipated, such as earth slides, floods, extremely high or low temperatures, forest fire hazard and vandalism, track is inspected more frequently. (b) and (c) CTC regulations require mandatory and operational inspections of all rail equipment prior to being released for service. These regulations are further augmented by Company developed inspection procedures. These requirements are of a continuous, trip and periodic nature and are so designed to ensure that all critical rail equipment components are thoroughly inspected within a predetermined period of time.
5.	A special form for Reporting of Defects has been in use for quite some time. All road service personnel are instructed in its use and disposition. It is a requirement that all noticeable defects be reported to ensure repairs at terminals or, if possible, enroute.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1973 (b) March 31, 1974 (c) March 31, 1975?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1973 (b) March 31, 1974 (c) March 31, 1975?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1973 (b) March 31, 1974 (c) March 31, 1975?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
(a) $4,945,750,813; (b) $5,427,502,239; (c) $6,420,297,891.
13292

May 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	Quarter ending June 30, 1972, 1.4601; September 30, 1972, 1.4659; December 31, 1972, 1.4778; March 31, 1973, 1.4931; June 30, 1973, 1.5042; September 30, 1973, 1.5252; December 31, 1973, 1.5364; March 31, 1974, 1.5490; June 30,
1974,	1.5642; September 30, 1974, 1.5900; December 31, 1974, 1.6259; March 31, 1975, 1.6363.
3.	(a) $184,190,199; (b) $202,866,916; (c) $227,008,801.
4.	(a) $137,073,425; (b) $163,297,280; (c) $184,831,352.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government, to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the year from April 1,1974 to March 31,1975?
2.	What was the total amount paid out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the year from April 1, 1974 to March 31,
1975,	in the form of pension supplements and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (a) as at March 31, 1974 (b) as at March 31, 1975?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
(a) $20,743,268.31; (b) $20,743,268.31.
2.	$58,877,913.05 was paid as pension supplements. As at March 31, 1975 there were 101,437 recipients of pension increases.
3.	(a) $34,864,550.82; (b) $76,315,285.96.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Has the Minister of Finance, or the Inspector-General of Banks acting for the Minister, since March 17, 1975, had any discussions with the chartered banks concerning the need for the pensions paid to their retired employees to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so, can the Minister now say whether the chartered banks are implementing this practice with respect to their retired employees?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: As was the case in March 1975, government policy continues to be to avoid the imposition of extraordinary conditions on private pension plans. The chartered banks, however, continue to be conscious of the needs in this area and are pursuing the previously reported practice of making supplementary payments to their older pensioners with increases in the cost of living being the primary factor in the determination of the amount of the supplement.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise on what date the next consolidation of the Statutory Orders and Regulations to the Statutes will be published?


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: It is anticipated that the next Consolidation of

Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments will be published on or before July 1, 1977.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	What is the relationship, if any, between the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and Parks Canada with respect to the projected expansion of St. Lawrence Islands National Park?
2.	(a) How many real property appraisals have been carried out in the area of the projected expansion of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park (b) how many properties are affected by the appraisals undertaken to date (c) is such appraisal work continuing?
3.	How many properties have been acquired through the execution of agreements of purchase and sale as of the date hereof?
4.	How many properties has the government under option as of the date hereof?
5.	(a) At the time the Minister lifted the freeze on the Park expansion, how far had the negotiations gone (b) what is the present state of the negotiations for the Islands of Wallace, Hay, McDonald and Leeward?
6.	Have any other negotiations taken place since December 11, 1975, for other islands or mainland property within the general proposed boundaries of the park other than the negotiations referred to?
7.	In what manner is the amount of $300,000 contained in the 1976-77 Estimates to be spent and will such expenditures relate to both island and main shore properties?
8.	What are the names and addresses of the owners whose property will be purchased with the $300,000?
9.	What are the names and addresses of the real estate agents and/or brokers handling the sale of properties for and on behalf of the existing owners?
10.	What are the names and addresses of the real estate agents and/or brokers or others handling the purchase of properties on behalf of Parks Canada?
11.	Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received any communication from the Government of Ontario asking that the project for park expansion and acquisition of property therefore be halted and, if so, what (a) is the text of the communication (b) was the response of the Minister?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. There is no relationship.
2.	(a) A total of 17 real property appraisals were initiated in the area of the proposed expansion of St. Lawrence Islands; (b) 17; (c) appraisal work is continuing only for that part of Hill Island for which it was previously indicated we would conclude the purchase.
3.	None.
4.	Two properties.
5.	(a) Although no definite commitments to purchase were made, negotiations had been undertaken by both sides in good faith and had proceeded to the point where owners and/or their representatives, in reasonable expectation of completing negotiations, had incurred costs, or otherwise would suffer financially as a result of a breaking off of negotiations, (b) With respect to Wallace Island, negotiations have ceased and are not being renewed. An offer to Purchase for part of Hay Island was accepted by the owner February 25 and is expected to be received by my Department from the Department of Public Works momentarily. An Offer to Purchase for part of McDonald Island and all Leeward Island was accepted by the owner
May 7, 1976

February 9. A recommendation for purchase of this property has been made to the Governor in Council.
6.	No.
7.	Funding provided in 1976-77 Estimates will be expended in the appraisal and purchase of the three remaining properties for which we have obligations and which were previously announced and for expenses directly related to these purchases, such as legal fees. No further lands will be purchased until the Advisory Committee has been established, and that Committee has recommended on a master plan for park expansion and development and a master plan has been approved.
8.	As negotiations have not yet been completed this is considered to be privileged information, the release of which would violate the buyer-seller agreement.
9.	Part Hay Island, Part McDonald, all Leeward Island, Alan Bickerton, Realtor, Bickerton Agencies Ltd., 395 Pine St., Gananoque, Ontario. Easterly Portion of Hill Island, Legal representation is by John B. Henderson, Q.C. of Henderson, Hart, Johnston, Fournier and Algie, Barristers and Solicitors, Equity Building, 61 King St., East, Brock-ville, Ontario. K6V 1B2, but all contact and correspondence to this point has been with Mr. Jan David, President of Hill Island Ltd., who is acting as a development consultant and adviser to the other owners during negotiations.
10.	Property Services, Capital Region, Department of Public Works, 140 O'Connor Street, Ottawa, Ontario.
11.	No.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs announce that an amount of $55,000 was granted to the Institut de promotion des interets du consommateur and, if so, was a comparable grant given to English-speaking organizations?
2.	(a) What are the aims and purposes of the Institut de promotion des interets du consommateur (b) who are its officers (c) on what date was it incorporated?
3.	Is the organization confined to French-speaking consumers in Quebec and, if so, who is responsible for (a) English-speaking consumers in Quebec and other parts of Canada (c) French-speaking consumers outside Quebec?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes. In 1975-76 the department funded 21 organizations under the Consumers Assistance Grants Program. $333,000 was given to five organizations serving both English and French consumers; $90,780 was given to 12 organizations serving English speaking consumers; and $85,000 was given to four organizations serving French speaking consumers.
2.	(a) The objective of L'lnstitut de Promotion des Interets du Consommateur is the improvement of the quality of life of Quebec people through consumer education and information, (b) This voluntary organizations is governed by a board of directors with 16 members representing a wide range of interests. The general director is Gilles Robert, (c) The organization was provincially incorporated November 4, 1971.
3.	The Organization publishes information material in French, (a) English speaking consumers are served
Order Paper Questions
through a variety of governmental or local voluntary agencies. During the last fiscal year the department awarded grants to 17 organizations which serve English speaking consumers including five bilingual organizations, (b) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in awarding this grant, has encouraged IPIC to make its publications available to French speaking consumers outside Quebec.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister use a government-owned aircraft to travel to and from Quebec City on June 7, 1975 for purposes of attending a Liberal Party function honouring the Minister of Transport and, if so (a) what is a full description of the aircraft (b) what was the cost per hours of flying time (c) what was the total cost of the trip to the taxpayer (d) where did all flights originate and terminate (e) what are the names of all persons on board at any time during the trip?
2.	What is the (a) name (b) job designation (c) salary of each crew member?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as
the Prime Minister's Office is concerned: 1. The Prime Minister travelled to Quebec City on June 7, 1975. (a) MOT Jetstar. (b) $970 (see reply to question 4,110 answered March 12, 1976). (c) Travelling expenses: $314.94. (d) and (e) Toronto-Quebec City; The Prime Minister; Bob Murdoch, PMO; Colin Kenny, PMO; Ian MacDonald, PMO; The Hon. John Munro; F. Viola, Labour; G. McGaffrey, Labour; Quebec City-Ottawa The Prime Minister; Bob Murdoch, PMO; Colin Kenny, PMO; Ian MacDonald, PMO; G. McCaffrey, Guest, Labour.
2. See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the Welland-Port Colborne area been designated as a bilingual district with St. Catharines as the regional centre and, if so, who made the decision?
2.	(a) What are the names of the persons who served on the committee that made the decision (b) how was the selection of the membership made in each case (c) what were the qualifications of each?
3.	Were studies made within the area and, if so (a) what type of studies (b) who made them (c) at what cost?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. David Morley, a Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Board, receive a letter dated January 19, 1976 signed by Mr. C.A. Edwards, President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, on the subject of fire alarm systems and procedures in government buildings?
2.	Did the letter state in part "very grave dangers to government employees, members of the PSAC and others, exist as a result of inadequate as well as non-existent fire alarm systems and procedures in federal government buildings"?
3.	Did the letter list five alleged examples of what it called such deficiencies?
955 68-8'/z

May 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions
4.	Did the letter also state in part "the lack of equipment, trained personnel and testing procedures presents, in our opinion, a serious threat to the safety of our members employed by the Government of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes; (Arrangements have been made by the Treasury Board Secretariat for meetings between the Dominion Fire Commissioner's office (Department of Public Works), which is responsible for fire safety matters in Federal, government buildings, and representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, to discuss the matters raised in Mr. Edwards' letter).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Transport investigate the moving of a marker buoy in the St. Lawrence River main channel between Hillcrest and Black Charlie Island near Brockville, Ontario, a distance of approximately 75 yards downstream and 25 yards closer to the mainland into shallow water on or about April 1, 1976 and, if so, with what results?
2.	Was it established that this dangerous situation to St. Lawrence Seaway shipping was caused by huge swells thrown-up by a United States Coast Guard vessel travelling at excessive speeds in Canadian waters and, if so, what are the details of any protest filed with American authorities?
3.	Did officials of the Department publicly state at the time of the incident, that Canadian authorities have no recourse of action against the American Coast Guard cutters speeding in Canadian waters and, if so (a) for what reason (b) on what date and under what agreement did Canada surrender its right to deal with such foreign vessels breaking the laws of the country?
4.	Does such a condition interfere with Canadian Sovereignty and, if so, what steps will be taken to remedy this situation?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Yes. The buoy was found to be off its station and was replaced in its advertised position.
2.	No. Movement of the buoy was probably caused by ice. A USCG vessel was reported by a private citizen to have passed through the area at high speed. This information was passed to the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the vessel's operational authority at the time of the passage.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable in view of the response to Part 3.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Estimates for 1976-77, which show a sum of $300,000 budgeted for "acquisition of land" in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park up to March 31, 1976, what is the land which was acquired or which was in the actual process of being acquired up to March 31, 1976 and, what is the legal property description in each case?


J. Judd Buchanan: No property was acquired up to March 31, 1976. Properties in the actual process of being acquired up to March 31, 1976 are as follows: (A) Part of an

island now known as MacDonald Island in the River St. Lawrence, Township of Leeds, County of Leeds as shown on Plan No. 120 registered in the Registry Office for the said County and containing 1.0 acres, more or less; and Islands numbered 12B and 12C (known locally as Leeward Island) in the River St. Lawrence opposite the Township of Leeds in the County of Leeds according to Registered Plan No. 120 of the islands in said river. (B) Lot 1 according to Registered Plan 313 in the Township of Leeds, in the County of Leeds (part of Melville or Hay Island); and part of Melville or Hay Island in the Admiralty Group of the Thousand Islands opposite the Town of Gananoque in the Township of Leeds in the County of Leeds, containing an area of 60.35 acres, more or less.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many students will be hired for the summer by Parks Canada at Mallorytown Landing Park in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and, in each case (a) how many will be required to be bilingual (b) are all applicants being asked if they are bilingual at the time of applying?
2.	Is the government aware that this Park is used primarily by local English-speaking residents of the Leeds County area and by Englishspeaking visitors from the United States and, if so, what is the purpose of insisting on bilingualism?
3.	Has the government kept exact statistics or made a survey of the number of non-English speaking persons who make use of Mallorytown Landing Park during the summer months and (a) if so, what was the result of such survey (b) if not, will any bilingual requirement be dropped in order that local English-speaking students will be able to have an opportunity of being hired for the positions?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mallorytown Landing is not a park in itself but mainly the mainland visitor services area to the St. Lawrence Islands National Park in total. The following information is in response to the question but in reference to the St. Lawrence Islands Park.
1.	The Parks Canada Program has a total of 42 positions to fill for the summer at St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Any person from the local area possessing the qualifications required for the jobs is eligible for employment. (a) Twenty-seven of the 42 positions have been filled with summer students. Four of the 42 positions require a knowledge of both official languages. Thirty-one people from the local area have been hired for the summer, of which total, 16 are students, (b) Only applicants being interviewed for the bilingual positions were asked if they were bilingual. Two of the four bilingual positions were filled through the Summer Student Exchange Programme between Quebec and Ontario.
2.	The government is fully aware that this Park is used primarily by local English-speaking residents of the Leeds County area and by other English-speaking visitors but regardless of this fact, in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Official Languages Act, must ensure that services to the travelling public are provided or made available by the Program in both official languages should they be required, as per Section 10 of the Act.
3.	Surveys or exact statistics have not been compiled on the number of non-English-speaking persons making use of Mallorytown Landing but, by the same token, the oppor-

May 7, 1976

tunity for employment of local English-speaking students has not been hindered by a high demand for a bilingual capability as per our response to Question 1.


Mr. Forrestall: How much higher, in percentage terms, would the rates, in the St. Lawrence Seaway, have to be to make it fully compensatory and discharge the spirit of the obligations placed on the corporation under its statute?


Ralph Goodale: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: For the year 1976-77, the projected income from tolls would have to be increased by 310 per cent to enable the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to discharge its obligations under its Act (in thousand).
(a) Expenses 1976-1977-$38,556; Capital Expenditures- $2,228; Total $40,784.	(b) Income-$26,980. 40,784/26,-
980	=	151 per cent or 51 per cent more, (c) Interest-$45,750. 40,784 + 45,750; Total $86,534. 86,534/26,980	=	320per cent or 220 per cent more, (d) Repayment of Capital- $24,000. 817,500/34 years =	$24,000. 86,534 + 24,000: Total$110,534. 110,534/26,980	=	410 per cent or 310 per cent
more.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the Department of Transport's best estimate on what rates would be required for the year 1976 on cargo moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway to make the Seaway fully compensatory if the following assumptions were met in full (a) a cargo flow identical to that experienced in the year in which the St. Lawrence Seaway enjoyed the largest tonnage in its history (b) the same ratio of bulk cargo to general cargo rates which prevail at the present time (i.e. 40<t per ton vs 90<f per ton) (c) capital costs and capital debt to be totally recovered by the year 2010 (d) all operating costs for the year 1976 to be recovered from cargo assessments?


Ralph Goodale: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: Under the assumptions indicated in the question, the rates for cargo moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway would have to increase to approximately $1.65 per ton of bulk cargo and to approximately $3.70 per ton of general cargo (in thousands).
(a) 1973 Income from tolls-$24,700. (b) Rates are $0.40 per ton for bulk and $0.90 per ton for general cargo, (c) Capital repayment-$24,000; Interest charges-$45,700; Expenses- $40,700; Total $110,500. 110,500/24,700	=	4.1. Bulk cargorate of $0.40 x 4.1	=	$1.64 per ton; $1.65 per ton. Generalcargo rate of $0.90 x 4.1	=	$3.69 per ton; $3.70 per ton.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What is the name and address of each member of the Canadian Dairy Commission?
2.	Were any members of the Commission milk producers before their appointment and, if so, were they producers of natural or industrial milk?
Order Paper Questions


Eugene Whelan: 1. Powers, Ellard R.R. 1, Beachburg, Ontario; Thibaudeau, Jules R.R. 2, Thurso, Quebec; Johnson, Horace M. 1285 Cahill Dr., Apt. 706, Ottawa, Ontario.
2. Yes, all three members were milk producers before their appointment, E. Powers-integrated fluid producer, J. Thibaudeau-industrial milk producer, H. M. Johnson- fluid producer.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the Inn of the Provinces received business from the government since it opened and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what purpose (c) from which departments?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply in its entirety, would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every department and agency including their regional offices. The costs in manpower and time to undertake such a large amount of work would be prohibitive,


Mr. Cossitt: Has Chateau Montebello received business from the government since it opened and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what purpose (c) from which departments (d) on what dates (e) what was the total amount received from all departments (f) in each case, what are the names of (i) senior Public Service officials (ii) Cabinet Ministers involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply in its entirety, would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every department and agency including their regional offices. The costs in manpower and time to undertake such a large amount of work would be prohibitive.


Mr. Neil: 1.	By province, how many applications for loans under Part IV of the Farm Credit Corporation Act were received and how many were approved?
2.	What was the average amount of each such loan?


Eugene Whelan: Part IV Loans under the Farm Credit Act, 1975-76*
	1.	2.
Province	Loans Approved Average Amount	
	Number	$
British Columbia	10	61,930Alberta	146	68,790Saskatchewan	132	68,853Manitoba	36	44,192Ontario	154	76,368Quebec	16	57,906New Brunswick	5	42,600Nova Scotia Prince Edward	2	55,400Island Newfoundland	3	53,467
May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
* Statistics are not maintained on number of applications by Parts. Applications under various Parts of the Act are processed in the same manner. They are not identified by Part until approved.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,720 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	From 1970 to 1975 what was the (a) value (b) number of broiler chickens (i) imported (ii) exported?
2.	(a) Which companies imported and exported the chickens (b) in each case, what quantity was involved?
3.	With respect to the operations, how long are importation permits valid?
4.	In 1975, how many companies held a permit for the (a) importation (b) exportation of broiler chickens?
5.	During the past five years, what was the value of broiler chickens imported and exported by Jos Friedman Company of Saint-Lin, Quebec?
6.	What subsidy was granted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to Jos Friedman Company of Saint-Lin, Quebec?
7.	During the past five years (a) what was the value of broiler chickens bought by Air Canada, Canadian National, the National Harbours Board, other Crown corporations, the Department of Supply and Services and the Canadian Penitentiary Service (b) what proportion was imported?
8.	On the average, at what price were the broiler chickens (a) imported (b) sold and in what way were they sold?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Robert Holmes: That this House deplores the government's insensitivity and lack of action with respect to the critical problem of pollutants; in particular, that of mercury poisoning, which has had a destructive effect on the economic, social and health status of native people.

He said: Mr. Speaker, in a very personal way, I do not recall an issue that has concerned me more than that of the problem of mercury and its many ramifications. This motion before the House is in response to the government's insensitivity to the mercury problem and its obvious pretence that a social, economic and health crisis is non-existent. The problem has been particularly devastating to the native community. In human terms, it has been a tragedy of appalling proportions, and in the eyes of Canadians and the international community it has been a national disgrace.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who extols the virtues of the government's role in the development of a health care system, has viewed the problem with minimal interest and action. The minister was content to relegate the matter to an interdepartmental committee which is well recognized as the sophisticated bureaucratic method that is utilized to diffuse a non-priority item. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), who has a very special responsibility and mandate on behalf of native people and who should have provided strong, decisive leadership from the outset, has conveniently played the game of jurisdictional authority, again at the expense of native people.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) has never viewed the problem in a serious manner and, indeed, a former minister of the environment, when addressing the executive council of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at the Royal York Hotel on April 8, 1970, clearly indicated that a problem did not exist. I quote as follows from his text entitled "The Polluter Must Pay":
Fortunately, we have caught our mercury problem in time. We have caught it before there has been any real danger to human beings. Once spotted, we have closed the fishery. Either that or we have bought up all the fish and had them destroyed. Nothing has escaped the watchfull eye of our federal inspection service, a service which is regarded the world over as tops.
I want to emphasize that the problem bridges provincial boundaries, that the problem today has grown in scope and magnitude and has ramifications, in my view, that demand a very strong federal presence. I want to make it emphatically clear that the major responsibility rests with federal authorities. Indeed, as the debate unfolds today I have no doubt the federal government can, and should, be censored for its role, or, more appropriately, its lack of role in this sordid affair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: Historically, the federal government has had a callous attitude in dealing with health problems affecting the native people-which constitutionally, I must remind the House, is a federal responsibility. Farley Mowat, in his book "The Desperate People" describes the virtual extinction of the inland Eskimos of the Keewatin district in the Northwest Territories. His chronicle of events should have served as an irrefutable argument for the necessity of immediate government intervention when the mercury problem first appeared. Father Rene Fumo-leau, a priest with years of service in the north, in his recent book "As Long as the Land Shall Last", in describing the 'flu epidemic of 1928 relates the unbelievable medical tragedies suffered by the aboriginal people of that day
May 7, 1976

and the failure of the federal government to respond to a crisis situation that affected human lives.
For a moment I would like to reflect on that tragic period in Canadian history as related by Father Fumoleau, because it is analogous to the problem we are debating today. If we substitute the word "mercury" for more familiar medical terms such as "tuberculosis," "smallpox", "measles" or "Spanish 'flu" which afflicted the natives of that day, one will find an amazing similarity not only in terms of human tragedy but in terms of government inaction.
Dr. Bourget, during his visits at that time to the territories in 1928, described a race attempting to survive but slowly dying from the white man's sickness. Influenza killed at least 200 in his area along the Mackenzie River in three weeks. Dr. Bourget predicted at that time that tuberculosis would become more active as a result of the Indian's weakened physical condition, yet despite pleas to Ottawa for medical help at that time his advice was ignored-and, of course, his predictions became reality.
In the years following the epidemic, Ottawa, despite the warning, actually reduced funds for the medical care of Indians. Between 1931 and 1934 the total budget for health services for all Indians in Canada dropped from $1,050,000 to $793,000, which included salaries for doctors, nurses, and transportation. By 1936 the government was paying less than $12 per year per Indian in the Northwest Territories for all medical services-and this was for a native population riddled with acute and chronic illnesses. Government directives during that period bordered on the inhuman and can best be characterized as lack of response to a problem which was felt by those in authority in Ottawa to be either exaggerated or of no importance.
The director of Indian Affairs advised all agents on January 14, 1934, that the department would expect a reduction in drug expenditures and demands of about 50 per cent. His directive went on to say that there would be no funds for tuberculosis surveys, treatment in sanatoria or hospitals, of chronic tuberculosis or other chronic conditions, nor in fact for any treatment except for acute sickness. In 1939 the department issued the following directive to Indian agents across Canada: a reduction of one day in the average length of stay of sick Indians in hospital would save about $15,000; it should not be difficult to save $10,000 in drug costs by limiting the amount of cough medicine, linaments, tablets, and so on, given to Indians. That black period in our history has reappeared in a new form, namely, mercury poisoning.
I have no doubt Canadians are shocked by these events and would consider the circumstances unconscionable in our society, yet it is precisely such an issue that is before us. As I stated previously, we have a social, economic and health crisis similar to the previous examples; but because new terminology-namely, mercury poisoning or Minamata disease-has been introduced, the government has attempted to mesmerize the public into believing the problem will magically disappear, and consequently has abrogated its responsibility to deal with the issue in a decisive and responsible manner.
Mercury Poisoning
I have been astonished by those in government who use the feeble excuse that mercury poisoning is an exotic disease recently discovered. Let me briefly place the matter in perspective. The mercury-contaminated fish problem came to the attention of the world in the city of Minamata, Japan, in 1953. Hundreds have died from that experience and thousands remain crippled, with an uncertain future. The problem has been well documented in the United States, Iraq and Sweden, again with scores of deaths and permanent neurological disability.
In 1964, at a major international conference, Dr. John Sprague, representing Canada from the Fisheries Research Board, was informed of the seriousness of the mercury problem by Dr. Jun Ui, and despite Dr. Sprague's interest and concern on returning to Canada no action was taken. In 1969, Jensen and Jernlov published the first report of aquatic organisms converting mercury to the far more toxic methyl mercury. Dr. Leo Buffa represented Canada at the International Mercury Conference at Prague in 1973 to obtain information for chloralkali regulations. At the international conference in Stockholm in 1970, Minamata patients were present with appropriate medical documentation. Surely the federal government was aware of these developments, and with the knowledge of industrial complexes in Canada utilizing mercury it could have taken active measures during this period to assess the magnitude of the problem.
Let me briefly refer to the Canadian situation. A brief prepared by the University of Saskatchewan and presented to the federal Department of Fisheries and Forestry in May, 1969, pointed out abnormal levels of mercury in fish taken from the Saskatchewan River below Saskatoon. Four months later, high mercury levels were found in fish taken from the Wabigoon River in northern Ontario. The discovery spread to the English River, and consequently the Wabigoon and English River systems were closed to commercial fishing in 1970. Mercury levels in fish from Clay Lake, northwest of Dryden, had the highest readings anywhere in the world, including fish obtained from the Minamata area. The Manitoba government lost its court case in the Supreme Court of Canada against mercury polluting companies upstream of Lake Winnipeg. Other parts of Ontario, including Lake St. Clair, the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers and the Ottawa River, have been affected. The Bell River system in Quebec is seriously polluted.
Following the ban on commercial fishing in Ontario forgivable loans were received by the affected fishermen. Despite the inadequacy of these loans, can the government possibly explain why the commercial fishermen at Mataga-mi have not received one cent in compensation? Can the government possibly explain why Dow Chemical was forced to change its process for handling effluents during 1970, yet the same action was not taken with Dryden and Domtar. The FMC plant in Squamish, British Columbia, has displayed effluent technology effective since 1971. One can only ask why this knowledge was not utilized by the federal government in establishing their chloralkali regulations.
Mr. Speaker, there are other examples. Surely the evidence is overwhelming that the federal government has had knowledge of a serious mercury problem for several years, but despite this fact it has displayed blatant disre-

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
gard for the seriousness of the problem, and only recently-and, I might add, under intense pressure-has it indicated some concern.
What has mercury pollution meant in human terms? The results have been devastating. We have seen self-sufficient native communities disintegrate. We have seen native people demoralized, and social chaos rise from the ashes while politicians and officials appear determined to pretend that no problem exists. Alcoholism, drunkenness, violence, crime and poverty have replaced self-sufficiency. Confrontation between the native and non-native population has replaced the need for a united front to fight a common enemy. The native, with his loss of traditional lifestyle, with his loss of independence and loss of dignity, has become the victim trapped in the jaws of an insensitive government.
As an example, among the principal benefactors of the fishing industry, both commercial and guiding, were two Indian reserves in the Dryden-Kenora area, namely, Grassy Narrows and White Dog. Others affected were shore workers in handling, processing, marketing, transportation and in supplying boats, gear, fuel and other commodities and services. What were the results? These two communities, which had previously been economically self-supporting, now are idle, dependent upon government handouts, and the people live in dread of the effect mercury will have on them and their children.
Before 1969 and the closure of the water system to commercial fishing, the total welfare budget for White Dog was substantially less than $50,000. By 1972 the figure was $93,550, and by 1974 it was $162,000. At Grassy Narrows the figure was less than $30,000 bere 1969, and had risen to $90,000 in 1971 and $122,000 by 1973. Prior to 1970, Ontario had 2,000 fishermen-56 in the Wabigoon, English and Winnipeg River systems. After the March, 1970, mercury fishing ban, approximately 240 Ontario fishermen were out of business, including all but three of the 56 in northwest Ontario. An estimated 250 natives from the two reserves were employed at tourist camps as guides, cooks and other jobs. Not only did they receive wages, but they frequently received gratuities and gifts to supplement their income. What has been the reward for these guides and tourist camp employees? Not one cent in compensation, but the risk of developing Minamata disease and the prospect of a number of guides recognized as high-risk patients having to return to guide work and continual eating of contaminated fish.
I do not for a moment underemphasize the impact the mercury problem has had on tourist camp owners, both those who have closed their doors in response to the health hazards and those who have remained open. Similarly, I do not under-emphasize the impact it has had on tourism in the area. All have suffered losses. However, the problem transcends the instinctive response of some individuals, fearful for their future, to use surreptitious methods, for reasons of self-interest, with risk to both native and nonnative people. The government's lack of response to these fears has, predictably, undermined the seriousness of the mercury problem, and by procrastinating it has not only compounded the fears of those affected but has delayed a positive response to the overriding issue of a serious environmental health problem.

On Tuesday, April 13, Bob Kabestra appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment. His testimony was not one of anger or vengeance: it reflected the wisdom of his years, yet a sense of hopelessness for the future. Bob Kabestra had been a successful commercial fisherman, independent, self-sufficient and proud of his accomplishments. When his commercial fishing business was suspended he was making a good income: he owned three homes, three trucks, three boats with motors, nets and other equipment essential for his vocation. With the stroke of a pen, all his dreams and accomplishments were erased. Does the government have a conscience in response to his fate? Have they taken any action which would indicate he is a human being with a serious problem? Bob Kabestra does not think so, and I agree.
I should like to say a few words about Minamata disease, or mercury poisoning. I find it inconceivable that there should remain people who believe the disease entity is a myth and does not exist. Excluding the documented deaths and cases in other countries, I have stated in the past, and will repeat, that Minamata disease is a reality in Canada and I anticipate additional cases will be documented in the future. Dr. Andre Barbeau, director of the neurology department of the Montreal Institute of Clinical Research, well known for his discovery of L Dopa used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, and who has worked with Japanese specialists in studying Minamata disease, has clearly demonstrated its presence in Cree Indians in Quebec and has also described symptoms in two white people.
From testimony we received at the standing committee on April 13, which has been confirmed by numerous articles, he has identified six definite cases, ten probable and several others tested as possible. Time does not permit a detailed analysis of the medical implications. Suffice it to say that there is overwhelming evidence related to such matters as length of time before symptoms appear, the added risk of continued exposure to those with known, elevated levels of mercury, the problems related to pregnancy, genetic and congenital problems, to indicate with a high degree of predictability that additional cases will appear. In addition, I am most concerned that a request which was placed before the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the president of Treaty No. 3, Fred Kelly, asking for assistance and for Dr. Barbeau to appear in that area as a known expert in neurology has received no response as yet from the Department of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps we will have some response in that respect today.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are individuals in government who are deeply concerned about the problems related to mercury-and I believe this view is shared by individual members in all corners of this House-I must re-emphasize that the government has not provided leadership to resolve, or indeed to formulate an effective program to deal with mercury and its many ramifications. Indeed, the government's record of inactivity is not only inexplicable but it is inexcusable. I have no doubt that government speakers will make reference to the recent rash of activity that has occurred within various departments on an ad hoc basis, but as Fred Kelly, president of Treaty No.
May 7, 1976

3, so aptly described the situation at the standing committee meeting on April 13, 1976, activity can only be measured in terms of effectiveness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: If effectiveness is the appropriate criterion, and I readily accept that definition, then the federal government has failed dismally by not putting forward proposals in this respect. With the knowledge of a critical mercury problem in the hands of the government for several years, who on the government side is prepared or is able to defend the long period of inaction? There is no defence; there is only rationalization.
Why did the federal government refuse to invoke the federal Fisheries Act in the early 1970s before the chloralk-ali regulations were introduced? It was apparent the polluted waters crossed provincial boundaries, and if the act had been invoked and the Dryden plant had been closed for one day it would have alerted the native people, and indeed the surrounding communities, to the various procedures that would have been available to them in the courts.
We have evidence of a federal interministerial committee with NIB participation and provincial observers who had a mandate to collect and co-ordinate information concerning mercury. Prior to 1975 the meetings were infrequent, and despite numerous recommendations it was apparent their mandate was too restrictive; they had no decision-making capability and no secretariat to handle the workload. Again, no satisfactory explanation was given as to the lack of local native participation, and the lack of decision-making authority has made the body ineffectual.
The federal government was aware of the FMC plant in Squamish, B.C., that has had the technology since 1971 to keep their mercury discharge below the provincial and federal regulations, yet the regulations introduced are not based on this known FMC available and practical technology. There is no apparent effort to correlate the various scientific studies and to co-ordinate a plan effectively to overcome the adverse effects of pollution. In this regard it should be noted that on examination of mercury effluent reports from major chloralkali industries in Canada it was found there have been monthly averages during which the mercury discharge was above the standards set by regulation. Again, no explanation or action.
It is my understanding that the government is presently considering funding a litigation study, and hopefully we will have a response from the government in this regard before the debate is concluded. There is no effective way to place a monetary value on the destruction of a traditional way of life, yet compensation must be considered a priority item. The federal government has seen fit to assist in similar situations, for example, in James Bay. Is it any wonder the native communities have lost faith in the government? They have ignored native requests, native involvement and have simply responded with ad hoc, makeshift programs.
Testimony revealed that as recently as September, 1975, a native proposal for $60,000 to $70,000 to have mercury workers assist with the problems in the native communities was rejected by the Department of National Health and Welfare because they refused to recognize the presence of a mercury crisis. I have not heard serious objec-
Mercury Poisoning
tions raised to the $2.5 million directed to the Dryden Pulp and Paper Company from the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion, of which approximately $600,000 was spent in converting to a mercury-free process. However, when the transaction occurs under the umbrella of a public relations program, without regard to social, economic and health problems in the native communities, is it any wonder that cynicism and loss of confidence in the government prevails?
The critical problem of an alternate protein source of food has existed and continues to exist. I sense the importance of this matter has struck a respondent chord with government. But, again, the evidence is not convincing that the problem has been resolved. Let me also point out the obvious difficulties of convincing the native people in the communities affected to discontinue eating a longstanding stable of their diet when non-natives continue to eat fish from contaminated waters. In this regard I should also point out that there are studies to indicate abnormally high mercury levels may appear in these same individuals who consume contaminated fish for short periods, I ask the government, is this practice safe for the uninformed transient, and can the government assure these people that they will not be affected by this health hazard?
I ask the government, which undoubtedly has the authority, why they have refused to ban fishing in critical areas where cases of mercury poisoning have been clearly established. What are the government's plans to feed the natives at Matagami and Mistassini, Quebec, whose diet in the past consisted of 250,000 pounds of fish annually? Can this be replaced by other game? What other alternatives does the government propose? Will the government give favourable consideration to the excellent in-depth brief presented by the grand council of the Cree which includes the screening program for mercury in fish during 1976 at the Mistassini, Waswanipi and Niemiscau regions of James Bay?
This debate would not be complete without a comment about the Environmental Contaminants Act. I recall that when this legislation was introduced it was described as the most progressive piece of environmental legislation in any nation, and as the panacea to cure all environmental health problems. I viewed with skepticism the effectiveness of the bill, and I recall vividly the wide ministerial discretion which was embodied in it. One would be hard pressed to find an act in which the word "may" was used more frequently than in the Environmental Contaminants Act. The basic philosophy of the act can best be described as closing the barn door after the horse is out. The act has not been effective in this instance, and I respectfully submit that it requires significant amendments if it is, in fact, to be an effective piece of legislation to prevent environmental health hazards.
Out of this morass of callousness, insensitivity and pretence I think the question can logically be asked: Is there a solution? I believe the answer to that is an unqualified "Yes". Above all, the government must demonstrate a positive attitude, not only by words but also by action. It must demonstrate, in unequivocal terms, the necessity for a strong federal presence to deal with the basic issue of a

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
major environmental problem which affects both Indians and non-Indians alike.
For the immediate problem related to the communities directly affected by mercury pollution there is an obvious need for a central co-ordinating committee with a mandate for action and with meaningful input by those affected-in particular, native organizations. The natives have lost confidence in government and a legion of workers at this stage, irrespective of their good intentions, would be viewed with distrust and in my opinion would prove to be ineffectual. Confidence can only be regained at this late date by meaningful involvement of the communities affected and assurance of direct contact with the decision-makers.
When native reports have been rejected, when longstanding questions remain unanswered, when inconsistencies in the law exist, when endless delays for action are common, and when nameless faces revolve through desolate communities without solutions, is it any wonder the natives view with skepticism the sincerity of the government? Re-growth, the re-establishment of self-sufficiency, independence and a sense of dignity can only emanate from meaningful community involvement. I believe the Indian people have shown they are reasonable, capable and responsible in their approach to the problem, and their involvement should be a major priority.
There is an obvious need for a mechansim to serve as an early warning system for future environmental health problems so that decision-makers will have immediate information available to them. As I indicated previously, there is an obvious need for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to provide funds for legal aid. In this regard, the Minister of the Environment, in the same address to which I made reference at the outset, stated later in his speech to the executive council of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association:
Our Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has already spent more than $300,000 helping to contain the mercury problem on the prairies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert Holmes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be brief in summarizing the remainder of my comments. I was quoting the Minister of the Environment, who said:
There, the local fishermen have been prevented from starving during the winter months. But the Canadian taxpayer cannot be expected to foot this bill for ever. Naturally, we are looking around for someone else to take the government off the hook. I suggest this someone else is the polluter. He must pay the bill in respect to mercury pollution, just as the Electric Reduction Company Limited footed the bill in respect to elemental phosphorous in Newfoundland in 1969.
Perhaps before termination of the debate the government will express in clear terms its present policy in this respect. There is need for a comprehensive review of the appearance of mercury in the Canadian environment, and surely this must be orchestrated by the federal government. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a mercury problem of crisis dimensions, with many known factors,

there continue to be many unanswered questions related to mercury which require comprehensive research and, again, surely this is a role for the federal government. The necessity for such research becomes more readily apparent when government members attempt to defend the indefensible by exploiting gaps in our knowledge, for political advantage, rather than admitting the obvious: that a problem exists. This approach is about as logical as rejecting cancer as a disease entity because we cannot effect a cure in all instances and because large gaps in knowledge persist which will only be bridged through research.
I have referred to the federal Fisheries Act and to the Environmental Contaminants Act. Suffice it to say that the former has not been invoked at times when it would have been constructive, and the latter requires amendments if it is to accomplish the goals for which it was introduced.
As I indicated by examples at the outset, and more specifically by the mercury problem, the entire attitude of the federal government toward the health of our native people is deplorable and is tantamount to negligence. I know the' Minister of National Health and Welfare is aware of the health status of native people, yet minimal corrective action is taken. Finally, I must emphasize that the mercury problem does not exist in isolation but is a prototype for innumerable environmental health hazards, many of which are directly related to occupations, but an equally large number are of potential risk to unwary Canadians. However, this is another topic. I have discussed this problem in the House on previous occasions, and simply reiterate at this time that there is clearly a role for the federal government to assume responsibility for the co-ordination of an effective program for environmental health problems which are clearly distinguishable from the traditional health problems identified with our health care system, which has been a provincial responsibility.
From the point of view of long-term planning, I was particularly disappointed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare rejected the fifth recommendation in the interim report entitled "Exposure to methyl mercury in Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves". Dr. T. W. Clarkson, professor and director for the centre for environmental health sciences of the medical school of the University of Rochester, called for the establishment of a national centre in environmental health to deal with environmental health hazards from methyl mercury and other pollutants. I spoke of a similar concept in this House on February 26, 1973, utilizing the national problem of drug and alcohol abuse as an example, and I suspect that this reasonable and responsible recommendation by Dr. Clarkson will receive the same attention and will gather the same dust!
I should like to conclude with one quotation from a favourite book of mine. Incidentally, the author was a physician. It is from "The Story of San Michele", by Axel Munthe, which I recommend to all hon. members. In a special preface for the American edition, he wrote:
The greatest writer of short sensational stories I know is life. But is life always true?
Mr. Speaker, I will await the government's response to his observation and his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 7, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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.
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the important topic before the House, may I congratulate the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) for the excellent speech he made before lunch.
Some of the aspects of mercury poisoning relate to the poisoning of fish in the lakes, rivers and streams of this country. I have had some experience in looking after fish- believe it or not. In my office I have a couple of goldfish in a bowl. Every day I clean out the bowl and put in fresh water and food. Every day the fish eat the food, use its energy and put the waste product back into the water. There is no filter or pump in the bowl, and you can imagine how the bowl looks at the end of the day. It is so cloudy you can hardly see the fish. But that is all right for the fish, because it is my responsibility to come in the next day and flush out the bowl.
I think hon. members have been talking about the same sort of problem which troubles my fish. The difference is that no one seems willing to take the responsibility of flushing out our much larger fish bowl. There is another difference, Mr. Speaker. In our case the fish who make the water dirty are not the same fish that have to live in the water.
Hon. members will, I am sure, talk a great deal about mercury pollution and the poisoning of fish by mercury. Human beings consume these poisoned fish. But that is not our only concern. Most of us know that mercury-poisoned fish are eaten by bears, seals, otters, wolverines and other forms of wildlife on which our native people depend for their living. Really, what we are talking about is not new in Canada and is not restricted to Ontario and Quebec. For a number of years we have known about the presence of mercury and other industrial pollutants right across the country. We have known about this, but today we still quarrel over jurisdiction and liability. If we are to let the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) lead the way, we shall probably end up quarrelling over freezers.
Let us look at part of the record. In the Maritimes, as far back as 1971 officials in Nova Scotia were setting up task forces and other government agencies to examine how mercury was affecting the swordfishing industry. That was five years ago. We have just heard about conditions in Quebec, the province in which a company was allowed to dump mercury in quantities greater than the government's new regulations allowed to be dumped. They did this for a whole year after those regulations went into effect. Four of the people who show symptoms of Minamata disease live downriver from that plant.
I have heard some researchers claim that if and when the government releases enough money to do a thorough study
Mercury Poisoning
of northwestern Quebec, we shall find that all that region is contaminated by mercury. If we move to Ontario, we can isolate three separate areas which are contaminated by mercury. The northeastern part of the province is contaminated, including Lake Timiskaming. The water from that lake drains into the water of the Ottawa River which flows just behind your chair, Mr. Speaker. Still in Ontario, there is the English-Wabagoon River system. Mercury from these waters has caused symptoms of Minamata disease, as other hon. members have already pointed out. What is more, we have known about mercury contamination in the area for over five years. Then there is the St. Clair river, the first place, I think, to feel the effects of mercury pollution. We have known about that, too, for over five years.
I now come to Manitoba. That province is polluted by the same source of pollution which affected northwestern Ontario. We have know about mercury in Lake Winnipeg since at least 1970. Manitoba can also boast-if that is the appropriate term-of mercury pollution in two other river systems, the Saskatchewan and the Red rivers. We knew about pollution in those rivers as far back as 1970. Of course, Saskatchewan is represented on our list by the Saskatchewan River.
Then there is Alberta. If you read Time magazine of September 26, 1969, you will find a little story about mercury contamination in that province. It seems that mercury-based fungicides used on seed grain was the source of that contamination. It caused 100 per cent of the upland game birds tested in the southern part of the province to have mercury levels in their blood between 5 and 16 times greater than the maximum acceptable level. We knew about that in 1969, Mr. Speaker.
Then there are a couple of candidates for our list from what they call God's country-British Columbia. Back in April, 1970, the government had to close Upper Howe Sound to all fishing because of mercury contamination from a chemical plant in Squamish. Just to prove I am not being prejudiced, when I make this little list, I will throw in some examples from my own constituency. We seem to specialize in arsenic in Yellowknife. In 1969 researchers knew about it and did not tell anyone. We have mercury, too. In Yellowknife, in 1975, researchers from the National Indian Brotherhood found two little children who had excessively high levels of mercury in their hair. We also have fish with some of the highest readings in North America around Great Bear Lake and Tuktoyaktuk.
That is only a partial list, but it comes from right across the country. Right across the country we have documented cases of mercury contamination going back five and six years. We know what happened in Minamata, and we know that it takes over 100 years for a river system to flush itself of this pollutant. If we knew all these things, why in the name of all that is holy did we wait until 1976- when we have documented cases of congenital Minamata disease-to have a debate in this House? What has the government done in all the years that it has possessed this knowledge? Nothing, Mr. Speaker-nothing but the bare minimum to protect itself from obvious charges.

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
I would like to recommend that hon. members opposite pay a visit to some of the native communities affected by this pollution, or at least to look at pictures of victims in Japan. Then they would get an idea of what this disease does and how painful, crippling and long-lasting the symptoms are. Then there is the most unjust thing of all about this pollution, the victims. Who are they? It is not the plant owners who must live with the fact that their children will never be able to speak to them. It is not the members of Canada's "go-go" consumer society who will have their livehood taken away. They will not be forced to live the soul-destroying life of welfare hand-outs. It is not the people who produce the chemicals, or who consume them. The people who must bear this pain, this incredible cost, are native people. It disgusts me.
These are people who have learned to live with the land; who treat it as the source of their life and their culture; who respect the land. They are the ones who are being forced to pay this price. They are paying it so someone else can sell newsprint cheaply in New York, so someone else can benefit from the sale of our mineral wealth abroad. That is what this kind of pollution is, Mr. Speaker. It is a kind of tax, a kind of hidden cost of operation. We are living high and paying very little for it right now-at least most of us. The people who are picking up our tab for the free and irresponsible ride we are taking are native people. They choose to live a life close to the land, and when we destroy that land we destroy them. I cannot think of a slower, more agonizing way to destroy a person than Minamata disease.
Members opposite have chosen from their ranks an insurance salesman to look after the affairs of Indians. They tell me that insurance salesman are pretty good at figuring odds, longshots and that kind of thing. Well, if his department knew about the possible damage that mercury could do five years ago, they sure played a longshot. They gambled that if they did nothing, nothing would happen. They were wrong. They did nothing, and we now have children who are being born with Minamata disease. This happen because the honourable insurance salesman opposite does not understand the land. He and all the others like him are too busy developing frontier resources to worry about the mess they left behind in the last place they visited.
What they do is bash away to capitalize on undeveloped natural resources with adequate or untested technology. That is the cause of this problem. If the silver mine owners in northern Ontario had known in 1910 what they were doing with all the mercury they were dumping into the lake, if a responsible government had known the reaction, then we would not be in this situation now. However, they did not know, we are in this situation, and we still have not learned. We still have not learned because the expert on the longshots over there is still "gung-ho" on using untested and inadequate technology in the north. He is gambling that the same thing that happened with early chloralkali plants and silver extraction methods will not happen with the new technology in the north. He just does not understand what land means to native people. Look at the half-hearted solutions he has come up with. In Quebec, he and the people like him are going to make up for the lost protein by shipping in freezers. They ship in these freezers and then expect that extra moose and beaver caught during the hunting season will replace the fish. Well, by 
my rough calculation this method will wipe out the entire moose and beaver population in a very short time. That is what I call long, range planning! In Grassy Narrows the plan is to go with the freezer trick and add a lot of welfare. Eventually they are going to relocate the people. This is typical of the mentality displayed opposite: if you dirty up the fishbowl, so what, just move on. We native people know that you cannot just move on, and people like the insurance salesman over there will have to learn it soon. When they have finished leaving their mark on the Arctic, there will literally be no place left to move. They will have to start living in the sediment of their own fishbowl.
There has been a lot of buck-passing on this issue between the provincial and federal authorities. The responsibility clearly lies across the aisle here. The problem crosses provincial boundaries; it is a federal matter. The problem involves disruption of whole economies, and that is a federal matter. The problem involves native people; that is a federal matter, too. We have had five years of governments closing down fisheries, sending in freezers and grand welfare schemes. Why did we not see money, large amounts of money, committed to research into a means of stopping the destruction caused by mercury in the nervous system? Why did we not have pollution inventories in all areas where the possibility of mercury and other heavy metal pollution exists? We knew about it over five years ago. If we had done it then, maybe one or two of the people who now have Minamata disease would be healthy today.
Why, in 1972, when the new regulations for mercury came into effect, was there any mercury allowed at all? Everyone knew at that time that the chloralkali process was becoming outdated. Everyone knew that as soon as the present equipment had been written off it would be replaced by a process that did not use mercury. Why did the government not ban it entirely then? It would have cost the pulp and paper industry a lot of money, for one thing. They would have had to replace all that equipment early. But what has it cost the Cree of Mistassini? What price do you put on a child with congenital Minamata disease?
For 400 years native people have tried to help the European adapt to this land. It was easy at first. He needed our food and our ways to survive. However, we were unable to teach them one thing: you cannot destroy the land because the land sustains you. Now that we are one step away from filling this continent completely, I hoped that this lesson would have been learned. Apparently it has not. Look at it this way. We have tried to maintain our culture, based close to the land, for 400 years. It has not been easy. We have paid. Goodness knows we have paid. We have been forced to share our land with a culture that tried to assimilate us-tried to make us like them. Well, it did not work- at least until they invented this new tactic of destroying the very basis of our lives. It does no good to give us fish from other lakes. It does no good to give us welfare and take away our self-respect, and no good to move us to another place. These things do no good because we know that you cannot move away from your own fishbowl once you destroy it.
The government should finally start to act, to assess the damages where they belong, that is, on the companies that
May 7, 1976

did the polluting in the first place, and from the public purse because the public allowed it to happen. We should have massive funding to work with the Japanese to find ways of containing mercury in both the environment and in the human nervous system. We need the development of alternate economies where our own have been destroyed, economies that will give native people their livelihood without the extremely high cost of welfare.
For a long time the government has allowed criminal negligence to occur and, Mr. Speaker, we do not need any more freezers.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today focuses on the critical problem of pollutants and in particular on mercury poisoning. I should like to deal primarily with the technical aspect of this problem and try to illustrate the perspective of the problem with respect to time-relating what has been going on, why it has and is taking the time it has and is taking, and what results there are and can be expected.
This is an area which primarily relates to research and development. One of the big problems that I have found in parliament in Ottawa is that most people do not know what research and development is, how it works and how long it takes. Research and development is not like a water tap that you can turn on and off. You can turn if off all right, but it will take seven years to turn it on again and get results. That is a good example of the time it takes to get results when tackling a serious problem such as this one and all the problems of pollution that face us in this generation.
There are several problems of pollution which are extremely important-asbestos, with the problem of asbe-stosis and radiation, especially natural radiation where you have radium which decomposes into radon, and radioactive gas. Government and industry have tackled this problem. In the mining of uranium ore, Eldorado Mines has installed extensive ventilation equipment to remove the radon gas in order to prevent miners being exposed to it. There are lead and arsenic and the problems of pollution and poisoning that have resulted from their use and abuse. We have learned more about them and how to eliminate the problem. On the question of organic phosphates, it is not too many years since Shell was bragging about TCP- tri-cresyl phosphate-in gasoline. Now, a decade later, we realize that this is a serious chemical pollutant which causes serious toxic problems which have to be dealt with. We are now trying to come to grips with the problems of organic phosphates.
The Great Lakes is another classic example of a problem that took years and years to develop before it was finally recognized and action was taken. Even though a tremendous amount of work is being done on the problem, it will take many years to clean up the Great Lakes, the worst one being, of course, Lake Erie. Although a lot of work has been done over the last decade, a great deal more still has to be done. The signs are, however, that we are beginning to win this terrible battle on pollution.
The motion before the House primarily deals with mercury and I will concentrate most of my remarks on that problem. It is only one of a vast array of pollutants, however, that we have to deal with. To illustrate how
Mercury Poisoning
seriously the federal government considers this problem, I would point out that the federal Department of the Environment is the largest technical department of the federal government. There are many times when I wish other departments had more money to spend on technology and people to do research and development. This is an important area of the environment, however, and the federal government takes it seriously.
Is mercury a new problem? Is it a new material? Far from it, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that the manufacture of hats involves mercury. You will have heard the term "as mad as a hatter", or you may remember that in "Alice in Wonderland" there was a character called the Mad Hatter. The madness was due to mercury poisoning. When mercury is ingested it goes to the brain, the liver and the kidneys. It has deleterious effects on the brain that result in madness. Mad hatters have been known for a long time. Government and industry finally realized the danger and took steps to eradicate it. In 1947, as a result of the joint effort of government and industry, the mercury process for the treatment of rabbit fur in the making of hats was discontinued and an acid-carotin process was used to treat fur for the manufacture of hats. Mercury is no longer used in the hat industry and we do not have that pollution problem.
There are several sources of mercury, Mr. Speaker. The natural sources are the degassing of the earth's surface, evaporation by wind action, and volcanic action falling again on the earth's surface as rain. These sources contribute up to 50,000 tons per year-no small amount, Mr. Speaker. The contribution from manufacturing processes is about 10,000 tons per year, or one-fifth of what occurs naturally, both organic and inorganic. These come from various sources such as the chloralkali process which contributes about 25 per cent, the electrical industry which contributes a further 20 per cent, the paint industry which is responsible for 15 per cent, control and measuring devices a further 10 per cent, and the balance from such uses as dentistry where you have mercury amalgam, and detonators which use mercury fulminate.
Mercury is also released in the combustion of fossil fuels. Mankind may liberate up to 20,000 tons of mercury per year in the environment both as organic and inorganic mercury. This may be localized in hot spots where you have combustion-near mines, smelters, chemical plants and other areas of large-scale combustion. Mercury contamination on this earth is not due only to manufacturing, commercial and industrial uses. What are the levels of mercury that we must be concerned about? No element on this earth exists in zero concentration. Sometimes the amount is very difficult to measure, but we should know the problems and the limits. In humans, mercury is measured both in the blood and in the hair. Twenty parts per billion is now regarded as the maximum acceptable level although 100 parts per billion was the previous level, now this is retained as the lower level of the "at risk" group.
Mercury turns up in fish. I will explain more about how that happens later. In uncontaminated water-water completely removed from any commercial source of mercury pollution anywhere in the world-fish are produced with a range of mercury of .03 to .2 parts per million. So with no mercury contamination from an industrial source there

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
will still be residual mercury in fish. There is no such thing as fish without any mercury content at all. The question is, what level is safe? The lower level recently suggested for fish when it forms a significant proportion of the diet, as with the Indian people, is .2 parts per million. The maximum level of tissue mercury acceptable in fish for commercial purposes is .5 parts per million. I will to refer to these levels later, but I wanted to put them on the record as a frame of reference.
The knowledge of how mercury gets into fish is very recent. In the fall of 1969, in Sweden, two scientists discovered that metal mercury in biologically active water such as that found in rivers very slowly converts into methyl mercury. Methyl mercury is a very toxic substance which is absorbed by many biological creatures, including fish.
It was in 1969 that for the first time it was realized that what had originally been thought of as inert material, metallic mercury, was able to change into a very toxic poison and get into the biological system. In the following spring of 1970, a few months later, action was taken by the provincial government of Ontario which launched a legal action against several companies in the chemical producing area near Sarnia, Ontario. The action was launched against Dow Chemical of Midland, Michigan, Dow Chemical of Canada in Sarnia, and against Wyandotte Chemicals of Michigan. Unfortunately, that legal battle is continuing to this day and is still not resolved. One of the reasons for this long delay is that a statement of claim had to be filed and was not filed until last year. The defence could not file their claim until a claim had been filed by the claimants.
Although the court case is not yet resolved, this did not stop the company from taking action, and it immediately took preventive measures to curtail the leakage of mercury from these mercury cells that were producing chlorine and caustic soda, or sodium hydroxide, in the Dow plant at Sarnia to the levels prescribed by the provincial government. They gathered as much information as they could, as quickly as possible, and came to appreciate the problem involved in trying to keep mercury down to a negligible level. They had to reduce it down to a teaspoonful a day, but still felt that was not satisfactory; so they ended up spending $40 million to replace this process by a diaphragm process whereby no mercury is used at all; the electrolyte mercury in this chlorine cell is changed to salt brine which is used instead. With no mercury in the process, there is consequently no mercury contamination or pollution.
It was the decision of the company to spend $40 million. This is no small expenditure, as I am sure hon. members will appreciate, and caused the company several problems in coming to this decision. This action was taken in 1970 and the new process, the diaphragm cell, was completed in 1973. In that year the mercury cells were closed down and the buildings torn down. So that Dow Chemical of Sarnia no longer has any chlorine cells in the mercury process, or any mercury pollution.
What was the result of that mercury going into the river system? Some of it very slowly, as we found out, became methyl mercury and was picked up by plant life in the

area, consumed by the fish life and was incorporated into the liver and brains of the fish. The people downstream from this are the Chippewas of Sarnia, some of them living on the reservation on Walpole Island. There are 1,400 people located in the Lake St. Clair area. Several samplings were taken during the early 1970s and these confirm that there was a problem there of mercury pollution. Blood samples have been taken for quite some time, as recently as November and December of 1975. Of these recent samples, which are part of an ongoing program, 162 results were obtained. Some 150 were under the 20 parts per billion level and only one was over the 50 parts per billion level, indicating a serious problem. So that 150 out of 162 results proved to be well below the level prescribed by the health officials. A health education program has been started and persons with levels over 20 parts per billion are being retested and will be retested every three months. A review of the dietary habits in this area indicates that there is little reliance on fish as the principal source of protein, and therefore a protein replacement program was not required, as it has been elsewhere in Canada. That gives the House a few details as to what one company has done, how it was done and how it fits into the total program.
The federal government, with provincial co-operation, has taken a number of steps over the past five years to deal with the health threat posed by high levels of mercury found in fish that are the staple diet of Indians living in boreal areas. In a joint statement last September, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the then Minister of the Environment, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development expressed the federal government's continuing grave concern regarding the health threat to Indians who continue to catch and eat fish known to be contaminated with mercury and outlined further measures being taken by the government to deal with the problem.
The ministers indicated that the federal government had taken steps to deal with mercury pollution problems in two areas, Dryden in northern Ontario and Quevillon in northwestern Quebec, and to head off similar situations elsewhere. Fish taken by the Grassy Narrows and White Dog . Indian bands from the Wabigoon-English River system are unsuitable for human consumption due to mercury contamination. The Dryden Chemical Company is known to have discharged significant quantities of inorganic mercury prior to the institution of effluent controls. Similarly fish consumed by the Cree Indians in the Waswanipi-Lac Quevillon area of northwestern Quebec have been contaminated by mercury from natural and industrial sources, including the Domtar complex. The health threat arose as a result of inorganic mercury being converted to toxic methyl mercury by bacteria in bottom sediments and entering the aquatic food chain and accumulating in fish tissue.
The ministers outlined a program that has been carried out with the co-operation of the provincial authorities in regard to health protection measures. Several measures are being taken and I should like to list them for the House. One has been a mercury control program which was instituted beginning in 1970. A second measure was inspection programs by the fisheries and marine service of the Department of the Environment to ensure the safety of all fish products marketed in Canada. A third measure

involved the departments concerned carrying out for several years a campaign for educating the Indians in the two areas about the true dangers of eating contaminated fish. These areas were closed to commercial fishing in 1970 and have remained closed since that time.
Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, a health team familiar with the mercury problem has been working in each of these areas. Fifthly, alternative food is being provided to the Grassy Narrows and White Dog bands through the co-operation of the provincial authorities and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A similar program is being developed for those affected in northwestern Quebec.
Sixthly, the province of Ontario has identified lakes where Indians can fish safely for food, and community freezers are being provided to store these fish. The last measure undertaken concerns economic development opportunities, including the establishment of a canoe manufacturing facility and shoe factory, which are being pursued with the assistance of other federal departments.
The Department of National Health and Welfare began to monitor the levels of mercury in humans in northwestern Ontario and northwestern Quebec in 1971 when the levels of mercury in fish were found to be above the limits permissible for human consumption. Mercury levels in blood and hair samples were found to be elevated in persons with a dietary history of significant fish consumption from contaminated areas. As a result, an educational program was commenced in both areas warning people to stop eating the contaminated fish.
In addition, a group of Indians from northwestern Quebec who had blood levels in excess of 100 parts per billion of mercury was admitted to the Montreal Neurological Institute for a complete assessment. A similar group from northwestern Ontario was investigated in Winnipeg. In addition to routine hospital tests, detailed neurological examination as well as electromyelograms and nerve conduction studies, electroencephalograms, audiograms, visual field determinations and blood cytogenetic studies were carried out. No findings specifically attributable to methyl mercury excess were detected. The results of these tests were reported to the persons concerned and made public in summary form.
There is no known effective treatment for damage to the nervous system caused by mercury poisoning. Japanese experience indicates that mercury poisoning may develop from chronic exposure to mercury, even at relatively low blood mercury levels. For these reasons and because the mercury levels in fish caught in the areas concerned will remain unacceptably high for some years, even with controls on further pollution, National Health and Welfare has based its health protection efforts on warning the people not to eat contaminated fish, while monitoring their health status. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with provincial co-operation, has arranged for the provision of fish from alternative sources in northwestern Ontario and is developing similar plans in northwestern Quebec.
On finding in 1974 and 1975 that blood levels of mercury in some individuals in both northern Ontario and north-
Mercury Poisoning
western Quebec were still in excess of 100 parts per billion, and even above 500 parts per billion in three people in northwestern Quebec, the education and monitoring program has been intensified. Dr. Tom Clarkson, an international authority on mercury toxicity, has been engaged by National Health and Welfare and has conducted an epidemiological assessment of the problem on the reserves in northwestern Ontario. An interim report was released in January of this year.
In addition, a fully equipped departmental mobile laboratory has been set up so that on-site blood and hair analysis can be carried out. Local practitioners are co-operating in the program. The Department of National Health and Welfare is sending in medical specialists, neurologists and opthalmologists to assist the health team on the reserves in screening for signs of mercury toxicity. A nutritionist is counselling the people on diet supplementation and compiling dietary histories.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that as the person replying to the main mover, he is entitled to 30 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) will be the main government speaker.


An hon. Member:: What is that tie you are wearing?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I have been questioned about my colourful tie today. It is a cub neckerchief. I should like to interject and explain that today, from the riding of Wellington, we have 75 cubs who are present in the gallery. I have the distinct honour and privilege of being one of their cub leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You can sit down now.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: I understand that priorities on the opposite side of the House are not in respect of public welfare and public well-being.
To continue, in northwestern Ontario, community people have been hired to intensify the educational program using local approaches in getting across the importance of not eating fish taken from contaminated areas. Working with community health representatives, health professionals and health educators, they have developed an audio-visual program and have commenced a household by household campaign. Similar programs are being developed in northwestern Quebec.
The government is looking for co-operation from the native associations and native leadership to assist in explaining the problem to the native people. The government has encouraged and supported the involvement of the native people in efforts to come to grips with the problem. Government support has included the provision of funding

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
for a visit by a native group from the Dryden area to Japan to see at first-hand situations in Japan where the established case of mercury poisoning in a fish-eating population has occurred.
A previous environment minister said that regulations controlling the discharge of mercury in chloralkali plant effluents were enacted in early 1972. The Dryden plant began operating in 1962; the Domtar plant at Quevillon in northwest Quebec has been operating since 1967. From the time the control requirements were initiated, mercury losses in chloralkali effluents have been reduced to 1 percent of pre-control levels. In general, levels of mercury in fish from the English-Wabigoon Rivers system have decreased from average levels of 4 parts per million to approximately 2 parts per million since mercury control regulations were instituted. The plant at Dryden was converted to the non-mercury process in November of last year.
Although direct discharges of mercury to receiving waters have been drastically reduced during the last three years, ministers are concerned with the large amounts of mercury discharged during past decades. Bottom sediments of some river systems are contaminated with mercury. That contamination undoubtedly continues to find its way through the aquatic food chain. Considerable effort is being devoted at this time to finding solutions to this problem. Fisheries and marine service scientists at the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg are examining mercury in various levels of the ecosystem in the waters of northwest Ontario in order to determine the rate of disappearance of mercury from the environment.
During my tour of the fisheries laboratory in Halifax last month I was able to learn that mercury studies have been conducted there on harp seals in conjunction with the University of Guelph. They have been detecting and determining the effects of mercury on seals and the mercury poisoning of herds, since it is known that these seals have had a high content of mercury and have been eating fish contaminated with mercury. The program was completed after a year of study and the results have just been reported.
Studies also at Halifax are going on in the area of cod where their reproductive system is being investigated to see if this may not be one of the factors contributing to the depletion of fish stocks off the maritime coast. Other contaminants are also being looked at at the same time. In addition to mercury, this includes arsenic, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls and organic phosphates which I mentioned earlier. Ministers noted that the problem in northwest Quebec was more difficult to deal with because there are high natural levels of mercury in the waters of certain lakes and rivers. In addition, the Indian people of the Waswanipi area have a nomadic lifestyle that involves a broad area and with few fixed communities.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on record as disagreeing with the mover of the motion who said that the government is inactive and has done nothing. I think I have shown by my comments that the government has been very concerned, very active and has an ongoing program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Not only has the government been active, but advisory groups to the government have also been very active. I would like to refer to the Science Council report "Policy and Poisons" which was started a month ago and deals with five areas of pollution which are of great concern. These five areas involve lead, asbestos, a group of organic chemicals, oxides of nitrogen, radiation and, of course, mercury. This study should be finished in a year's time and covers various legal, social, technical, economical, industrial and environmental aspects of the problem. I think I have adequately proved that the government is active, as is the scientific community. A great deal has been done, much is being done and a great deal still has to be done and I am sure will be done.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin today with a quotation from Solzhenitsyn, who said:
I used to think that experience of life can be handed on from one nation to another and from person to person. But now I am beginning to have my doubts about this. Perhaps everyone is fated to live through every experience himself in order to understand.
How true that rings today after the experience of Japan. The Minamata disease was so clearly evident, so clearly misunderstood and misinterpreted here in Canada. I think we should begin by looking at the problem briefly.
We have just heard a dissertation about the great things being done by the government of Canada. That speech flies in the face of the expert witnesses who appeared before the committee. They gave a more true and more accurate picture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Who were those witnesses? I speak today neither as a chemist nor as a scientist of any kind. My references are not from politicians but are from the great academics of our nation and nations abroad.
I shall quote the expert testimony of Dr. Peter A. Larkin from British Columbia, and Dr. Louis Azzaria from Quebec. From Ontario I shall quote Dr. Clarkson. I shall also quote the environmentalist writer, Ms. Smith. Testimony was presented before the committee. At the committee it was stated that the World Health Organization safety level for mercury in fish has been set at .5 parts per million. Testimony showed that Canadian waters register at ten times that. The government even has conceded that the levels in some areas of Canada are 15 to 30 times greater that the safety level in respect of mercury pollution. One case at the White Dog reserve is described where the blood level of an infant at birth was 100 parts per billion. Other tests showed that it would take 100 years for the environment naturally to process the mercury currently there to a state that would reach the international standard set by the World Health Organization.
What do we see? We see that it will take 100 years just for the natural dissolution of the mercury in our environment. In answer to my question whether there is an overall increase or whether the increase is stabilized the expert witness said that it is certainly going up. So we are not
May 7, 1976

merely talking of the problem of today, but an increasing problem. He said:
If we compare the figures of the thirties with the figures for the seventies, there is a fourfold increase. So we are certainly going up. That is the direction we are going.
That is the specific and expert testimony. In addition to that and other testimony, I might quote from Dr. Peter Larkin, who said:
I think it might interest the committee to know, that there is, to my knowledge, no comprehensive review of the occurrence of mercury in the Canadian environment, and a review would be desirable.
Dr. Azzaria says:
The important issues are the people who have been affected by mercury poisoning-They have definite cases of mercury poisoning. This is where the priority lies.
Ms. Smith, co-author of "Minamata", says:
-both in Minamata and previous outbreaks in Japan-the effect was not noticed in the human population until several years after contamination had begun.
We heard other testimony from the government side to the effect that the blue fin tuna caught off the east coast of Canada is not allowed to be consumed in Canada, while we do export for consumption in Japan, of all places. We hear from Dr. Azzaria that some of the mercury has been transported aerially long distances from important industrial centres in North America. We heard, also, that there has been very little variation in the Greenland ice sheet between the year 800 B.C. and 1952. There had been very little variation in the increase in mercury contamination, while in the period 1962 to 1965 the concentration in that icefield doubled.
These are just some of the statements which show that the problem is not in hand. The solutions are neither known nor implemented. The fact that this is so is a condemnation of the government of Canada for its ineffective action in respect of this program. We have just heard a scientific-dissertation by a chemist. I want to say to the members of this House that this is not merely a matter of chemistry or a dissertation. Let us look at the problem that really exists. As I stated in respect of an earlier quotation, this is a problem in which somehow it seems that everyone is fated to live through every experience himself so to live. I hope no member on the opposite side of the House will ever have to live through Minamata disease.
I still feel they have an obligation to try to understand the feelings of the people suffering from this disease. In that respect, I shall send to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) a book of pictures that will help him understand-because he is a member and parliamentary secretary-the feelings of the people who suffer from this disease. Let us look at some of the quotations. What does this disease do? How does it affect the human body? I shall quote again from the expert evidence of the witnesses. This is an indication of what Minamata does in relation to the human being who suffers from it. In extreme cases you can see a person having terrible convulsions, with twisted limbs, and collapsing. However, in most cases what happens is that there is a severe inability to co-ordinate. If you want to reach for a glass of water, you have to be able to think very hard to be able to move your fingers.
Mercury Poisoning
Then there is further testimony to this effect concerning what Minamata is like and how it reacts. Children are born completely crippled, with very severe mental retardation. They are often blind, with twisted limbs. They are unable to walk, unable to eat on their own, and so on. The children born after the occasion in Japan are now attending regular schools. It is found that there is a mental deficiency of 29 per cent, and much higher percentages of sensory disturbance and co-ordination problems. These are the real problems which exist and which we must learn to feel and understand. We learned that Lake Winnipeg, the St. Lawrence River, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, the Ottawa River, the Saskatchewan River system, and the Red Deer River were only a few of the major bodies of water in Canada polluted to a significant degree with mercury.
Worst of all is the English-Wabigoon system near Dryden in northwestern Ontario and northwestern Quebec. Residents in both these areas show dangerously high concentrations of mercury in their blood and hair, and some display the early symptoms of Minamata disease. Mercury poisoning, or Minamata disease, occurs when inorganic mercury, usually from chemical factories, is discharged into bodies of water and lodges in the bottom sediments. There it is converted by bacteria into toxic organic mercury, which works its way up the aquatic food chain to man. It then attacks the neurological system, leading to physical deformation, mental deterioration and eventually death.
In pregnant women, excessive levels of organic mercury can lead to abortion or to the birth of mentally retarded or congenitally deformed children. No one knows the true extent of mercury pollution in Canada. In the cases of mercury poisoning that we are aware of, the federal government has attempted to shift the responsibility to the provinces. As Mrs. Smith put it: "I have seen something that I would have to call extreme inaction." That is a description of the government's program that was described to us earlier today. What needs to be done? Dr. Larkin summed it up this way:
In particular, there are needs for research on how you might remove mercury from fish in processing them for human consumption, research on medicines that might increase the rate at which people might eliminate mercury that they had taken into their food. There is particular need for research on techniques of removing accumulations of mercury from bottom sediments in rivers and streams. There is need for search concerning safe levels of human consumption of different forms of mercury, the rates at which they are eliminated and the kinds of damage they do, including the effect on unborn infants.
I think it is important to realize that the research that is needed on mercury is of a very sophisticated nature. It is the sort of area in which I would think it was essential that there should be federal involvement . . .
I also think there should be federal funding. Certainly such research programs are cheap at half the price when you consider that in Japan corporations and government have paid out $83 million in claims to victims of this disease.
In addition to that, while we recognize the need for long-term research, as Ms. Smith also said, we need to recognize that now is the time for immediate action to ensure that people do not continue to consume contaminat-

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
ed fish, because there is evidence that this is occurring at present.
We also require an immediate and comprehensive review. At present there are such unrelated reviews with respect only to water, but we should move far beyond the surveillance and examination of water because we find that the basic sources of from 40 per cent to 65 per cent of mercury in the environment are unknown.
In addition to a comprehensive review we must examine the monitoring systems and we must police them better. We were told in the testimony before the committee that at present the monitoring systems are not standardized. The tests that are taken are ineffective, inaccurate, and deceptive because they are taken at times of the year when mercury levels are low and in areas where people are not eating a full diet of fish. So the monitoring program, as stated so ably by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), should be reviewed, and if time allows me I will go into that in detail in a few minutes.
Let us look at government action on these programs. It seems to me that the action of the government has resulted in inaction, or at least inadequate action. Let us look at what its supporters did in committee. When we sat in committee, what was the response of our counterparts on the Liberal side? There were attempts to discredit witnesses and attempts to block motions calling for further and full investigation into this matter.


Walter David Baker: Shame!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Not only that, but we hear that the government has withheld information from the House and this committee. A direct quotation from the testimony states-


Mrs. Holt:: Shame!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The hon. member who feels that these are cliches I am sure understands-


Simma Holt: I said "shame". Your House leader keeps saying "shame" every third word.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It is this government that should be ashamed. They should hang their heads in shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Instead of saying "shame" why do you not read the minutes and listen to our speeches? If you did, you would condemn the government, as we must do here today, because we should not have to have this debate in the House of Commons. We have it because you refuse to listen to the native people who have Minamata disease. It should never have been necessary. It is the kind of attitude displayed by the government that has made it necessary. The hon. member had better be prepared to answer the following question. Perhaps she will stand up and say a few words in answer to my question. The witness stated in the committee:
This report was written in 1972 and investigation was begun in 1975. There have been allegations that this was not made public until 1975. I think this should be clarified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Why was the government afraid to let this come out in the debate? What was this information about, and why was the investigation into the source of the distribution of mercury into the environment of northwestern Quebec not made public sooner? Perhaps the hon. member will answer this question. Government members were afraid that we would bring this information to the public through this debate. We hope that through this debate we will force this inactive government into action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Don't use such negative words. Be more positive.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member who says, "Be more positive". I have been positive. I have made positive suggestions. I hope the hon. member will use the energy which she is using here to prod the cabinet ministers who are not here today into action. I have great concern and feeling for people with Minamata disease and for the fisheries, the water, and the resources of Canada.


Simma Holt: Be more positive.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I understand that today it will not be possible to have here the three cabinet ministers who are most closely involved in this problem, but surely we could have had one minister present during the debate, surely one could be here to respond to what we have to say on this problem. Perhaps the hon. member opposite will send them a copy of Hansard and ask them to read it so they can hear about this problem.
The president of Dryden Chemical Limited asserted that effluent mercury had been reduced to about one fifth of an ounce per day last year, and yet the Ontario government report contradicts this and states that the level of readings ranges from 60 to 60,000 times the normal level. We have given industry too much credit for their conscience, and unfortunately it will be necessary for the government to monitor them much more severely. The government has brought in mouthpiece legislation such as the Contaminants Act, which sounds great, but how effective it is was shown by the fact that mercury pollution in this country is not stabilized, is not decreasing but increasing.
I could go on for a considerable length of time but there are other hon. members who wish to speak. I should like to conclude by stating that the distant call of the ancient loon is disappearing from wilderness lakes and is being replaced by the hollow cries of Minamata disease victims as they cry out to a distant, cold, and incomprehensive government. I call on the government to see these people today, to listen to them, to hear them, and to hear the cries of their afflicted brothers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in this very important debate on the problem of mercury pollution in Canada, especially in northern Ontario, a region which I represent in my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie. The concern that many of us have on a nation-wide scale has been dramatized recently by the revelations of mercury
May 7, 1976	COMMONS DEBATES________________________13309
poisoning in the water systems of northwestern Ontario, especially in the White Dog and Grassy Narrows Indian reserves.
One does not have to dramatize mercury poisoning. Anyone who has witnessed even still photographs of what that does to the nervous system and how it creates deformity in human beings, and anyone who has seen films of victims of this kind of poisoning will know that it is a dreadful and shattering experience to see fellow human beings in fits of convulsion because of an industrial pollutant like this which has been allowed to go into our river systems, into fish, and hence into the human food chain.
This disease is not new. It has been thoroughly researched in Japan because there have been hundreds of victims of mercury poisoning there, and the native people of northwestern Ontario and elsewhere have been concerned about the pollutants which large industries have been pouring into the air and also into the water systems. Evidence of mercury poisoning has been building up in the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves for a number of years, and despite the evidence and the current revelations, especially the testimony on Minamata disease of expert Japanese scientists who have visited the native people, we see the companies responsible ignoring their responsibility and denying that they have anything to do with the pollution problem.
We see governments not taking action to clean up the pollution mess or to compensate the native people for the loss of their jobs and the destruction of their environment. We also see the general public which, except for a brief "tut, tut" when it sees a newsfilm or reads an article, lapsing back into complacency about this very severe problem which is destroying the livelihood and the health of a number of Canadians.
I weigh what I am going to say with careful concern and consideration, but I believe that had this been a white community at White Dog or Grassy Narrows, this mercury pollution problem would have been cleaned up years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: It is an indication of the latent racism of Canadian society which says that as long as it is out of sight, society is not concerned, and if it involves Indians or native people, society is even less concerned. That is indicated by the lack of action of both the federal and provincial governments. If it had been a white community, there would have been such a public outcry and such concern among our political leaders that we would have seen the environment cleaned up very quickly, and we would have seen the proper compensation forthcoming.


Simma Holt: That is cheap racemongering.


Reginald Cyril Symes: We have only to remember the situation at Port Hope to see how quickly the government moved to provide compensation and clean up facilities.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am deeply concerned that in a House which should be as responsible as this one should be, there is deliberate racemongering, and I resent it very, very much.
Mercury Poisoning


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: I said that I weighed those words very carefully and I could not find any other conclusion to be reached that explains the inaction of the government when human lives are at stake. That has been going on for years. This government knows it, and so does the provincial government. What other explanation can there be for this lack of action and this lack of concern?
While I commend the federal Conservative party for raising this issue, I wish it also had taken some action and used the influence it has in getting the provincial Conservative government of Ontario to take some positive action in its areas of jurisdictional responsibility.


Mr. Dinsdale:: That is the purpose of debate.


Reginald Cyril Symes: We know that since 1960 mercury has been put into the Wabigoon and English River System by the Dryden Chemical Company, a subsidiary of Reed Paper Ltd. In May of 1970 the Ontario government announced that the mercury pollution problem was not serious in this area and that it would go away in a few months. We have heard expert testimony that it will take at least 100 years for the river system to cleanse itself of this dangerous pollutant.
In 1973 the Ontario Conservative government put up signs saying "Fish for Fun" for all the people who were fishing in that river system. The native people of these areas do not fish for fun, they fish for their livelihood, to feed themselves and their children, and that kind of callous action is little compensation or relief for people who depend on fishing for their well-being.
In March of 1975 the Ontario government sent letters to reserve residents telling them either to eat no fish, to eat less fish, small fish, or fish with lower mercury levels. Where is responsible government concern demonstrated in that kind of action and advice for the native people?
In 1975 Japanese scientists familiar with Minamata disease visited the Grassy Narrows reserve and began investigations to prepare a report to prod political leaders to take some action and clean up pollution, but what did the provincial minister of natural resources, Leo Bernier call them? He called them a travelling pack of troubadors. That is how the provincial government viewed respected scientists and their concern for the problems of the native people.
In April, 1975, evidence showed that the Dryden Chemical Company had been emitting seven and a half pounds of mercury per day into the river system, whereas the native people and the rest of Canada had been assured by the government that the amount was only a few ounces per day. We have, supposedly, effective anti-pollution legislation at both the federal and provincial levels to give governments power to regulate pollution in terms of discharge into the air or into the water system. If seven and a half pounds per day, which exceeds the maximum level, is being emitted, why is that allowed to go on? Again, the answers are not forthcoming. It is indicative of a callous indifference on the part of the provincial and federal governments.

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
The provincial government offered freezers to the people on the reserves to store non polluted fish or to encourage them to hunt for game and other food sources. As my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) pointed out, that kind of policy would deplete the animal food supply in the area within a few short years.
In terms of human health I have pointed out that the disease is a terrible one for any human being to suffer. There has been research in Japan, Sweden, and Canada to try to bring about a solution to the problem. Despite the fact that so much research has gone on, the frightening thing is that much of it has not become public knowledge or implemented, and that the results of that research are not used to solve the problem. There was a five year test program on the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves. There was a joint Quebec-federal government mercury investigation in northwest Quebec. The report was presented in 1975. The federal Department of National Health and Welfare sponsored environmental research to study the blood and hair tissue of people living in areas which were thought to be contaminated. We have all these reports, but still no action.
The National Indian Brotherhood has conducted its own independent study. It has made recommendations, and still, except for more pious promises that further research will be done, there has not been effective action to control this dangerous pollution problem. The governments at both levels are aware of the problem but they deny their information to the native people. They have told the native people to be patient, that more research must be done, and that the problem is not as serious as they think. In the meantime we see more and more evidence of children, men, and women having symptoms of mercury poisoning or Minamata disease. It has affected the health of native people, their whole livelihood, their incomes, and their standard of living.
I now wish to put on record the story of Mr. Joe Payash, a 30-year-old man with seven children, who lives on Grassy Narrows Reserve, northwestern Ontario. In the story to which I am referring he explains the economics of the reserve. This man, Mr. Speaker, is taking welfare for the first time in his life. Last summer he was a guide at one of the fishing lodges. He will probably return next summer despite the dreadful knowledge that the traditional shore lunch of mercury-laden fish he must eat each day with the tourists who have hired him may some day kill him. He is paid $24 a day for guiding two people in a boat, and has done it all his life. Today he has stomach pains and a tightness across his chest, which may or may not be symptoms of mercury poisoning. He does not know. The last time his blood was tested he was told he had 210 parts per billion of mercury, a dangerously high level. The currently acceptable maximum level believed safe by the Ontario government is 100 parts per billion. As he says, "But it's the only way I can work, the only way I know how to earn a living."
It is not good enough to send freezers so that the native people may store non-contaminated fish. It is not good enough to say to them, "We need to do further studies." It is not good enough to say to them that we cannot enforce our environmental laws, and it is not good enough to tell

them we don't know if the Dryden chemical plant is the polluter. Those people face economic ruin while the government delays and does not bring forward adequate programs which can help to redesign the economy of those affected areas.
It is interesting to note that the native people of those reserves now live in a state of welfare because, through no fault of their own and because of lack of effective environmental laws in this country, an industry has polluted the river system from which they gained their livelihood. Before 1969 the total welfare budget on White Dog Reserve was below $50,000. By 1974 the budget had risen to $162,000. Similarly, on Grassy Narrows Reserve the total welfare budget in 1969 was about $30,000. By 1973 it had risen to $122,000.
We have heard stories of the social disintegration of families and neighbourhoods in the area, of people turning to drink in desperation, of alcoholism which is rampant and increasing, of increased violence involving assault and shooting, of husbands and wives separating and children suffering because homes are broken, all because the government has not accepted responsibility, or has not made private industry accept responsibility for destroying the livelihood of these people.
In the limited time available I will try to make positive suggestions as to a course of action the federal government can take. The federal government cannot pass the buck and say this is a provincial responsibility, because the English-Wabagoon river system crosses the provincial boundaries and therefore comes under federal jurisdiction. The federal government has the power, under environmental laws, to get tough, and it will if it seriously wants to do something about the problem. It can say to polluting companies, "Clean up." The federal government can introduce legislation which will make the companies compensate the victims of the pollution the companies have caused. It is not good enough to slough off the problem and say that the companies have not polluted. The problem is there. The companies have polluted. It is time they accepted their responsibilities.
The federal government can assist the companies to install better equipment which will prevent pollution of the environment. It can do this by passing laws and, if necessary, by giving tax incentives to speed the process. As well, we can adopt some of the suggestions made by the Japanese scientists who visited northwestern Ontario. Their recommendations, based on their expertise and experience, are well worth-while. They recommended as follows:
1.... Stop all consumption of the contaminated fish and make the natives aware of the seriousness of the situation.
2.	An intensive and indepth examination be performed on all the inhabitants of the area by competent and experienced physicians.
3.	That such a study be carried out under the auspices of Dr. Newberry, the reserve's resident physician, because he understands the situation and is knowledgeable about the Dryden-Kenora mercury pollution problem.
4.	That native people and other concerned citizens ask for comprehensive compensation to pay for the damage to the health and life style of the Dryden-Kenora residents.
5.	'Continue and promote the co-operation and exchange of experience with the victims in Japan, as well as with the supporting experts, domestic and foreign.'
May 7, 1976

6.	All data on mercury pollution be made public, especially to those concerned.
7.	Participation of natives in the decision making bodies dealing with White Dog-Grassy Narrows mercury pollution.
Acting on such suggestions can do more to solve the problem and help the native peoples than all the government's pious platitudes, past programs, and readings from government press releases. It is not good enough for government members merely to talk. The problem is there. It is the result of government inaction. I call on the members of this House and the people of Canada to make sure action is taken to save the health and livelihood of the natives of Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves, and of other areas of Canada which are affected by such pollution.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to inform- hon. members that if the Minister of Environment, the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand), cannot be present in the House this afternoon to hear and take part in this debate, it is unfortunately because-and he apologizes-he had to fulfil a commitment he undertook some time ago. Of course he tried to cancel it but it was impossible, and I ask you to accept his apology. He asked me to take part in the debate and to make note of the representations and opinions expressed by the various members so that we can discuss the matter next week. And I can assure you that his officers will carefully examine hon. members' comments.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that although the government's colleagues and critics seemed to indicate that the cabinet was not worrying enough about this environmental problem and about the damages that pollution may cause in many fields, particularly the one to which today's motion is addressed, mercury. I must say that the federal government and the cabinet, and I am sure that applies also to all my colleagues on this side of the House, are very concerned about the problems of pollution. The Department of the Environment employs the most scientists, and they have been working regularly for several years at analysing all causes and effects of pollution. It suggests to the government and its various departments the actions and the precautions that it should take to put a stop to the pollution which has happened throughout the years because of a lack of foresight and also maybe a lack of knowledge. It is particularly important to prevent this pollution from continuing and to reject new formulas or technologies which could endanger the environment.
Of course, it is easy to criticize. However, it is not so easy to apply solutions which take into account not only pollution, but also several economic factors. I would like to congratulate the hon. member who proposed the motion now before the House since it allows the House, of course, but also members of the press, through the information media, to make the population more aware of the need that governments must now face, the need for the population to support and understand the action that all levels of government must take to solve the problem of the environment.
It is not always easy to impose measures to fight and prevent pollution because these measures often restrict freedom and increase business installation costs. Also in
Mercury Poisoning
many cases, and I am now talking as minister responsible for Regional Economic Expansion, several industrial business construction or expansion projects are postponed for a long period and even abandoned because estimated costs to meet the requirements that we now impose on industries are such that the profitability of the business is placed in jeopardy. Naturally, businesses must then postpone their project.
I think it is normal to stiffen requirements in this area, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has become more and more demanding in the last few years, and each time we are in doubt about an application, we refer it to the Department of the Environment so that it can make a recommendation on the proposed investment. This delays the examination of applications and I even receive criticisms from promoters on the one hand, and representations from my colleagues in the House on the other hand asking me why we delay so much in making the decision. Because of this analysis process concerning all the implications of a particular study we must sometimes delay our decision.
Mr. Speaker, in the 60s some very complex environmental problems imputable to mercury appeared in Japan and Sweden. This prompted environment experts in Canada to launch in 1969-70 a national inventory of mercury uses and its risk for the environment.
As there was a possibility of contamination of mercury treated seeds, the experts started a North American wildlife study. Following that research and particularly the study by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Agriculture Canada prohibited the use of mercury based longicides in 1970-71 under the terms of the Pest Control Products Act.
By the end of 1969, after serious warnings concerning the incidious mercury pollutions in the central provinces, the Fisheries Research Board of Canada launched studies aimed at controlling the contamination level of fish. Several takes of fish from Lake Winnipeg, Saskatchewan River, Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie contained up to nine parts per million of mercury, which instigated the provincial authorities on the advice of the federal department of fisheries and forests to close several commercial fishing zones throughout Canada. At the same time, provincial governments made rod fishermen aware of the risk inherent in eating fish from some areas. On the other hand, the efforts aimed at preventing a high consumption of contaminated fish among the local population was not a complete success.
As is was already recognized in Sweden, it was established that mercury contamination came mainly from industrial sources. A good number of pulp and paper mills used mercury derivatives in their process. When the inquiries demonstrated the seriousness of the mercury problem in North America, the pulp and paper industry voluntarily stopped to use mercury cells as early as 1969-70 which eliminated mercury discharges in the environment, except for minimal quantities related to combustible raw materials and chemical products.
The chlor-alkali industry that produced chlorine from mercury cells was also identified as major source of contamination In December 1970, the federal Minister of the

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
Environment asked that industry to reduce voluntarily its mercury wastes, while legislation was being drafted. Generally speaking, the industry co-operated and the mercury discharged in liquid from, estimated at almost 148,000 pounds a year in 1970 went down to about 6,000 pounds annually as early as in 1971, and to 800 pounds a year over the period from 1973 to 1976.
In March 1972, Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada edict-ed regulations on mercury waste from chlor-alkali plants. Under the Fisheries Act, those regulations limit the quantity of mercury the plants can discharge into the receiving waters. Taking into account the technique available to the industry, the maximum rate of discharge of 1 millionth part of mercury for each ton of chlorine produced has been set as the standard. Since May 1972, all chlor-alkali plants file daily reports on their discharges, as well as their purchases of mercury, regardless of what use it made of it.
Over that period, Environment Canada officials have met the representatives of several companies to discuss their mercury control programs and their compliance to the requirements. In addition, the plants have been supervised by provincial authorities or staff members of the Department of the Environment in order to check the data they have supplied.
According to the files of the department, direct discharges of mercury into water streams have been reduced to a level corresponding to about 1 per cent of that at the time the problem was discovered. Those files have also demonstrated that the total consumption of mercury by chlor-alkali plants is only about half what it was before 1970.
In spite of that substantial reduction, we consider the present consumption as being much too high. The plants have been unable to provide a complete report on their mercury consumption. This summer environment Canada expects to table regulations establishing mercury discharge standards for chlor-alkali plants under the Clean Air Act. The discharge of mercury in the atmosphere by chlor-alkali plants using mercury cells have been estimated at 26.4 tons in 1970 and at 12 tons in 1975. It should be reduced at 2 tons yearly as a result of the application of new measures against air pollution.
We are also trying to find a solution to dispose of dirt and solid wastes from chlor-alkali plants. The most widely used procedures are burying and filling up, but there is also a mecury recovery procedure used by a small number of Canadian plants. We are convinced that regulation and procedures for mercury recovery will reduce mercury use and provide a better control.
In 1973, the CIL plant in Hamilton and the Dow plant in Thunder Bay closed down, and the two Dow plants in Sarnia have phased out their mercury cell system and switched to the diaphragm cell which does not use mercury. In 1975, the mercury cell euipped Reed Paper Company plant in Dryden began using the diaphragm cell without mercury. With the implementation of regulations establishing mercury emission standards for chlor-alkali plants, the old plants will have to convert gradually from mercury cell to non-mercury systems.

Of course, we are aware of the other mercury contaminating sources, such as municipal sources, resistant paints, electric appliances, batteries, as well as mercury emanations from foundries and coal combustion. Added to this industrial contamination is the mercury from natural sources which is found in movement in our waters. The department is carefully monitoring and assessing the mercury from those sources. In addition, it has been evaluating the mercury content in sediments, water, fish and wildlife in order to determine the trends and locate the areas where the problem is serious.
As a result of the steps taken by the industry and the government, I am glad to announce to the House, and I think we will all agree on this, that the situation is improving. A report to be made public shortly by the department shows that the mercury concentration in the waters of western Canada has decreased considerably in the early 70s. The improvement in the west are apparently due mainly to the regulations applicable to chlor-alkali plants, the prohibition of mercury-treatment for grain and the application of purification measures in the industry as a whole. Several areas which had been closed to commercial fishing have been reopened or show signs of reduction of the mercury content of the fish or other forms of aquatic life. Most of the sediments recently formed in the areas affected contain less mercury than those formed at the end of the 60s.
As a matter of fact, the programs of the department have been reasonably successful and markedly reduced the loss of mercury in the aquatic environment. However there are still mercury residues in sediments, mostly downstream from former industrial sources. Unfortunately, these residues will continue to contaminate water bodies and fish for many long years to come. To a large extent, human history is made up of a series of innovations to solve problems. Faced with a challenge, we react by solving the problem and by exploiting its solution. But now, we know the answers. We find that a great number of solutions we adopted have merely served to create further problems, often very serious, and we meet these problems in a great many endeavours of human activity. Regardless of the environment or other problems, our pas conduct comes back to haunt our future.
What we must do, both as individuals and as a society, is to learn to see beyond the immediate advantages derived from our actions, to learn to consider secondary and tertiary, and even more remote consequences. Of course, it is always difficult to evaluate. I know that it is not easy. However, we cannot afford to let immediate advantages outweigh long-term considerations. Too often decisions and measures have been made according to their primary consequences, namely the immediate benefits. These consequences often lead to a chain reaction of prolonged secondary and tertiary and even more remote effects and their public impact can neutralize the initial advantage.
Unfortunately, we have always taken so much time to discover or to determine the long-term effects that to a certain extent we have become the slaves of the immediate advantages and that we have integrated them in our culture. Thus, even before the obviousness of disastrous effects in the long run, it is sometimes hard for us to admit that our original decision was wrong and to try to find an
May 7, 1976

alternative. On the contrary, sometimes we remain fascinated by the short-term advantages and we try to make the system more sophisticated to prevent its long-term effects, as far as possible. It is obvious that we should be more careful, more rational while making our decision. We must look beyond the immediate benefits and attempt to assess the long-term effects. This choice will allways be hard to make.
In the environment area, we have begun changing the way we make decisions. It may be in the environment that the effects of short-term decisions were most evident. Several past benefits are becoming problems now-something we have learned not so long ago. Thus it was only in the late 60s that the results of our actions appeared, both for the planet and for ourselves. From then on, we started to progress, to make better decisions.
The first step was to meet immediate needs. Knowing the effect and the nature of air, earth and water pollution, our natural reaction was to take immediate steps to avoid and, if possible, repair the damage. To do so, we issued various standards and instructions governing the quality of environment and we also regulated some known detrimental operations. It was also the onset of a new technology to control the polluting elements at discharge.
It goes without saying that this approach, though valid, is not sufficient. We must undertake a second stage, prevention, and this is what we are now doing. We are now learning to assess the long term implications of our actions, the real future costs. This is extremely important, not only for the quality of our life, but for our very survival.
Both to set the pace and to increase its knowledge, the federal government through the Department of Environment has established an environmental assessment and review process for ongoing projects of which it is part and which are likely to affect the environment. Not only does the value of such a process lie in the progress which may stem from it but also in the fact that it is a first step towards a valuable consideration of the consequences of our actions.
It is obvious that this process is still in the early stages but it v/orks. Its real value will depend on the way it will prompt others to adopt similar assessment mechanisms with regard to the environment and other realms of human activity. Rational decision making is being impeded whenever we do not have the necessary knowledge to proceed with valuable pre-assessments. For instance, we do not possess sufficient knowledge to delineate the border line between what is a hazard and what is not. We must always take costs and benefits into consideration.
Some people are against the use of aspirin, even if it has been easing the pain of many people for quite a number of years, and it will very unlikely be withdrawn from the market because of the pernicious effects it may have on a very small minority. D.D.T. is accepted by the body under a certain level, even if it can be dangerous for human beings as well as for other living organisms. But, if the use of D.D.T. had been forbidden 30 years ago because of its dangers, millions of people would have died in the meantime from certain diseases, and probably from hunger.
Mercury Poisoning
When we are unduly concerned over the unfavourable effects of a particular thing, we might forget about interesting innovations. So we must decide whether what we get from preventing some technological damage is more important than what we lose if we stop all progress. Mr. Speaker, the answer to this problem is, of course, research. If we agree that evaluations are essential, if we want to take the right decisions, we must be prepared to study very carefully the impact of each alternative.
Another very heavy constraint in this country is that of constitutional jurisdictions. The Canadian political system constitutes in fact a mosaic of various jurisdictions that often paralize us, or at least slow down decisions and action. To speak more clearly, in certain areas of activity decisions and actions by an administrative level have an important effect on others. This is particularly true in the area of environment. One of the annoying characteristics of agreements in that respect is the following: people coming under a particular administration tend to think that the outside harmful effects of their actions do not concern them. That is untrue, of course. We cannot allow jurisdictional limits to restrict the assessment of our actions. This would be abdicating our responsibilities.
Intergovernmental cooperation is a basic must in carrying out the urgent tasks of environmental management. Without that cooperation no political or institutional structure and no distribution of power and responsibility can work. So the essential key to success in managing tomorrow's environment is in short enlightened cooperation based on knowledge and respect for the respective roles of the various levels of government. The notion of development in harmony with nature is based on the application of ecological principles not only with respect to industrial activity but also all our institutions and our culture. Ecology, the science of system indivisibility and interdependence, requires a form of reasoning common to several disciplines and behaviour based on intercommunication. So there is place for symbiotic relationship between individuals, institutions, regions and states. We all know the interaction that exists within our ecosystem and, consequently, we can understand the overall meaning of the term "development in harmony with nature."
We want to elaborate a conceptual representation designed to promote development in harmony with nature in Canada. The basic concepts reside in the fact that ecological principles must permeate the essence of social institutions, culture, the lifestyle and industrial activities designed to provide the goods indispensable to survival. But if those concepts are to continue to exist, develop and take a concrete form, we must solve the main conflicts of national priorities.
Therefore we shall have to develop a social justice and live within the confines of restraints imposed by our environment. This is a fundamental duty: growth in harmony with nature must neither sacrifice the present for the benefit of the future nor the future for the benefit of the present. We must rather apply the wisdom of environmental principles to the development of social institutions, of a life generating system and of ways of livelihood. Mr. Speaker, we are all very aware-and I think Canadians are becoming ever more aware-of the importance of protecting our environment, but we must remember at the same
13314______________________COMMONS DEBATES__________________May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
time that all governments and all Canadians are also willing to continue to have a standard of living, a quality of life which is among the highest in the world. This is why in this statement I emphasize this challenge, with which we are faced now, of properly assessing the impact of decisions we have to take both on the environment and the quality of life, the standard of living, indeed on incomes and our national economy as a whole.
It is always difficult to decide when confronted with such dilemmas. When a major industrial development is planned in an area or a province, or in the country, and that the economic benefits for the country and the area concerned are being considered, the effects it will have on the environment as a whole must also be weighed. It is always difficult to make a choice. Canadians, I think, can be assured that the present government will do its best to ensure that industries and various governmental agencies take all precautions so that industrial or other developments be carried out with maximum respect for the environment. And if we have no other choice, if it is obvious that the environment must substantially suffer from investments or the growth of an industry, the government will then have to make the difficult choice and refuse that such investment be made in the hope that they can be made in other areas which are equally productive, and which will naturally make a contribution to the economy, while respecting environmental requirements.
I thank hon. members for their contributions and the views. You will understand that I do not necessarily accept all the criticisms that have been voiced because I believe they were overstated in some cases, but on thing is obvious-today's debate, our exchanges of views will most probably contribute to promote the cause of environmental protection as a whole.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), for moving this important motion today in which he censures the government for the shocking neglect of the problem caused by mercury poisoning. Frankly, as a member of parliament I am ashamed how little this issue has been raised in the House of Commons, and as a Canadian I am angered by the apparent low priority that the government places on the well-being of other Canadians whose health and lives are in imminent jeopardy.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the comments of the two government members who have spoken so far. I could not help but feel a little sorry for the role in which the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) has been cast. He is a colleague and friend of mine, and I have a high regard for him. I think he came to parliament out of a great sense of human concern for people in this country, and I am sorry to see him cast in the role of an apologist for the government in which he is required to rehash old government news releases, periodically injecting scientific jargon into them.
I was not, however, so surprised by the minister's performance. If the translator translated what he had to say correctly, he explained it was his responsibility today

to make excuses-that is the word the translator used-for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) who could be with us today. Certainly making excuses is precisely what the minister did.
The minister says that the Minister of the Environment had other appointments which he could not break, that he had a responsibility to attend them and that he could not be with us here though he would have liked to be. If the minister says that is the case, I accept it. But where is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and where is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan)? Surely their stake in this is every bit as great as that of the Minister of the Environment? I am appalled that when an issue like this, which comes before parliament so infrequently, is raised the ministry is able to put up only one minister to speak in the debate, a minister who has no direct jurisdiction in the matter and whose role is to act as an apologist for the government.
Listening to the government spokesman one would feel, if one believed everything that was said, that either there really is not all that much of a problem, or that it will go away by itself, or with the assistance of the great initiatives that have been taken by the government. Frankly it rings a bell in my mind, in fact it was rung this morning when my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent quoted a speech of the Hon. Jack Davis when he was the minister of the environment. This was the quotation that my colleague read, and I would ask other members of the House of Commons to compare this statement with statements that have been made by government apologists so far. He said:
Fortunately we have caught our mercury problem in time. We have caught it before there has been any real danger to human beings. Once spotted, we have closed the fishery. Either that or we have bought up all the fish and had them destroyed. Nothing has escaped the watchful eye of our federal inspection service, a service which is regarded the world over as tops.
Mr. Davis may be gone, but his speech writer lives on. We have been able to see today that he is still well employed in the ministry and certainly has contributed a great deal to the speeches made by members on the government side so far.
Other members on this side have or will be dealing with the health, Indian affairs, environmental and fisheries aspects of this serious problem. In my remarks I will try to address myself primarily to the jurisdictional considerations in order to establish that the federal government has now, and it has had for some years, all the constitutional and legislative authority it needs to deal with mercury pollution. Sadly, what it does not have is the will to do so.
Before considering this question of jurisdiction, however, perhaps in order to bring the effects of federal neglect into sharper focus I should briefly describe the effects of mercury poisoning upon human beings. Dangerously high levels of mercury contamination have been found in the blood of a number of people in northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec, and the early symptoms of mercury poisoning have already become apparent in some of them. Early symptoms of mercury poisoning include a numbness and tingling of the mouth, tongue and limbs, with the accompaniment of tunnel vision. A
May 7, 1976

Minamata disease victim experiences an inability to concentrate, an inarticulate manner, long periods of apathy, extreme fatigue, and emotional instability. The eventual outcome of this disease is the disfigurement of the body and finally death.
Resistance to mercury poisoning is greatest among strong adults, and while a pregnant woman may show no signs of mercury poisoning herself, she can pass high concentrations of mercury into her child within the womb. The newborn infant may show symptons of mercury poisoning. The symptoms include mental retardation and a condition similar to cerebral palsy.
The effects of mercury poisoning are progressive and irreversible. There is no room for error. The government must take a realistic and comprehensive look at this matter, or suffer the moral consequences of its inaction.
It is with a deep sense of regret that I, along with my colleagues, feel compelled to rise in the House today in order to chastise the government for what can only be described as an irresponsible and shortsighted mishandling of the mercury pollution problem which prevails in many of our country's inland waters. My investigation into the mercury pollution problem of this nation has revealed a shocking sense of complacency within the federal bureaucracy.
Government officials are anxious to convey to the public the impression that everything possible is being done in the federal realm to solve this problem. I regret to say that this is not the case. Although the government, at least since 1970, has been aware of heavy metal contamination in the Wabigoon-English River system, six years of discussion and testing have revealed that it has abdicated its moral and constitutional responsibility to effect a quick solution to this problem.
The federal government has skillfully used the principle of provincial property rights as a "catch-22" clause to free itself from responsibility in the cleanup of contaminated waters.
To date the government has been successful in leaving the impression that environmental concerns relating to the pollution of our nation's waters lie almost solely within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. When my office questioned Ontario environmental officials about the apparent jurisdictional problems between the province and the federal government, their reply was that no jurisdictional problem exists.
While provinces own the watersheds within their boundaries and exercise their jurisprudence with respect to property, the province of Ontario administers only the provisions for testing and reporting contained within the federal Fisheries Act and does not enforce that act's prohibitions and sanctions. Enforcement of that part of the Fisheries Act lies within the auspices of the federal government.
Present federal involvement in the area of mercury pollution includes the efforts of a number of government departments. The Department of the Environment has formulated chlor-alkali regulations for industry and conducts an inspection service for all fish products marketed in
Mercury Poisoning
Canada. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development exercises its jurisdiction over Indians on reservations by assisting projects intended to provide alternative employment opportunities for Indians dislodged from the fishing industry following the ban on commercial fishing along the Wabigoon-English River system. The Department of National Health and Welfare is monitoring mercury levels in natives of northwestern Ontario and Quebec, and is providing an education program to persuade Indians not to consume contaminated fish. Beyond these activities, the prevailing Ottawa attitude seems to be that further initiatives to clean up the problem must come from provincial quarters.
Federal footdragging in the area of mercury pollution is difficult to understand when one considers the long history of federal interest in the well-being of Canadian fisheries. One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the federal government in 1867 was the Fisheries Act. Section 91(12) of the British North America Act awards the federal government jurisdiction over seacoast and inland fisheries and gives it the competence to legislate in respect of pollution of waters in so far as pollutants adversely affect the fisheries. The anti-pollution provisions of the act were revised in 1970 to prohibit the deposit of, to use the words of the act, "deleterious substances" in any water frequented by fish or in any place where deposits may enter the water except as authorized. Under the provisions of this act the federal government may exercise its authority to establish national water pollution standards. In 1972 the Department of the Environment established national chlor-alkali standards for industry.
Both my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, and I have read from the address which the Hon. Jack Davis, former Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, made to the Canadian Manufacturer's Association in 1970. Perhaps I could refer to that again. In that address he solicited support from the Canadian public for amendments to the Fisheries Act which pertained to water pollution. The minister declared:
The polluter must pay ... the industry which caused the problem must solve the problem. It must not only improve its housekeeping but also make amends for sloppy practices in the past. It must clean up its operation and it must compensate others who have been hurt by its negligence.
The Fisheries Act amendments have been in place since 1970, yet what has happened to the promise of federal action? The water resources of both the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, in the case of the Wabigoon-English River system, were contaminated by effluent traced to the Dryden Paper Company's chlor-alkali plant in Ontario.
The Manitoba government has attempted to prosecute the Dryden plant under Manitoba law, and the Supreme Court has declared this unconstitutional. The fact that the Manitoba government failed in its attempt to prosecute the Dryden Paper Company for damage to Manitoba waters in the recent Supreme Court decision clearly reveals that the federal government must take responsibility for the problem. Yet no charges have been laid against the Dryden plant as provided for under the Fisheries Act, despite the fact that federal authorities clearly have the jurisdiction to do so. It seems that this tired Liberal administration is more prone to rhetoric than to action.
13316

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
My office has enquired to ascertain why no charges have been laid to date. I am sure many members of this House would be interested to learn the reason. Frankly, the bureaucrats could not supply the answer. As a matter of fact the Department of the Environment did not seem to have many answers to supply about anything.
During my period of investigation into this matter the director of the water pollution control directorate was unavailable for comment as he was out of town upgrading his facility in Canada's two official languages and he will not be available for another six months. The director's assistant was unavailable as well as he was out of town attending a conference and would not be back for a couple of weeks. The assistant's assistant was likewise not in his office. Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I now harbour grave suspicions that the Department of the Environment comprises only a contingent of embarrassed receptionists. There can be little wonder why the government seems to resemble a rudderless ship.
Does the government not take the plight of Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserve Indians seriously? The government of Japan takes the problem of mercury poisoning very seriously. On Wednesday it was reported that two businessmen from the Chisso Corporation at Minamata were charged with the involuntary manslaughter of seven people who died of mercury poisoning.
In Canada, Section 176 of the Criminal Code may be employed where it is established that a common nuisance has caused physical injury to any person or has endangered the life, safety or health of the public. While it is not necessary to prosecute offenders at Dryden under the Criminal Code, it is essential that the government's conspicuous jurisdictional dodging be resolved.
Mercury pollution is a national problem. It has had its effects felt in at least nine of ten provinces and the territories. Witnesses testifying before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on April 8 professed that mercury pollution is a growing international problem. Recent scientific studies conducted on the Greenland glacial fields indicated mercury pollution is a by-product of the world's growing industrialism. It is a long-term problem.
Canada has more to lose from unchecked mercury pollution than almost any other western nation. The Grassy Narrows and White Dog experience has vividly underlined the social and economic consequences of mercury pollution for our native people whose social structure is built upon a fish economy.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has displayed a shocking lack of leadership with regard to his handling of the problems at the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves. Although section 91(24) of the British North America Act places the well-being of Indians on reservations within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been anxious to push his responsibilities on to other ministers. The minister has taken a very narrow view of this problem. This side of the House is not satisfied with the minister's makeshift solutions and evasions.

Along the Wabigoon-English River system many Indians are continuing to eat contaminated fish because the Indians doubt the sincerity of the government and because they really have little alternative. Thought must be given to moving the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves to a non-contaminated area if consumption of contaminated fish continues. To date, none of the minister's officials have proposed this possibility to the natives.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a responsibility to Canada's northern peoples to demonstrate some concern and to urge his colleagues to cease their jurisdictional juggling. A great deal of research is needed to conduct further studies on all aspects of mercury pollution. The federal government must arm itself with expertise so that it may also deal with mercury poisoning in the international context. I understand environment Canada is currently conducting an internal task force examination to determine future research and development needs to deal with the mercury pollution problem. The federal government must co-ordinate and catalogue a national effort to gain the knowledge to deal with our mercury pollution problems.
The immense human and economic problems caused by mercury poisoning in Canada are clear. What is distressing is that the government's concern is not. Where there should have been action, there has been paralysis. Where there should have been explanations, there has been silence. And where there should have been basic concern for the health and lives of human beings, there has been indifference.
There is much about life in government which I have found challenging and stimulating, but I have also noticed that the day-to-day atmosphere of crisis here in Ottawa can distort a person's perspective and dull his sense of outrage at attitudes, policies, and actions that would offend deeply the average citizen. After a few years in this environment it becomes easy to view human tragedies as case histories, and human beings as simple statistics. We have heard that happen today.
I fear that it is that desensitization that has struck both parliament and the whole of the federal structure when it comes to mercury poisoning of human beings. That is the reason why the issue has come before parliament so few times, and it is an indictment of this institution that so little has been said about it in this Chamber.
The people of Canada are not indifferent to the human tragedies in northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec. They cannot understand and they will not tolerate the jurisdictional buck-passing that has taken place between federal and provincial authorities. The federal government has today-and it has had for years-all the jurisdiction it needs to deal with this problem. What Canadians from one coast of this country to another demand is that the government use that jurisdiction and act now before more damage is done.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) has brought this matter before the House. While I disagree with some of the statements he made I think it is an excellent proposition to have such a subject brought before the House hopefully for a rational debate
May 7, 1976

rather than one full of sound and fury. It should be a debate not of condemnation but of rationale, because I am sure it is the intent of the House not to say that someone did something right or that someone did something wrong but that we are at a certain point in time, and let us go forward from this point.
The dangers of mercury contamination of the environment were first brought to the public's attention by two major tragedies in Japan in the late 1960's, one of which was instrumental in giving the effects of mercury contamination in the human body the name Minimata disease. Since this time the dangers and effects of this type of environmental irresponsibility have been extensively reported.
Canadian experience in this regard began with the dumping, between 1961 and 1970, of a considerable amount of mercury into the English-Wabigoon river system by the chlor-alkali plant of the Reed Paper Company in Dryden, Ontario. This matter is of concern to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because of the presence on the English-Wabigoon river system, and downstream from the Reed Paper Mill in Dryden, of two Indian reserves. These are the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves. The concern of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this regard was not expressed only in relation to the dangers posed to the health of the residents of these reserves, whose population now totals 916. It was also over the threat that the consequences of the mercury contamination of the English-Wabigoon river system would totally destroy the social and economic fabric of the Grassy Narrows-Whitedog Region.
Once the possibility of mercury contamination had been raised, the government of the province of Ontario in light of the dangers of this dumping practice, as evidenced in Japan, investigated and found that the levels of mercury in fish in the English-Wabigoon river system was some twenty times greater than the maximum safe level for human consumption. In 1970, therefore, the effluent from the Dryden mill was reduced by provincial order, commercial fishing in the English-Wabigoon river system was banned, and tests were conducted on residents of both the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows reserves in order to determine the affect on the inhabitants of the mercury contamination. The steps which have been taken to investigate and treat the effects of mercury contamination on the native population of the Dryden area were taken by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of National Health and Welfare, which on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is providing health care to the Indian population of the Dryden area, the Department of the Environment, and the appropriate departments of the government of the province of Ontario. Indian Affairs has, however, played a much more direct role in helping the residents of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows overcome the tragic effects of the mercury contamination on their economic and social traditions.
I welcome the fact that members on the other side have brought up the matter of the social and economic disruption, because in addition to being a health problem it is also an economic and social problem.
Mercury Poisoning
The mercury contamination, quite simply, kicked the props out from under the entire way of life of these people. Because of the high contamination levels in the local fish, all commercial fishing which had previously been one of the main occupations was halted. In addition, some of the guiding and tourist businesses on the English-Wabigoon river system closed their doors which have not opened since. The result was severe unemployment and severe dislocation in respect of the lives of these people. At Grassy Narrows, for instance, there are 78 employable males. However, after the collapse of the fishing and tourist industries, only 14 band members, or 18% of the total male labour force, had year-round employment. At Whitedog, the situation was worse. Equally tragic was the fact that the traditional food supply of the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows reserves was fish, the same contaminated fish from the same contaminated river system.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, ever since this tragedy was first revealed, has worked hard on behalf of both the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves, and although the situation is still a most serious one-and, Mr. Speaker, I will not make apologies for the fact that it is a serious one, because it is and I will say so-considerable progress has been made.
With respect to the problem of providing an alternate food supply, several important steps have been taken. In conjunction with other departments, an educational program is being carried out to warn the band members not to eat fish from the contaminated rivers. The program includes letters to heads of household, and visit to all houses to discuss this problem on a one to one basis. I am sorry the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is not present because he indicated, I am sure with no malicious intent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will be back in a minute.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -that letters were the only thing that were sent out. However, letters were sent out, and person to person visits to every home in the communities were made. The development of a suitable Ojibway language audio-visual explanation program has been carried out, as well as the preparation of a 15 minutes videotape film in the Ojibway language. I think there has been some insinuation that this has been a very slap-dash presentation. I disagree, Mr. Speaker. This is not the intent of the department. They have provided what I think was a very well laid out and carefully thought out plan. The only further step that could be carried out is to have a department official present with each member of each family to make sure they do not eat contaminated fish.
I am certain that the native people have been provided with ample warnings through the one-to-one contact which has been provided up to this point. In addition, a local nutritionist has been employed to work with the bands in researching food supplies and providing dietary advice regarding alternate sources of food. A resident of each reserve has been hired to help the nutritionist and other government health staff, and regular meetings are being held with the band leadership to monitor the progress of the program.
95 5 68-9%

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
The department has also worked to identify lakes which are free from contamination and which can be safely fished for food, as has been mentioned, and has provided community freezers to the reserves for the storage of mercury free fish which is caught, and also for the storage of fish which being trucked in from other areas by the Ontario government.
I would also like to point out to hon. members that the recent trip by five Indians from the Dryden area along with their advisers to Minamata, Japan, was financed by the federal government, with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Department of the Secretary of State all sharing the cost. This trip, despite the rather sensational coverage by the media, was a very important and very effective educational session and, I believe, has resulted in a much better understanding of the causes and effects of Minamata's disease on the native people in the area concerned.
I also noted that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie asked that the government take part in a five or six part program, one part of which was to be an exchange program with the Japanese. This has already been started, with the hope that the people in the affected areas will realize the dangers resulting from the eating of contaminated fish, and we hope this will be of some benefit to them.
I would also like to point out that it is not enough just to resolve the problems which have been created. We must also work for the future and try to restore some form of social and economic stability to this troubled area. This the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is attempting to do through a wide ranging series of projects, both short-term and long-term, to help these people whose employment activities have been drastically curtailed. The fact that the health of these people has been affected must be taken into consideration, as well as their loss of employment opportunities.
In addition to the regular programs for economic development, which are of course available to all Indian bands throughout Canada, a number of specific projects have been initiated by the department to provide shortterm employment for area residents. These include the development of local government administration and the hiring of a community worker for each reserve; work opportunity projects for brush cutting and road clearing and for the construction of docks and sheds for fish gear; tree planting; a school lunch program; a LIP grant for a garbage disposal program; training on the job moneys for such things as counselling and an economic development officer; the installation of water and sewage services for community buildings; and a general reserve clean-up and painting. These and other short-term employment projects have been provided in order to help bridge the gap between the severe socio-economic dislocation caused by the mercury contamination and the coming into effect of programs for more long-term employment opportunities. In all honesty I must deny that no funds were provided for the employment of these people whether on a short-term or a long-term basis.
Two of the proposals for long-term employment opportunities which should be mentioned are the canoe factory and the shoe factories. Ground work has already been laid

for two shoe factories to commence operations on reserves in the Dryden area. One of these will be located in Grassy Narrows. A feasibility study has also been initiated to investigate markets and production cost factors for the possible manufacture of fibreglass canoes, also at Grassy Narrows.
I mentioned earlier that as a result of the mercury contamination only 14 members of the Grassy Narrows band-out of a possible 78 in the male work force-were employed at one point. This figure is now up to 42 persons and is an indication of the extent to which the socio-economic conditions on these reserves have been stabilized. While the department, along with other government departments, does not consider it acceptable, it is an indication of the direction in which employment is progressing on this reserve.
I think that the key factor for all hon. members to recognize is that the one thing we have learned in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is that you cannot come in with programs and dictate to the people in the areas what they should be doing for their well-being. I hope that we have learned that lesson and I think we have, because the only way in which the people of the area will develop into a socio-economic unit with a high employment ratio is as a result of the enthusiasm and sense of pride in their own communities which these people are exhibiting, and which I believe is now building up in these reserves. This will do more than all the assistance we can give them to ensure a stable future for this area. This is now happening and I have every confidence that the initiative and leadership which are now being shown by the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows bands will produce significant results in the months ahead.
Before closing I would like to discuss briefly the problem of mercury contamination as it relates to northwestern Quebec. The discovery of mercury contamination in this area from both natural and industrial sources has raised concern for the safety of the Indian bands in the area. In response to this an educational program sponsored by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the dangers of eating mercury contaminated fish is being carried out. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Department of National Health and Welfare are in the process of intensifying the dissemination of information related to mercury poisoning through the use of appropriate audio-visual material, band meetings, and seminars for community leaders and health workers. A joint nutrition committee is also being established by the two departments to research the most appropriate proteins to replace the contaminated fish.
The mercury contamination problem in northwestern Quebec is made more difficult, I am afraid, by natural levels of mercury in the waters of certain lakes and rivers, and also by the more nomadic way of life of the residents of the area as compared to the Indian of northwestern Ontario, as has been mentioned by one hon. member. However, the department is now carrying out a survey of the local labour force, educational levels, and skills acquired so that band councils, with the support of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, can plan and develop adequate and realistic solutions to the health,
May 7, 1976

social, and economic problems created by this tragic legacy of our modern industrial development.
I thank the hon. member for Lambton-Kent for having brought up this subject on an opposition day. I trust that we are realistic enough to realize that in the very complex society in which we live there will be substances which will be toxic and about which we are not aware at this date. I think it is the function of the government as far as possible to try to predict what these substances will be. However, when these matters do arise, surely the government must act with speed and dispatch.
The question raised by the hon. member is whether speed and dispatch have been observed here. When we are dealing with people we cannot go into an area, dictate what they will or will not eat, or what they will or will not do. This is done by a slow process of education and working with them. In that way these problems are solved, and in all sincerity I feel this is the way it has been carried out. This is the way it will be carried out, and I trust that in the future the people in these affected areas will have not only healthy lives but lives of full employment during which they can work as other Canadians, trusting that the approach of the government is the right one. If the solution is a slapdash method of trying to bring in quick relief without having basic studies done, I think that presents as much danger as we are being accused of allowing to exist at the present time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I should first like to congratulate the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) on his very thought provoking address on this issue.
We must ask ourselves, is mercury poisoning Canadians, and will Canadians die of mercury poisoning? I submit that these questions are of increasing concern because mercury can no longer be ignored as a lethal environmental pollutant. These questions demand our attention because some Canadians have blood mercury concentrations within the range associated with mercury poisoning in other countries, notably, Japan and Iraq.
There is no doubt that mercury can kill and maim. During the last two centuries an estimated 8,500 persons have been poisoned by mercury, of whom perhaps 700 died. Mercury poisoning must therefore be considered a hazard to public health wherever mercury is used and wherever mercury is discharged into the environment. This is certainly true for Canada, but so that the entirety of the problem of mercury as an environmental pollutant can be understood, wider aspects of mercury pollution, those relating to Canadian society, must be considered as well. Consider, for example, some of the effects of mercury pollution.
In industry vast quantities of mercury are used in a variety of technological processes. In 1967 world consumption of mercury was 7,364 metric tons, a large proportion of it being used by a few industrial nations. For example, the United States of America used something like 2,127 tons. In Canada chlor-alkali plants, pulp and paper mills and the electrical industry consume much of the total mercury
Mercury Poisoning
used. For example, in 1969 chlor-alkali plants used some 100 of a total of 140 tons required by industry.
With this industrial use large amounts of mercury are discharged into the environment. Of the total of 7,364 tons of mercury consumed by the world in 1967, 2,573 tons were lost to the air and 2,045 tons, it is estimted, were lost to the waterways.
As well as having an effect on health, mercury pollution in Canada has had ecological, socio cultural, political, racial, and international implications. With other factors it has disrupted the lives of Indians and has radically altered their traditional way of life, for the fish on which so many Indians depend for protein have become contaminated with mercury discharged into waterways from chlor-alkali plants and paper and pulp mills. This is particularly serious in northwest Ontario and northwest Quebec. Not surprisingly, the sociological effects of mercury pollution have had a political impact, and federal and provincial authorities have been accused of making light of the dangers of mercury pollution to man and environment in Canada. Nor is it surprising that mercury pollution in Canada has had racial implications, for the Canadians who have the highest mercury concentrations are Canadian Indians.
Finally, there is an international twist. Japanese victims of mercury poisoning have allied themselves with Canadian Indians of northwest Ontario, as have Japanese environmentalists, in an attempt to help Canadian Indians bring their plight to the attention of the federal government. Japanese physicians with much experience in mercury poisoning have examined Canadian Indians and, convinced of mercury poisoning in these Indians, have taken a stronger line than have Canadian physicians on mercury pollution in Canada. Unfortunately there is as yet no agreement on the clinical diagnosis of mercury poisoning.
Mercury has long fascinated man. It was been dubbed a mineral of a perfectly singular kind. Ramazzini, the father of industrial medicine, spoke in the eighteenth century of the most cruel bane of all that deals death and destruction to miners and of course Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter lives on as a symbol of the damage done to the nervous system by mercury. The Mad Hatter conjures up an image of poisoning due to inorganic mercury, and this form of mercury poisoning was for long the most familiar. Today, however, because of the burgeoning of sophisticated technological processes, it is poisoning from organic mercury which is of major concern. Methyl mercury in particular damages the central nervous system irreversibly and sometimes fatally. The experience of several countries merits the attention of Canadian professional people.
It was in 1965 that a Japanese factory doctor in Minamata, a small town on the western coast of Kyushu in southern Japan, reported that an unclarified disease of the central nervous system had broken out. Soon, some 30 persons were found to have contracted the disease, now known as Minamata disease, during the previous three years. Diligent investigation finally disclosed that the disease was a disorder of the nervous system caused by poisoning with methyl mercury.
The disorder appeared to affect only fishermen and their
families in and around Minamata. The patients evidently
ate large amounts of fish and shellfish from Minamata Bay

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning
regularly, which were found to contain high concentrations of mercury, of the order of 5 parts to 20 parts per million. The concentration of mercury in the mud of Minamata Bay was related directly to the proximity of the sample tested to a plastics factory in Minamata which produced vinyl chloride, an inorganic mercury compound being used as the catalyst. A similar disorder was produced in cats by feeding them fish contaminated with methyl mercury.
Another outbreak of Minamata disease occurred in Niigata, Japan, in 1964 and 1965. It was virtually identical with the disease which had broken out in Minamata. To December, 1974, 798 persons in Japan had been verified as having Minamata disease, and of these some 107 died.
The Japanese experience is relevant to the Canadian situation because the Canadian Indians, in whom high blood concentrations have been found, are like the Japanese of Minamata, heavy fish eaters, and fish in some Canadian waters have high concentrations of mercury. However, the Japanese data are less useful than those of studies of methyl mercury poisoning elsewhere because blood concentrations apparently were not documented at the time of intoxication.
The experience of Japan and other countries is a useful but disturbing background to the Canadian experience, but the Canadian experience also is disturbing. Vast quantities of mercury have been dumped into Canadian waterways. Between May of 1972 and April of 1975 major chemical companies were unable to account for up to 65 per cent of the mercury purchased. One plant in northwest Quebec lost something like 7,437 of 11,248 tons of mercury during this period.
Evidence of mercury pollution of Canadian waterways has been available since 1969 when the South Saskatchewan and the St. Clair rivers were found to be contaminated. A contaminated river may require up to 70 years to cleanse itself through natural processes, so methyl mercury will persist in Canadian waters for many years to come.
Mercury concentrations in fish in some Canadian waters exceed the federally acceptable upper limit of 5 parts per million. In 1969 concentrations of up to 10 parts per million were reported in fish in the South Saskatchewan River, and since then concentrations several times 5 parts per million have been measured frequently in many Canadian waters.
Canadian Indians, like Japanese fishermen, are heavy fish eaters. If mercury concentrations in the fish eaten by these Indians exceeded one part per million, which has happened on some Indian reservations, the daily safe limit of 0.03 milligrams of methyl mercury will be exceeded.
High whole-blood mercury concentrations in Canadian Indians were first reported in 1970, when the maximum concentration of 385 parts per billion was found in an Indian of the White Dog community in northwestern Ontario. The following year Indians from the northwest Quebec communities of Matagami and Miquelon were found to have abnormally high whole-blood concentrations. Government authorities have been monitoring mercury contamination since 1971, but extremely high concen-

trations were reported as late as July, 1975. Not surprisingly, government authorities have been charged with being indecisive and slow to take action to correct the situation. In part, any indecisiveness of action stems from lack of agreement on what constitutes a positive diagnosis of poisoning.
A further charge directed at federal and provincial authorities concerns a wait-and-see attitude. Public opinion suggests that the policy is to wait until symptoms appear before it is admitted that Canadians are being poisoned by mercury. This attitude also is attributable to lack of agreement on diagnosis, but steps have been taken to reduce further exposure to mercury among the Indians; thus, fishing has been restricted, uncontaminated fish have been supplied to Indians, and extensive monitorings and research have been initiated.
The bulk of Canadians' food supply is, of course, free from hazardous mercury contamination, with some important exceptions. One important area where there is significant mercury contamination has already been referred to, namely, the fish in the English-Wabagoon and Bell river systems of northwestern Ontario and Quebec, which comprise tjie traditional food supplies of the two native groups discussed earlier. Another exception is swordfish, the sale of which in Canada and the United States is still prohibited because the mercury levels are higher than 0.5 parts per million. The published data confirms this point uniformly. An official of Environment Canada stated early in April, 1976, that the mercury levels in swordfish are regularly monitored and that they remain at an average of about 0.9 parts per million. This level has remained unchanged during the past five years. The official further stated that the level was not and is not expected to change, because the mercury in the oceans is from "natural" sources, as opposed to the preventable mercury pollution which comes from human sources.
The banning of swordfish sales in Canada after 1970 and the simultaneous ban on exports to the United States was especially damaging to my native province, Nova Scotia, whose fishermen caught almost all the swordfish for Canada. Landings alone in 1969 were worth more than $4 million. In a fisheries economy the value of these swordfish when exported was, of course, many times that figure.
In legal and biological terms the situation is quite clear-cut. Swordfish contain, on average, about twice the acceptable level of mercury, and it has been proven that almost all this mercury is present as methyl mercury. Further, there is every indication that this has always been and will always remain the case. In this respect the situation differs subtly from that facing inland fisheries, inasmuch as most of the inland mercury contamination originates from manmade sources. However, because swordfish are contaminated they cannot be sold in Canada. Because the U.S.A. has adopted the same 0.5 parts per million standard, the fish cannot be exported to that country, because U.S. federal law under the Federal Food and Drug Administration controls the importation of fish.
An anomalous situation has arisen in the United States with regard to the sale of swordfish. I point this out because individual states do not have to abide by federal health standards. Some states, namely, Maine and Massa-chussetts, allow their fishermen to sell their swordfish
May 7, 1976

catches within the state. But this fish is banned from inter-state commerce by United States federal law. Needless to say this situation is confusing to fishermen and confusing to observers in Canada, because of the double standard that it creates. However, state actions will have no overt bearing on Canadian sword-fishing, because United States federal law is predominant in matters of import and export.
A second anomaly is present in this situation. While swordfish or any species of fish containing more than 0.5 parts per million of mercury is not acceptable for sale in Canada, such fish can be exported to other countries, provided the importing country's standards of health protection allow the importation. Thus Nova Scotia fishermen may be free to export their swordfish catch to Japan, which apparently has a higher acceptable contamination level-an ironic situation, considering the Japanese experience at Minamata and Niigata. However, fisheries officials have stated that the Japanese, who catch their own swordfish off Japan, are willing to pay only about 25 cents per pound for Canadian swordfish, or about half the prices needed by our fishermen to make the venture economically viable.
When we consider that the known levels of mercury in swordfish are not greatly in excess of tolerable levels, it seems to me that some research should be undertaken to lower the mercury content in swordfish. This could be done through different processing methods. It seems to me that, as the world's population grows and there is a continuing demand for protein, some method must be found to use these fish which, landed, weigh anywhere between 25 pounds and as much as 500 pounds; it could be done by mixing the flesh of these fish with that of other, smaller fish which contain lower amounts of mercury. By doing this the mercury content could be brought down to the tolerable limit of five parts per million. Actually, this process is now taking place in the tuna industry.
Tuna containing mercury levels in excess of five parts per million are mixed with the smaller Bonita tuna, and the mixed fish is marketed as flaked tuna. There is nothing wrong with flaked tuna, and its mercury content does not exceed the tolerable limit of five parts per million. This process which may be examined by the fishing industry, government, and scientists gives us hope that, in future, the delectable swordfish may be processed in the same manner.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the question of whether some Canadians are being poisoned by mercury is not easy to answer, but there is sufficient evidence that methyl mercury is harmful and that some Canadians do have unacceptably high whole-blood concentrations of mercury. Because of the sinister possibility of mercury-induced irreversible brain damage the current situation demands our full attention. I submit that action is required. What should be done?
Mercury Poisoning
First, the multidepartmental approach to mercury poisoning in Canadians should be replaced by one that is the responsibility of a single group. At present three governments, several government departments, at least one outside consultant, various local authorities, numerous neurologists and many other interested persons have separate responsibility.
In addition, various task forces and conferences on mercury contamination have added to the wealth of information now available on mercury poisoning. What is required is a cohesive effort to synthesize this information and the approaches of the past so that the Indians, the group mainly affected, can be given a clearer indication that a constructive approach will be followed.
Second, still more needs to be learned on the effects of methyl mercury, particularly its subclinical effects. Much of the information we have today is based on outbreaks of mercury poisoning elsewhere, the relevance of which to the situation in Canada is not entirely clear. Much more basic research is required into the problem of dose and response; and more epidemiologic research is needed concerning, for example, the degree to which mercury poisoning is irreversible, and autopsy findings in those known to have been exposed to high mercury whole-blood concentrations.
Third, it is desirable that differences between Canadian and Japanese neurologists, and between Canadian neurologists, be resolved. This will not be easy because these differences stem from differences in interpretation of clinical findings relating to Canadian Indians examined. In part the differences are attributable to a fragmented and quasi-political approach to the problem of mercury poisoning.
Finally, we need a mature philosophical approach to the management of environmental problems, of which mercury contamination is but one. The current approach is a stopgap one, for like so many environmental problems, mercury contamination is just one of many that require solution at any one time, and the solution to any one problem, then, is inadequate. Many of those who are trying to deal with an urgent problem must simultaneously be dealing with others; this is true, for example, of the medical services branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare which is attempting to overcome the difficulties of mercury contamination in Indians while also dealing with many other unrelated matters, despite limitations in personnel and resources.
It is in part a matter of priorities, but to a much greater extent our current problems have a more fundamental origin: Canada lacks the aggressive environmental legislation philosophy of a country like Sweden, which puts teeth into its environmental legislation and muscle into the actions required.
Preventive medicine is always less glamorous than therapeutic medicine. Yet if the health of Canadians is to be preserved, it is issues such as mercury pollution that are likely to be more important in the long run than many other apparently more pressing issues.

May 7, 1976
Mercury Poisoning


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) is sitting in the high office of the chair of Speaker, something we do not often see for a private member. I thought that in order to get your name on the record of Hansard, I would bring this matter to the attention of all members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Stewart (Cochrane)):: The
hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is very kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now you have his name on the record also.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to elaborate on the program presently being undertaken by the Department of National Health and Welfare concerning mercury poisoning.
Mercury poisoning has become a familiar topic with those who read newspapers. Scarcely a week goes by without some new article or some report of a new revelation or finding. Yet a growing recognition of the problem now known as Minamata disease began only in the mid-1960's. Due to this growing awareness, testing was first initiated among the Indian people living on reserves, in areas of known mercury pollution in northwestern Ontario in 1970, and in northwestern Quebec in 1971. It was as a result of the health finding of these tests that the medical services branch of the Department of Health and Welfare undertook an educational campaign to encourage persons in the areas so affected to limit their intake of fish which had been contaminated by mercury.
Since that time, much more information has become increasingly apparent. The Department of Health and Welfare bases its program to combat the problem on the following premises: First, the mercury levels in fish are still hazardous and will remain so for some years; second, damage to health from mercury poisoning. Once it has progressed to this stage it is believed to be irreversible. There is no absolutely sure "safe level" for all individuals. There is, however, uncertainty about the seriousness of the effects of low levels of exposure over a long period of time.
Third, the emphasis must therefore be on prevention of intake of mercury. In practical terms this means that no contaminated fish should be eaten. Fourth, for this reason emphasis is placed on educating people not to eat any contaminated fish at all, rather than simply encouraging them to reduce their intake, and on helping them to adjust to other eating habits. Fifth, this must be accompanied by a health monitoring program which identifies those most at risk and concentrates advices, assistance, and health surveillance on these individuals. This program specifically involves the indentification of those persons at risk by means of blood and/or hair tests. This includes, particularly, fishing guides and their families, and pregnant mothers.
The purpose of such identification is to monitor the progress of such persons at risk in terms of their mercury intake, and therefore their blood mercury levels, and to perform periodic testing of persons at risk in order to ensure that blood mercury levels are, in fact, falling. It involves conducting clinical examinations of persons at risk to determine the presence of disease due to mercury; and conducting a nutritional program to determine first of all to what extent persons in affected areas rely on contaminated fish in their diet and, secondly, to investigate alternative sources of protein, that is, sources which are both available, affordable, and acceptable.
It should be noted that in the course of this nutritional program the safe level of mercury in fish for this particular population already at risk has been redefined at 0.2 parts per million, instead of the present level of 0.5 parts per million generally accepted as safe for those populations not at risk. In addition, the Indian Affairs Branch is advised of any necessary measures that are required for protein replacement in such a program.
Since the initial testing in 1970, the department has been active in some 25 Indian communities. Over 3,000 people have been tested by blood and/or hair sampling. To date the major involvement in this area has been in northwestern Ontario and northwestern Quebec. I should like to deal with each of these areas, northwestern Ontario first.
Since the winter of 1972-73 a yearly health survey has been carried out by the province of Ontario with the support and assistance of this department. Such tests established that blood levels of mercury were not falling. Adequate numbers of persons were not coming forward for testing, and concern was expressed that a survey carried out in winter did not accurately reflect maximum periods of fish intake.
As I am now coming to a complex part, perhaps I might call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Stewart (Cochrane)):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that under Standing Order 58(11), the proceedings on the motion are now ended.

It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock. I wish hon. members a good weekend and a fruitful and pleasant Mother's Day.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 10, 1976