September 27, 1949

NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

POLLUTION

PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

He said: The purpose of this bill is to amend and enlarge sections 19, 26 and 28 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. When the act was originally passed it prohibited the pollution of navigable waters by saw mills. Section 19 of the original act prohibited the discharging of sawdust or other waste wood products into navigable waters or waters running into them. The proposed amendment enlarges the list of materials which may not be thrown or discharged into navigable waters, so that it will include oil or oil sludge, chemical wastes or other noxious substances likely to pollute the waters and adjacent shore line.

The second clause of this section deals with the discharging of raw sewage into navigable waters. It prohibits any municipality with a population greater than 3,000 from discharging such material.

Section 26 is amended to provide that the Minister of Transport may, if he deems it advisable, appoint inspectors at any plant situated on or near navigable waters, and these inspectors shall have the power to regulate the operation of the plant in this regard, the cost of such inspection to be borne by the plant in question.

The reasons for the amendments to this act are that during the summer of 1949 pollution by oil and the formation of oil slicks created such a hazard to the residents along the shore of lake Ontario that the medical officers of health in Toronto and many other municipalities had to ban the use of the beaches. Thus, in the Toronto area alone, a million people were denied the use of lake Ontario beaches because of the existence of industrial pollution. Whether this was caused by carelessness or otherwise is not important now; the fact remains that large sections of the shore of lake Ontario were made completely unusable. The loss to wild life was considerable, and the damage to shallow-draft and other shipping was extensive. Furthermore the fire danger, particularly in the

congested Toronto harbour area, was increased. Three of the beaches in my own riding of York West were put out of commission for considerable periods, including the beach at New Toronto, where the world champion swimmer, Cliff Lumsden, who subsequently won the marathon swim at the Toronto exhibition, had trained. This destruction of swimming and recreational facilities, particularly, as in this case, during one of the worst heat waves in our history, cannot be tolerated.

I believe it is within the competence of parliament to enact legislation which will safeguard the rights of people who wish to use the waters of our great lakes. The provisions of the bill are directed toward that end.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT
Subtopic:   POLLUTION
Sub-subtopic:   CONTROL OF INDUSTRIAL PLANTS AND OIL REFINERIES
Permalink

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

CONTROL OF SMOKE AND SOOT FROM ROUNDHOUSES

PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Railway Act.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF SMOKE AND SOOT FROM ROUNDHOUSES
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

I think the hon. member should explain the bill.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF SMOKE AND SOOT FROM ROUNDHOUSES
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Adamson:

The purpose of the bill is similar to that of the bill I introduced at the last session of parliament. It differs, however, in this way from the previous one: it requires permanent installations of the railway companies to comply with the smoke bylaws of the municipalities in which they are situated. The residual power is still vested in the board of transport commissioners, thus preventing any discrimination against railway companies. It is felt that where a municipality has enacted and enforced an anti-smoke bylaw in order to safeguard the well-being of the people within its boundaries, the railway companies, as well as other industrial plants, should comply with the local regulations. The present act, and the regulations, which were drafted in 1908, allow the emission of smoke and soot into the atmosphere in quantities which are certainly prejudicial to the neighbourhood in which any roundhouse is situated.

Evidence is being collected in York township and the adjacent area of the city of Toronto, and I hope that when the bill comes

Criminal Code

up for second reading the government will allow it to go to the railway committee so that all the facts can be brought out, with a view to adopting this or a similar amendment in order to prevent the present great annoyance.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF SMOKE AND SOOT FROM ROUNDHOUSES
Permalink
PC

Arthur Leroy Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

Does it apply to the city of Ottawa, for example?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF SMOKE AND SOOT FROM ROUNDHOUSES
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I should like to point out to hon. members that when a bill is introduced a short explanation may be given, but the bill should not be discussed. See Beau-chesne, second edition, reference 738.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF SMOKE AND SOOT FROM ROUNDHOUSES
Permalink

CRIMINAL CODE

PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND

LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved

the first reading of Bill No. 4 (from the Senate) to amend the Criminal Code.

He said: With the permission of the house I should like to set forth the reasons why it is advisable, if it meets with the approval of hon. members, to have this legislation pass through its three readings today. To this end I spoke yesterday to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and to the leaders of the other parties, or their representatives.

At the last session a Criminal Code amendment bill was brought in covering a large number of sections, some of them contentious. It was not passed. Later this session it is our intention to bring down a further amendment to the Criminal Code containing these contentious sections, but we have taken out from the contentious sections those dealing with the two matters which are covered by this bill from the Senate.

Item No. 1 deals with the amendments necessary in order to adapt the Canadian Criminal Code to Newfoundland, and which are to be passed in consequence of the admission of that province into confederation.

Item No. 2 is an amendment to defer the coming into force of a new part XVI of the Criminal Code. This new part XVI of the Criminal Code was enacted by a previous parliament in legislation passed some time ago. It enacts that there should be substituted for the existing part XVI a new part dealing with the summary trial of indictable offences by police magistrates. That legislation was to come into effect on October 1, 1949, but we have received from the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, British Columbia, and my own province of Manitoba, information that their magistrates' courts are not yet organized to administer part XVI in its proposed new form. They have asked that we, by means

of section 8 of the Senate bill now before us, should bring new part XVI into operation, not on October 1, as was originally provided, but by proclamation of the governor general in council. The idea is that they will let us know in due course when they are ready to enforce the new part XVI and then we will put it into effect.

Since these consequential amendments which are introduced in order that the Criminal Code may be brought into effect in Newfoundland, as well as the other matter referred to, are both non-controversial, it was thought there would be no objection on the part of hon. members to having the bill given its three readings today, so that it may be assented to by the governor general and take effect by October 1 next.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

I should like to mention just two minor points. Section 3 of the bill contains a provision that the Criminal Code shall be amended to read "in the province of Newfoundland, any judge of a district court," etc. The bills introduced to make the Criminal Code applicable to Alberta and Saskatchewan read "a judge of any district court". Is there any significance in that change?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I think I anticipate the hon. member's point of order.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Standing order 71.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Of course no debate is permitted on first reading of a bill, but I understood that the Minister of Justice was setting forth why he would like the bill to be given all three readings today. Would it meet with the approval of hon. members if we now give the bill first reading and then go on to the motion for second reading?

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Garson:

I now move second reading of the bill. Before the motion is dealt with, however, I should like to reply to the question raised by the leader of the opposition.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I would remind hon. members that on second reading it is not customary to discuss the clauses of a bill. That is done when the house goes into committee. The only question that may be discussed on second reading is the principle of the bill, and each hon. member is allowed to speak only once in that debate. The minister who has introduced the bill has the right of a reply.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADAPTATION TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Permalink

September 27, 1949