Agreed.

Mr. Lambert:

This notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, asks for some form of favourable discrimination in tax laws. I would agree with the hon. Member that perhaps tax incentives might be given toward research on the control of air and water pollution, but I find it rather difficult to assume that any industry which is creating a form of pollution nuisance, whether in the air or in the water, should receive special consideration so that it may instal pollution removing equipment.

We have laws that a new plant must be installed with the most modern techniques. I know of many cement plants that have to have dust suppressors, and these are very costly. Many municipal power plants must instal cinder suppressors, and these too are costly. All this is part of the cost of doing business, and if the cost of removing the effluent from any industrial process is too costly, then it is an uneconomic process.

It is the same as if you were going after buffalo hearts and you killed all the buffalos to have the hearts and then threw away the carcasses. Bringing it up to modern times, it is the same as if you were going after beef liver and you killed all the cattle to get the liver, and then threw the carcasses away. As a matter of fact our laws today insist that older established industries bring themselves up to date. They are given a period in which to do so, and I believe this is fair.

When we talk about air pollution let us not load it all on the back of industry. In cities like Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal where the majority of winter heating is by oil, as com-

pared with coal in the past, the degree of air pollution from that source may be somewhat less. But in our more salubrious western cities, such as Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta, their heating is supplied almost exclusively by natural gas-

Mr. Smiih:

From Ottawa?

Mr. Lambert:

I would have thought the hon. Member for Simcoe East (Mr. Smith) would know the gas that emanates from this place is not natural. I think you will find that those communities that are heated primarily with natural gas have a cleaner atmosphere and do not have the same problem of air pollution that exists in Eastern Canada.

A great deal of air pollution is created by the use of the automobile in summer and winter. One has only to live in close proximity to a major highway, for example in Toronto close to 401, and get to the windward side of it, to see what I mean. Back of the automobile industry there is the refining industry, and in this context I mention Edmonton, where we have large tank farms for both pipe lines, east and west, as well as large capacity refineries. Get down to windward of them and the fumes of hydrogen sulphide which come from the sour oil will almost knock you over. It is highly unpleasant to live in those areas downwind from these refinery sites. Anyone who has lived in close proximity to a large packing plant will also know whereof I speak.

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

However, I suggest to the hon. Member that it is wrong to introduce further taxation discriminations for the purpose of removing, or installing machinery to remove effluent, whether in the air or elsewhere. In keeping with the rest of the program of encouraging research, both by the previous administration and by this administration, I think the expenditures devoted to research in this regard ought to be deemed to be a special type of expenditure worthy of a special type of income tax treatment.

The hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has said we have laws for the protection of the public as a whole. Those laws are known to the business community and to individuals, and if they wish to engage in business they should conform to those laws for the great good of the nation. I am in disagreement with the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), in his statement that this resolution should receive favourable support.

May 26, 1965

Mr. Jack Davis (Coasl-Capilano):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in my capacity as the Member for Coast-Capilano as we also have a pollution problem on the west coast.

The hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said that the Government should show some imagination in respect of pollution control. It has shown some imagination, I believe, in respect of the control of pollution of the nation's waters. I should like to see that same imagination applied to the control of pollution of our air as well. In other words, I should like to see the two-year fast tax write-off which, according to the current budget, applies to water pollution, extended to air pollution as well.

I understand the Government does not as yet have a complete picture of the total cost to the federal treasury of such a measure, namely a measure to control air pollution or assist in controlling air pollution by a fast tax write-off, but I hope that as soon as this information is available it will move in this direction, presumably through the medium of the budget.

Pulp mills have been mentioned as major offenders in respect of water pollution. Pulp mills and chemical plants are also major offenders in respect of air pollution. The Federal Government has limited authority regarding the matter of pollution. This is a matter largely for provincial control. Obviously, however, through the fiscal measures open to the Federal Government, it can encourage projects which would help to clear up our air, as well as our water.

I should also like to see encouragement through research grants, and in this respect I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Research should be aimed at improved methods-cheaper plant and equipment in other words-for cleaning up the nation's air as well as our rivers and streams. The pulp and paper industry is having a difficult time, as it happens, regarding odours emanating from kraft pulp mills. It is very difficult to remove the last vestiges of odour from the air, particularly from the effluent from kraft pulp mills. A great deal of research has already been carried out in various parts of the world in this respect, but equipment which can remove all of the odour from the effluent is immensely expensive. Therefore I think a second prong to this attack, and an even more effective approach to it, would be assistance in the form of grants in respect of research.

I hope that the pulp and paper industry, through its trade associations and research

Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution institutes, will combine in tackling this problem. It certainly would be encouraged to do so through Government assistance to the industry, with the grants administered perhaps by the Department of Industry, specifically directed toward the removal of pollutants in the air.

I would not want to wait until the Resource Ministers conference, and I believe this would require more than one, to tender their final recommendations in this connection before attempting to do something. I am sure the Resource Ministers will bring a great deal of information to bear on this subject, but as usual, they will tend to collect facts, prepare data sheets, giving us a host of technical information while at the same time continuing to pose the policy question: What is to be done about this very difficult problem.

Certainly I should like to see the Federal Government make a move in respect of air pollution through a fast tax write-off as has been done in respect of water pollution. I should also like to see it devote more funds to air pollution control through co-operative arrangements with the Pulp and Paper Research Association in an effort to find a solution to this problem of air pollution.

Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):

Mr. Speaker, it was very nice to hear the left wing views of the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) during this debate. As I understood him, he was against any help whatsoever to private industry.

Mr. Cowan:

From the taxpayer.

Mr. Greene:

It was also nice to hear the right wing views of the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who was in support of even more help for private industry. If there is one thing that this private Members' hour indicates, it is that this is surely the one place where we obtain the true views of Members, unhampered by party ties and affiliations. This is surely a salutary thing in our parliamentary process.

Mr. Fisher:

Do not rate them all left up your way; just backward.

Mr. Greene:

I was particularly pleased to hear the views of the hon. Member for York-Humber, because there was a time during an earlier debate when he was accused of being too far to the right to belong to the party which he supports. Now having gone way to the left on this measure we can see that he is in his proper home, which is a happy medium between the two. I know we are all very pleased here to have him back with us,

1700 COMMONS

Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution where we are so fond of him and where he so rightly and justly belongs.

In regard to the suggestion that anti-pollution is the responsibility of private industry, I do not think we can entirely accept that for two reasons. First, all of the pollution is not caused by private institutions. I have had the pleasure of taking an evening stroll along lovers' walk at the back of the Parliament Buildings-by myself, mind you, Mr. Speaker. It is quite shocking to see the main chimney of the Government heating plant at the back of the Supreme Court Building belching out black smoke over the Government buildings across Ottawa. The reason behind this is related in some way to some requirement, unknown to me, that the Government heating establishment must use Nova Scotia coal, which is apparently very black and has a tendency to belch smoke over Government buildings.

Perhaps I should point out also that such institutions as hospitals are sometimes guilty of pouring smoke over city and town buildings. It is quite possible that it is economically impractical for institutions such as hospitals to use only natural gas, which the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) assures us is perfectly clean. I do say, however, that certain pollution does not emanate from private industry, and I do not think it is the sole responsibility of the private aspects of our economy to remove all pollution. I might also point out that this is one case where there would have to be a retroactive effect of the legislation, with which I do not think most Members would agree. Some of these elements of pollution were brought into the economy by private industry at a time when they were perfectly within their legal rights to use the kind of equipment which caused the pollution. I do not think it would be equitable to subsequently force them into another way of production, when it was legal at the time they instituted this manner of production.

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

I do believe there is a very proper area for public interference in this question of anti-pollution. I might point out that the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) criticized the Federal Government for not doing enough in this area, as I understood it. But at least we have taken a positive and very important step in this direction by giving encouragement to private industry, by way of tax incentives, to remedy the situation as it now exists. I might point out also, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of those

DEBATES May 26, 1965

grey areas in our constitution which for so many years has been bedevilled by the fact that in a very difficult and costly procedure such as this, as between federal and provincial authorities there has been a tendency to say, "Well, it is the other fellow's responsibility". I think it is one of the things that disturbs all of us who are Members of this House, that we do not seem to tackle these very great, essential and permanent problems in our body politic and our economy. They are put by the wayside, when it is obviously the most important thing in Canada today, surely, to use what is left of our natural resources better than we have in the past. The question of water, the question of pollution and the question of the use of our natural resources are areas which must be covered by both federal and provincial legislation if we are going to achieve in these areas a better way of life in the future than we have in the past.

In the Province of Ontario, while they wield the big stick through the Water Resources Commission, to which our friend from Port Arthur has referred, they do very little about providing any of the finances or any of the incentives that the Federal Government has tried to do here. Apparently the tendency of the Water Resources Commission in Ontario is to force municipalities, the home owners of this Province, to bear the responsibility for sewage disposal plants and instruments such as this, and to improve the pollution situation. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if there is one body of people for whom it is inequitable to bear the cost, it is the home owners.

I suggest this is one area that should be solved at the higher levels of government through a broad basis of taxation such as the provincial and federal governments have. It is to be hoped that the Conference of Resource Ministers will soon attack this problem boldly, forthrightly and pervasively, on a Federal-Provincial basis, through cooperative federalism, so that we can pass on to those who come after us pure air and pure water, which was our bequest from the past.

Mr. Rynard:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. Member a question. I know he would not want to be unfair to the Provincial Government. Prior to this legislation, did they not put in a rule that they would allow the pulp and paper companies some five years to clear up their properties?

Mr. Greene:

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this is correct. But my main

May 26. 1965 COMMONS

quarrel with the Provincial Government in this area is in forcing the cost of anti-pollution on the municipalities, where it must be borne to a large extent by the home owners of this Province in their real property taxes, rather than assuming the cost of it themselves at the provincial level, as we are to some extent doing here by giving tax incentives,

I do not think the problem of water pollution should be paid for by the home owners in their realty taxes.

Mr. Rynard:

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. Member is in such good humour I wonder whether I could ask him if a national water resources policy would not cover this situation better than the little dibs and dabs that they are doing here. Does the hon. Member not agree that there must be an over-all controlling of this problem?

Mr. Greene:

Mr. Speaker, I quite concur in the hon. Member's views in this regard; I think we very badly need a national water resources policy. That can only be achieved through co-operative federalism; and I certainly hope we will move rapidly and boldly in this direction.

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, I heard some reference to right and left wings. I want to say a word or two on this resolution as one of those left wing Socialists. I support the spirit and purpose of the resolution and what it intends to do. At the same time I have had come before me balance sheets which I have examined in recent weeks, and in them there is one company which reported $25 million profit; another $35 million, and another $30 million. I must say that I fully appreciate that these people simply cannot afford this sort of thing; it is beyond their capacity to pay for many of the things that are required. I can well understand that, and we have some sympathy for them in their present position.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am one who has always been interested in the question of pollution and I believe in the necessity for a national water resources policy which covers all phases of water resources, their anti-pollution, their development, and so on. I am so enamoured of that aspect of this question that I would be willing to permit the companies in question certain write-offs for research. When I say that, I am not suggesting that where you have half a dozen mills belonging to one company, each mill should qualify for a write-off on the research required. I think the research can be confined to certain problems related to certain companies, whether

DEBATES 1701

Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution it be a pulp and paper company, a smelter, or any other company. But because there is a necessity for early action in regard to this problem, even as a Socialist I would vote for companies being given a write-off from income tax for any money expended on research in connection with this problem.

On the surface one might say that the profits of these people are large enough that they should pay for these things, but I think we have to indicate that we are so concerned about the problem that we are willing to consider their being allowed this write-off, as we are in connection with other types of research. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Government has taken a small step in that direction.

Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, first of all may I thank the House for their courtesy in allowing me to speak again. I think we are sort of having a debate in reverse on this particular topic. Having started off by asking to have it withdrawn, having then entered into a debate, I wind up in the rather unique position of a Member single-handedly and with malice aforethought apparently talking out his own bill. But be that as it may.

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

I listened with interest to the comments made on the motion and probably it might have been helpful, had I known that this would develop into a debate, for me to put on the record an explanation why I put the motion as I did. I think that while much of what has been said I would agree with, many people have missed the purpose I was trying to achieve with this particular motion.

Let us look at the problems we really face. The thing I am concerned about is the critical, pressing problem we have in certain parts of the country with pollution of our water resources. I consider the problem serious enough to say that action is required not two, three or four years from now, but right now. I think steps have to be taken and taken quickly.

Bearing that in mind, where does the responsibility lie? Water is a provincial resource and therefore the legislative responsibility generally rests with the provinces. It is up to the provinces to enact the legislation which is necessary to clean up the situation. Where does this pollution come from? It comes from two major sources. It comes from industry and it comes from municipalities: industry in terms of its waste products; municipalities in terms of the sewage they discharge.

May 26. 1965

Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution

With that background, with the tact that this is a provincial matter, with the fact that urgent action has to be taken, with the fact that it can only come from two sources- with these facts in mind it seemed to me important that we get these two sources stopped right away from further polluting our waters. In other words, we must stop industry from dumping pollutants into the streams and stop municipalities from doing that as well. Only the provinces can enact the legislation to bring this about; but in the Province of Ontario there is very good legislation, legislation which is being enforced. I think this is a tribute to the Provincial Government, even though it happens to be that of a party I do not support. It is a good piece of legislation and a good program.

But industry which has been allowed to go on for a number of years using or wasting our resources, and has never been called to account for this, cannot suddenly find the money necessary to make the expenditure required to clear this problem up. We have allowed industry to go on in this way. We have allowed it to play by a certain set of rules and we have now started to change the rules and enforce that change of rules. I felt that if industry was to meet these new rules, industry needed help, and the best help I could think of was a form of tax concessions on special plant and equipment it would need to put in to do the job. This is exactly one of the measures contained in the Budget. I am very glad to see it is contained in the Budget because I think it will now enable industry to live up to the legislation the provinces must pass quickly, before it is too late in critical areas of the country, in order to stop additional pollutants going into our waters.

The hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) suggested that this was not enough, and I could not agree more with the hon. Member. I think I have made two speeches in the last few months in the House on pollution, and to me it is obvious that this in itself is not the sole answer to the problem. To me this is the shock treatment necessary for the immediate, critical areas of the country so that they can solve the problem facing them. Beyond that there is much which has to be done.

We have the secondary problem of sewage coming in from municipalities. The provinces must get after the municipalities and must insist that the municipalities put in the proper sewage treatment plants, so that they do not dump pollutants into the waters. If the provinces will do this, and if the provinces

or the municipalities need financial help from the Federal Government in terms of loans, then it is up to the provinces and the municipalities to come to the Federal Government and request such assistance. There is already on the statute books assistance for sewage treatment plants under the National Housing Act. It also seems to me that the provisions of the Municipal Development and Loan Act did provide low interest loans to municipalities so that they could have the funds necessary to go after their end of the problem. I think these two steps in themselves, however, are still not the complete answer.

The problem of research was raised. A good deal of research must be done. Research must be done by industry so that industry knows what type of plant is the most efficient to treat its effluents so that it can find the best method of stopping pollution through its waste products. Over and above that, research is required by Government agencies- the sort of research being carried on in a very limited way, unfortunately much too limited, by the Great Lakes Institute. They are doing research, but should be doing much more research, as should other agencies, to determine how much pollutant a given body of water can take, what are the flow characteristics, the currents and so on, how much you can dump into bodies of water without destroying them. We have only scratched the surface in this area; much work remains to be done here.

The hon. Member for Port Arthur mentioned the problem of residual effects. Take, for example, a stream which has been polluted for years and years and years. If you stop industry or a municipality from dumping further pollutants into the stream, there still remains a good deal of damage which has been done over the years. Who has to come back and repair that damage? We do not know the answer to that question. I would be happy if this were the only problem we had to solve, namely how to clean up streams which were once polluted but are no longer. I would be delighted if that were the only question which we faced. Some day we will have to face this very question.

As I see it, this is really a matter of provincial concern, but it may not be. At the present time we do not know the answer to that question.

Mr. Stewari:

Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?

Mr. Hahn:

Certainly.

May 26, 1965

Mr. Slewarl:

I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether the remarks he is now making, relevant largely to rivers and streams, would be applied by him equally to the pollution of ocean waters, particularly in the harbours and bays? I am thinking mainly of plants located by salt water, either on the Atlantic coast or on the Pacific coast.

Mr. Hahn:

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the problem of salt water pollution, but I would assume-and this is only an assumption-that the same principles would apply. There is a type of pollution in salt waters, and indeed in our inland waters, which is caused by ships dumping oil. This is another source of pollution. The Shipping Act contains provisions against this. I hope that in conjunction with the United States we will tighten up and toughen these laws, particularly as far as the Great Lakes area is concerned. However, the point I am trying to make is this. My motion calls for a certain specific action which I felt was needed to deal with the critical and immediate problem of water pollution in those areas of the country where it is most severe, including among others, the Great Lakes.