April 3, 1967

LIB

John Carr Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration)

Liberal

Mr. Munro:

It is not contradictory, if the hon. member would just listen to the explanation. It is based on the determination of the white paper to remove discrimination as between different countries, which has not been the situation heretofore.

Getting back to the question of Mr. Gruszka, he came to Canada as a visitor. I would advise the hon. member that my information is that his relatives indicated an interest in bringing him here as a visitor. He came here as a visitor, he was admitted in good faith as a visitor last November, and his wife and children are still in Poland. He then made application for landing, to stay here permanently, and it was refused. The minister has received representations, no doubt including those of the hon. member, and is giving consideration to them at the present time.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION-REPORTED DISCRIMINATION IN ADMISSION OF IMMIGRANTS FROM POLAND
Permalink

HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS-LOUIS-BOURG FORTRESS-RETURN TO WORK OF MEN LAID OFF

?

Malcolm MacInnis

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I had occasion to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) whether the government had changed their attitude in respect of the policy of the development of Fortress Louisbourg. First of all I wish to convey my thanks to the minister for making himself available at this late hour, taking upon himself the responsibility of dealing with this matter and not delegating it to an assistant. I have chosen to make my representation at this time mainly because in order to have arrived at what might have been considered a satisfactory or more detailed answer would have required a number of supplementary questions being asked in the house this afternoon, and that of course would not have been too desirable at that time.

With respect to the development of Fortress Louisbourg, I need not impress upon the minister, because he is well aware of it, that this is a very worth while and necessary project in Cape Breton at this time because of the very acute unemployment situation there. It would probably be well to review some of the developments in respect of this project. Again, I am only repeating something about which the minister is probably well aware. Some time ago there was an intended lay-off at Louisbourg, and when this was brought to the minister's attention he was 'kind enough to make arrangements which meant that the lay-off did not take place.

14470 COMMONS

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:20 p.m.)

Last November, I think it was, a similar lay-off was proposed. At that time an indication, whether official or not, was given that no money was available under the winter works program. Therefore this lay-off was the result. We made representations to the minister which clearly indicated that the only change in the financing of the winter works program was the doing away with the $500 winter home building bonus. This was admitted by the minister of manpower and the Minister of Labour. This fact having been brought to the attention of the minister the proposed lay-off last November was cancelled.

The answer that I received to my question this afternoon was this. I asked whether there had been any change in attitude toward this development-I do not know whether I am using the exact wording but the import of the question was the same-and the minister replied that he was not aware of any policy change in respect of the development of Fortress Louisbourg. If there had been a policy change the minister, of course, would be the first to know, in that this project comes under his administration. I accept the answer he gave this afternoon, even with the rider "not that I am aware of".

In case I am wrong, I should now like to impress upon the minister the great need for this government to do whatever it can to maintain the present employment situation in Cape Breton. I should not ask the government to maintain it as it is; I mean at least to keep it from sliding further back. To maintain it would hardly be the appropriate phrase to use, because I should like to see the government make an effort very much to improve the situation.

An opportunity to improve the employment situation there is very much presented by this development. The minister is well aware of what it means to the tourist trade in the area, and I impress upon the minister the need to consider the welfare of the people who have been working there, some of whom were laid off the past Friday, after having worked the project four to five years.

If there has been no change in the government's plans for this development, I see no reason why men who have been employed on this project for this length of time should now be given notice that their jobs are no longer available and that their service is no longer required. I would once again ask the minister to review this situation. If he is able to take the same action that he took on two previous

[Mr. Maclnnis.l

DEBATES April 3, 1967

occasions when lay-offs were proposed, I would thank him very much for it. I am also sure there would be expressions of appreciation from all the people involved in the layoff, which I understand affects more than 40 workers. I would ask the minister to give every consideration to maintaining their status on the Louisbourg project.

Topic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS-LOUIS-BOURG FORTRESS-RETURN TO WORK OF MEN LAID OFF
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has dealt with this matter of the building of the Louisbourg Fortress. I think it is important that we go into a little bit of history.

This project was advised a number of years ago by the Rand commission which investigated the coal situation on the island at that time. They suggested that the surplus labour there should be used on something constructive, and it was suggested that we should rebuild old Fortress Louisbourg. It was thought at that time that we should probably expend as much as $12 million to make it a gigantic tourist attraction, which I think it will become. So far we have expended about $5.5 million.

The hon. member asked whether there have been any changes. There have been changes since I took over the department. When I came to my department I found that those men were being paid $1.09 an hour, and I said that in my view a man could not be employed in these days at $1.09 an hour and produce anything. Since that time we have increased the wages by more than 50 per cent, and today I think we are getting more work out of these men.

However, I have the responsibility of creating something there. I do not want people digging around the place interminably, for a generation. We want to raise something above the ground which will be an attraction to people. The building that has been completed is a very fine one. We have for two or three years been keeping men throughout the wintertime, endeavouring to work outside in a climate which I am sure my hon. friend will admit is not one which men would ordinarily encounter. This last year, in response to representations made by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), we once again took on 44 men. This was not an official winter works program, but it was a works program within our own department to keep these men occupied during the wintertime.

April 3, 1967 COMMONS

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that a number of these men would have been drawing social assistance if they were not going to work. Weather conditions there are such in the wintertime that not a great deal of work can be done. We have exhausted the money. We exhausted it on March 31, and we have laid off the 44 men. They have been told that when we get to work again in the summertime,-and it is the summertime when we can get the greatest return from the men, because it is easier to work then-they will be taken on again as rapidly as possible. These 44 men will be given first call, except the odd one to

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

whom we have indicated we are not going to be bound to take back.

There are a few of them we do not want back because we want work done there. We will be taking them back as soon as we can, probably in the month of May. The work is progressing fairly well. We are keeping relatively within our costs, but I want to have something produced. When completed, this will be an attraction for visitors, but until it is completed it is not going to be an attraction for visitors.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

14472

April 3, 1967

Topic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS-LOUIS-BOURG FORTRESS-RETURN TO WORK OF MEN LAID OFF
Permalink

APPENDIX

ANSWER TO QUESTION RESPECTING WATER EXPORT TO U.S.

PC

Mr. Irvine

Progressive Conservative

1. What is the present attitude of the government concerning the export of Canada's water resources to the United States?

2. Does Canada have a defined program for the assessment of present and potential water resources and, if so, what is that program in detail?

3. Has the government conducted studies to determine Canada's future water needs and the possibility of exportation of water to the United States and, if so (a) when and by whom (b) what were the terms of reference?

4. Has the government received from the government of the United States any invitation to discuss generally the long-term question of water export?

5. Does the government recognize a federal responsibility for conservation of water resources, and is there a national plan of conservation (conservation including control systems and pollution abatement measures)?

6. Is the government holding, or has it held conferences with provincial governments in connection with water resources and, if so (a) when (b) what were the results of such conferences?

7. What is the mechanism for acting upon recommendations of the international joint commission that apply to Canadian or partly Canadian water resources?

Topic:   APPENDIX
Subtopic:   ANSWER TO QUESTION RESPECTING WATER EXPORT TO U.S.
Permalink
LIB

Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):

I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and External Affairs as follows:

1. The present attitude of the government with respect to water export was discussed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the House of Commons June 28, 1966 (Hansard, page 6997). In brief he pointed out that the question has not arisen in any concrete form, because there is at present no buyer and no seller. For our internal water management needs and to obtain knowledge which may be used to advise on export questions which may arise in the future, the government of Canada has undertaken and is undertaking, directly and in co-operation with the provinces, a large number of programs designed to increase knowledge of the water resources of Canada and to determine alternative means of developing these resources to meet present and future requirements for all purposes in the different basins and regions of Canada. The government proposes to strengthen and accelerate these programs as rapidly as resources permit and necessary arrangements with the provinces concerned can be made.

As a result of existing survey, mapping, resource inventory, planning and research programs, there is now a considerable body of

information concerning the quantity, quality and potential for development of water resources in various river basins in Canada. Coverage is not adequate in many areas, however, and a systematic and rapid extension of resource inventory, comprehensive basin planning, water quality surveys, research and other programs is underway or proposed.

Information respecting existing water uses and future requirements for all purposes in the different basins and regions of Canada is, at present, quite inadequate for purposes of planning and policy formulation. This information is available for those basins in which joint federal-provincial planning studies have been undertaken and in certain other areas. Programs to develop a national inventory of water uses, to assess future water requirements, and, more generally, to study the growing economic implications of water development must be significantly and rapidly increased in co-operation with the provinces. Programs in these and related fields are under active consideration by government officials and discussions are being initiated with the provinces.

Investigation and studies undertaken through the above and other programs should enable the government of Canada and the provinces to determine the probable future requirements for water in the different basins and regions of Canada; the available supply of water to meet these requirements; and alternative plans and programs for development. These investigations will also indicate whether there is, or may be a surplus in any region available for export. The governments of Canada and of the provinces concerned will require this and other information to establish jointly a position on export if and when the government of the United States indicates that it might wish to consider the possible importation of water from Canada. This work is being undertaken by the newly established Water Sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, in co-operation with the provinces.

2. Canada has a large program for the assessment of present and potential water resources. This program concerns measurement and assessment of the quantity, distribution and quality of waters throughout the country.

(i) Streamflow Measurement: The first

streamflow measurement in Canada by the federal government was made in 1894. An

April 3. 1967

organized program was initiated in 1908, has grown in size since and is being considerably expanded at the present time.

Approximately 2,300 streamflow and water level gauging stations are now maintained in Canada to provide records of water level and flow of many of the nation's lakes and rivers. Of this total some 2,000 are maintained by the federal government and 300 by the province of Quebec, which operates its own survey for this purpose.

The federal government plans to instal 200 additional gauging stations during fiscal year 1967-68 to increase its network coverage.

The capital cost of establishing gauging stations specifically requested by a province is shared by that province. The provinces also contribute to the operating costs of these stations. The federal government pays all of the costs for those stations it requires, and maintains the necessary national organization to implement the survey program. Other cooperating agencies share in the costs of the stations they request.

Surveys of suspended sediment are made of many rivers under observation that carry a significant concentration of solids and where the solids are likely to create problems in water management and use.

(ii) Chemical Water Quality Network: A chemical water quality network is being established by the federal government throughout the country with provincial co-operation, and is expected to increase to about 250 stations during 1967. Chemical quality studies lead to assessment of the hardness, physical characteristics, colour, potability and methods of treatment for municipal and industrial use. During the past 20 years reconnaissance assessments have been made of the chemical water quality of many of Canada's river drainage basins. This program is now being intensified and extended.

(iii) Groundwater: Studies of groundwater resources are being expanded through establishing a national observation well network in co-operation with the provinces. Assessment of the reserve in aquifers, the replen'shment or recharge of groundwater, the potential yield rates and an understanding of hydrogeological features are all included in this program.

(iv) Glaciology: A glaciological program includes the measurement of mass balance, that is the increase or decrease of the reserves of glacial ice due to climatic variation. Five glaciers in British Columbia and Alberta, selected as indicative of various climatic conditions,

are under critical observation during the ten year period 1965-1974. Glaciers are a significant source of supply of water to certain-streams in the Western mountain region.

In addition to these largely federal programs considerable information on water resources is gathered continually by provinces.

3. (a) See answer to Question 1 above re studies respecting export.

(b) No comprehensive nationwide studies have been conducted on Canada's future water needs. The government of Canada directly, and in co-operation with the provinces has conducted a number of studies which have included some assessment of future water requirements within certain river basins, these included-the Fraser river study, the Columbia river studies, the Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba study, and the Ottawa river engineering board study. Reports on these have been tabled in the House.

Other studies of smaller basins have been made on behalf of the International Joint Commission.

Some of the provinces maintain a continuing inventory of water use through the application of water licensing procedures, but an inventory for all Canada has not been maintained. The federal and Ontario governments, through a co-operative arrangement, are conducting studies of northern Ontario waters. One phase of these studies relates to present and possible future uses of these waters. The water resources branch publishes annually "Electric Power in Canada'' which contains an inventory of developed and known hydro power sites in Canada.

In addition the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is initiating discussions with provinces on the most efficient methods of conducting a comprehensive Canada water inventory of present use and future needs. An inventory of existing uses will be required before adequate consideration could be given to the determination of Canada's future water needs.

4. There has been no request by the government of the United States to the government of Canada to discuss the export of water from Canada to the United States.

The question of export has arisen at this time mainly because of private initiatives in the United States and Canada. The NAWA-PA, Grand Canal and other suggested schemes diverting water to the United States are all private engineering concepts based on the, as yet, unestablished assumptions: that there is an economic demand for Canadian water in

April 3, 1967

the United States; that Canada has a surplus, over and above its own future requirements, with which it might supply this demand, or a part of it; and that it would be in Canada's national interest to export water to the United States.

5. The primary responsibility for the administration and conservation of water resources within provincial boundaries in Canada lies with the provinces. Nevertheless, the federal government recognizes responsibilities for conservation and planning because of the interprovincial and international character of many water courses, because of its constitutional responsibility for certain water uses and the strong national interest in the wise development and use of water resources.

Federal responsibility in conservation is recognized through legislation which permits federal-provincial participation in water dvel-opment studies and research and in the construction of water development projects. This legislation includes the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, and the Atlantic Development Board Act. The federal government has also provided numerous water conservation reservoirs in connection with its responsibility for navigation.

In addition, federal representatives participate in the activities of a large number of international and federal-provincial boards which have been appointed from time to time to investigate and plan the development of various rivers. The national policy which has evolved provides for federal participation with the provinces in investigations to inventory water resources, to identify development possibilities, and to study the feasibility of water conservation works which would form part of an over-all development program. Studies of this type have been undertaken by the federal-provincial Fraser river board, lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba board, Ottawa river engineering board, Saint John river board, and the co-ordinating committee on northern Ontario water resources studies. On international waters or waters which cross the international boundary, the federal government conducts national studies and provides data and personnel for the engineering studies of the International Joint Commission.

To stimulate pollution abatement, the federal government provides financial assistance through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to municipalities for sewage treatment facilities. This is supplemented in

the Atlantic provinces by the program of the Atlantic development board. In addition, the tax relief offered to industry for accelerated depreciation of pollution abatement works provides a positive stimulus for pollution control. A number of federal departments and agencies, including Energy, Mines and Resources, National Health and Welfare, Fisheries, conduct research on water quality and pollution. Their work is being quickly expanded under the co-ordination of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. That department is also building a major research centre at Burlington, Hamilton harbour, for research into pollution and other water problems, particularly in the Great Lakes.

Clearly, a national plan must be built of many component federal, provincial and regional plans and programs encompassing all water uses. Such plans in Canada can be evolved only through continuing joint programs of the federal and provincial governments. We are proposing extension of comprehensive water development studies and the implementation of resultant programs under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as rapidly as financial and manpower resources and federal-provincial agreement will permit.

6. Yes. There have been a continual series of conferences with provinces to negotiate such joint programs as the Saskatchewan-Nelson basin study; the Nelson river power study; the Northern Ontario water study; the Bay of Funday tidal power study; the Atlantic provinces water resources study; and many others.

At practically all meetings of the Canadian council of resource ministers since 1962, water matters have been discussed. More recently in the last year, the Canadian council of resource ministers has discussed the pollution conference, the water for peace conference and the proposed seminar on water to be sponsored by the Canadian council of resource ministers. Of course, ARDA, PFRA and other federal agencies concerned with certain aspects of water matters also hold such meetings. However, no formal federal-provincial water conferences with all ministers, both federal and provincial concerned, have been held.

7. Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the I.J.C. exercises both semi-judicial and advisory functions. In the former capacity the commission, under Articles 3 and 4 of the treaty, passes on applications affecting the

April 3. 1967

level or flow of boundary waters or waters flowing across the boundary. In the latter capacity the commission, under Article 9, examines and reports on questions arising along the common frontier referred to it from time to time by the governments of Canada and the U.S. The commission reports to the Canadian and the U.S. governments upon the facts and circumstances of any question so referred, together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate. The

Canadian government considers the commission's report and discusses it with the authorities who would be involved in implementation of the recommendations in Canada. After studying the commission's report and recommendations, the Canadian and U.S. governments consult to reach agreement as to the action which should be taken on the recommendations. If the Canadian government accepts the recommendations it assumes responsibility for the necessary implementing action to be taken in Canada.

Tuesday, April 4, 1967

Topic:   APPENDIX
Subtopic:   ANSWER TO QUESTION RESPECTING WATER EXPORT TO U.S.
Permalink

April 3, 1967