June 27, 1972

SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the following questions will be raised tonight at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Textiles; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)- Consumer Affairs-Increase in Cost of Food; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):-Pensions-Old Age Security.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motion.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Permalink

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA

LIB

Thomas Henry Goode

Liberal

Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond Delta) moved

that Bill C-12, to provide for the establishment of an environmental council of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.

He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that during the third session of this Parliament I introduced a bill very similar to the one we Eire discussing today. That bill was debated in the House on December 10,1971.

The bill which I bring before you this afternoon has been strengthened and clarified as the result of some of the constructive criticism encountered in the previous debate. The principle, nevertheless, remains the same, an independent environmentEil council of Canada must be established. In general, it must advise and recommend the means by which Canada can achieve the highest standards of environmental quality Eind the lowest levels of pollution. In particular, it must assess the medium-term and long-term prospects for the Canadian environment. It must consider all means of improving our environment. It must advise government what policies will best help to attain and maintain a pollution free environment. It must study the economic impact of environmental policies and devise means of diminishing any negative aspects of this impact. It must encourage consultation eind co-operation on environmental matters between Eill segments and sectors of our society. Furthermore, and perhaps most important, it must have the authority to make its findings and recommendations public and let the chips fall where they may.

Some persons, Mr. Speaker, will ask why I proceeded with this bill when the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Environmental Council of Canada

Davis) has Eilready announced establishment of the Canadian EnvironmentEil Advisory Council, which held its first meeting on 10 May. The answer to that is simple. The advisory council is ultimately responsible to the minister. The members of the advisory council are appointed by him. No matter how much the minister may protest that the body he has set up is independent, there will always remain a lingering doubt about its objectivity. What is more, there is no provision for the minister's advisory body to make their recommendations public. They report to him and him alone.

Speaking in the House on March 21, 1972, the Minister of the Environment stated that he personally did not see the need for an independent environmental council "whose advice is not necessEirily practical under the circumstances". I recall, Mr. Speaker, that somewhat the same charge was levelled about a year ago at the Economic Council of Canada. It was suggested then that the council's goals were unreasonable or idealistic because the economy had not measured up to them. The reply at that time by the retiring chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. Arthur J. R. Smith, was this:

The council has deliberately refused to accept the view that poor actual progress toward higher standards of economic performance should per se be accepted as a reason for lowering its sights on the objectives toward which we should, as a nation, seek to strive over the medium term future-

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I submit that too much emphasis on the so-called practicalities of the antipollution struggle could result in a tendency to lower our standards' when we should be raising them. It could, in fact, be used as an excuse for inaction.

In the House last December, I expressed my strongly held view as follows:

There is always a place for independent evaluation of existing governmental policies and practices. An over-all view is necessary because of the natural tendency of those who have been involved in the creation and administration of policy to lose the ability to assess objectively the effectiveness of those policies. They tend to become blind to the need for new departures. The Economic Council has sought to satisfy such a need in the area of economic policy. An environmental council would do the same in the field of ecology. Being independent, the environmental council would be in a position to freely criticize government policy, should this be necessary, and bring new views concerning general or particular policies and programs to the attention of those who must bear the ultimate political responsibility for them.

As the bulletin of the Canadian Wildlife Federation pointed out last yeEir, Mr. Speaker, no matter what merit the minister's Canadian Environmental Advisory Council might have:

-it would be no substitute for an independent environmental council studying issues much broader than the responsibilities of any one department of government and reporting publicly on its findings and recommendations.

The movement for the establishment of a truly independent environmental council of Canada has widespread support. Amongst the supporters are the Science Council of Canada, the New Democratic Party, the Progessive Conservative party and the Liberal party of Canada.

In its report entitled "This Land is Their Land", the Science Council called for the establishment of an environmental council of Canada to:

3568

June 27, 1972

Environmental Council of Canada

-conduct and publish studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada, and make analytical reviews of environmental questions which are the subject of public interest. It should strive to become a major source of informed opinion on environmental problems.

The New Democratic Party spokesman on environmental matters, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), has many times stated his party's support for the setting up of an environmental council of Canada. I believe the most recent occasion was in this House on March 21, 1972, when he said:

The function of the council would be to report on environmental affairs and to give guidance to both the government and the general public on all environmental problems. It would be a nonpolitical organization, with adequate facilities to do a thorough job in the whole field of the environment. The establishment of such a council is long overdue and would be welcomed by Canadians generally.

The Progressive Conservative party, too, supports the proposals. An official background paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on December 5-7, 1971, states that such a council is needed:

-to advise the Canadian government and Parliament and the Canadian public about particular environmental matters and to recommend on a continuing basis both specific short term and long term measures for pollution abatement.

In taking this stand, the Conservatives were following the lead of the 1970 policy conference of the Liberal party of Canada which overwhelmingly voted for a resolution urging the government to:

-establish an independent National Council of Environmental Quality, representative of a broad spectrum of interests, to analyse environmental problems and the government's response, to recommend environmental objectives for Canada and policies necessary to achieve them and to report annually on the state of our environment.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in which the measure which I am presenting today has the support of the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative party, and the Liberal party of Canada. It is difficult to see how opposition to this measure could arise this afternoon. The people of Canada will be watching closely. It is not enough to refer to the achievements of Stockholm, although they were many and the Canadian delegation played an outstanding role. It is not enough to list the antipollution measures enacted by this government, even though we have done more in four years than has been done in the past 100 years. We cannot-we must not- allow ourselves the luxury of basking in the glow of past accomplishments. We must continue to advance in the battle for an unpolluted environment. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this bill can provide one important step in that advance.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

William Marvin Howe

Progressive Conservative

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):

Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that he is not occupying his own seat. He would have to move a few feet closer to the chair if he wishes to continue his remarks.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

William Marvin Howe

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Howe:

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but these seats in the front row are a little confusing. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this matter. A great many experts and people knowledgeable in the field of the environment warn us that not much time is left unless we come to very serious grips with this problem.

I want to speak about two particular areas. I feel that an environmental council such as is proposed could have done much good last year when the government brought before this House the clean water bill. At that time we asked the government to retain the formula that had been included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act whereby dams and projects involving conservation areas were dealt with in a certain manner. The cost was split three ways.

The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Mar-chand) earlier today asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) if his department could assist in the building of further dams and dykes in order to prevent more flooding of rivers in the hon. member's constituency. If the former piece of legislation had been in force, the formula would have been available and could have been used. If an independent environmental council had been in existence last year when this House was considering the clean water bill, it could have given advice on matters such as that raised by the hon. member and it would not be necessary for every problem involving water to give rise to negotiations. We ought to have retained in the clean water legislation the formula included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Let me refer to the Grand River conservation program which is now in effect and has been for the past few years. A new program is coming forward which involves the Speed River that flows to Guelph. It is absolutely necessary for the program to be undertaken; however, the province and local municipalities must pay the total cost. Because the Grand River eventually flows to the St. Lawrence Seaway, I maintain that the federal government ought to pay 37.5 per cent of the cost of the new conservation program which is absolutely necessary on the Grand River.

I wish to raise another important point. I refer to the government's decision with regard to the second international airport at Toronto. If an environmental council of Canada had been established when the airport was first being considered, it could have advised the government. Being an independent body, it could have told the government that there is good farmland in the area of the proposed airport. It could have said that the airport would create only an asphalt desert, and there are too many such deserts particularly in southern Ontario.

An independent environmental council which both the province and the federal government could consult on problems of this kind might give rise to better decisions. Instead of suggesting that the airport be at Pickering, it might have suggested that it be built in Amaranth township, near Orangeville, where the farmland perhaps is not as good as in Pickering township. We talk about pollution and preach about anti-pollution measures yet, we do not

do as we say; we make decisions such as this which will affect the Toronto area.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Leonard Donald Hopkins

Liberal

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):

Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks on Bill C-12 I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) for bringing forward this matter. The explanatory note of the bill says that the purpose of the bill is the establishment of an environmental council of Canada which would be charged with the responsibility of advising and recommending the means by which Canada can achieve the highest possible standards of environmental quality and the lowest possible levels of pollution. When we think of pollution of the environment, we think of the air and emphasize forestry, land and water. The end result about which we are concerned is the quality of life of the people themselves.

About one year ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta introduced Bill C-25. That was during the third session of this Parliament. That bill sought to establish a Canadian environment week during October. The bill was considered by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works which I chaired. It was indeed a pleasure to co-operate with the hon. member at that time.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCleave:

He is a good boy.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Leonard Donald Hopkins

Liberal

Mr. Hopkins:

I enjoyed the co-operation of the opposition, including that of the hori. member who said the hon. member is a good boy. I must emphasize one thing when we talk about national parks and the cleaning up of the major water basins of this country. Some time ago this House passed the Canada Water Act. Mr. Speaker, I will continue speaking on this subject until we get some action.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCleave:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Leonard Donald Hopkins

Liberal

Mr. Hopkins:

There must be additional funds for the cleaning up of our water basins. What the Canada Water Act says is good. It is one of our best pieces of legislation. However, something must be done in addition to what the act prescribes. The act says that the polluter must pay. As I said before, in many areas of this country the polluter no longer exist, but pollution remains. Therefore, it behooves the various levels of government of this country to come forward with funds to assist in the cleaning up of the environment and to allow the citizens of Canada to enjoy a better quality of life.

I wish to speak specifically of water basins which are covered by the Canada Water Act. This subject is pertinent in discussing the bill before us. There are, in many of the water basins of Canada, deadheads; they are leftovers from the old logging drives of the past 125 to 150 years. We are looking back in Canadian history. The Ottawa River is a perfect example of what I mean. Many hon. members of this House have asked questions about pollution of the Ottawa River emanating from the E. B. Eddy Company across the river. Yet I have not heard many questions or speeches in this House that deal with the hundreds of miles of river beyond Ottawa.

Few in this House have dealt with the hundreds of miles of waterways in this country which could be developed

Environmental Council of Canada

into excellent tourist areas. Some groups are interested in lifting logs out of our rivers. These logs could be used for commercial purposes. To back up my statement, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I know of a small group of people who lifted a birch log out of the river. Obviously, it was to have been used for the manufacture of birch veneer 86 years ago. It turned out to be a very profitable piece of timber for it produced, I think, 1,000 board feet of lumber. Normally about 20 logs would be needed for such a quantity.

This program is not being backed at the present time by any government department. I contend that funds ought to be allocated, either through the Department of the Environment and Fisheries or through the Department of Manpower and Immigration under its manpower programs, for assisting companies to begin operations on such waterways in order that we may clear them and promote the tourist and recreational industries of Canada.

Why should there be government assistance for such programs? The answer is very simple. It takes a large amount of capital to start a company which could operate in this area. First, it would need to buy equipment and hire men, and even though men might be paid $100 a week it would still take time to lift these large logs out of the water and transport them to sawmills or veneer plants and manufacture them into wood products. Then, these products are shipped to the market and the company has to wait 30 or 60 days to realize a return on its capital. During that time there are wage and operating costs to meet. This has proven to be a helpful measure, and once these companies are on their feet they can operate on their own.

If we are going to discuss the environment, we should give serious consideration to cleaning up our waterways. We talk a lot about pollutants from various chemical substances, but there are certainly more practical things that have to be done on our waterways. As well as improving the quality of life by cleaning up our waterways, we should create parks. Many people can get very emotional about this, but we must approach this idea rationally, without emotionalism. We must go about it in a factual and well-planned manner.

You will recall that about three years ago there was a Sunday night CBC program which alleged that Algonquin Park in the upper Ottawa valley was being raped and destroyed by the forest based operators in that area. I personally visited that area and the local people took me to the spot where the CBC had their cameras set up, which was in the bottom of an old gravel pit that J. R. Booth dug some time in the 1880's or 1890's to supply gravel for the bed of his railway line through Algonquin Park. I also found out that the producer of the program was the past president and director of the Audubon Society of Canada and a former employee of the CBC. The people of Canada deserve something better than this if they are to contribute to the costs of such programs. If we want to promote the improvement of the environment in Canada let us put the facts before the Canadian people, not our personal, biased views.

25319-40J

June 27, 1972

Environmental Council of Canada

During the past several months a group in the district of Nipissing, and in the county of Timiskaming on the Quebec side of the river, have been working strenuously toward creating Canada's first interprovincial national park. This park would be located between Mattawa, Ontario and Timiskaming, Quebec. Before the national parks people in the department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can complete this project they must have approval from both the provinces, Quebec and Ontario. We brought this idea into focus for another reason. As Canada's first interprovincial national park, it would be a unifying force between the two most populated regions in Canada. Since the park would be located on both sides of the border between the two provinces, it would automatically attract people from the large urban areas in the southern part of both Quebec and Ontario, as well as other people right across Canada. It would be a mistake to create a park on one side of the river only. I want to see this done on an interprovincial scale.

This park would be the first interprovincial park in Canada where people of various ethnic origins could meet together on camping grounds and recreational sites, thus getting to know one another in an atmosphere of leisure rather than in the atmosphere of confrontation which so frequently appears in newspapers, on television and through other media. A group of people rented a railway passenger car, attached it to the back of a freight train leaving Mattawa and invited both federal and provincial officials as well as people from Quebec to go to the town of Timiskaming. From there they went back by bus to the Ontario side, to Mattawa. This took place on Thursday, May 18. On May 19, we chartered two aircraft from the North Bay airport and gave these people a complete tour of the area on both sides of the Ottawa river where the park is to be located. Everyone agreed that this was an excellent project. Now, I call upon the provinces and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to get together and make this a reality. My remarks on this park project are very closely related to the remarks I was making at the beginning because the Ottawa river, which is one of the river basins listed under the regulations of the Canada Water Act, flows right through this proposed national park.

There is another aspect of this project which we should consider seriously if we are really interested in a good environment for our people, and it does not rest entirely on the shoulders of the federal government any more than does the creation of a national park. I have always felt that we have not made enough use of the ARDA program which involves local, provincial and federal governments. We have large areas of land in this country which are presently being farmed. The farms are marginal or less than marginal. It would be of far greater benefit to the future forest-based resources of this country if we could bring about ARDA agreements between the local, provincial and federal governments to start a massive reforestation program. This would also have an effect on the human environment in that area.

There are idealists who feel that you can take people off farms in this country, enroll them in adult training courses and train them to adapt to a new way of life in an urban, industrial society. I think it has been proven time and time again that this is impractical because it is very

difficult to convert these people, who are used to the great outdoors and to living in a clean environment, to an urban life and expect them to be contented. If this program were to be pushed to the limit, it would create social problems and injustices rather than be of advantage to these people. However, through ARDA programs we can bring about the rejuvenation of the areas in which these people live. I am referring to people who make perhaps $1,200 or $1,500 a year from their farms and barely exist. If we can reforest such areas through ARDA agreements and hire local people to do the work, we will not only be doing them a service but we will be doing the future generations in Canada a service by improving our forest-based resources for which Canada has become so famous.

Recently, I had occasion to visit the Black Forest area in Germany which is about 15 miles wide and 60 miles long. Here is a perfect example of the forest industry and tourist and recreation business living side by side. I do not agree that it is impossible for industry, recreation, tourism and conservation to be tied in together. With good planning this could be done.

We often hear it said that there ought to be no roadways through our parks. Well, there are 1.6 million old age pensioners in this country who have retired and who wish to enjoy their leisure. Is it fair to them to say, "I want to carry my canoe through this territory and I do not want any roads built there"? Is it fair to leave these 1.6 million people standing by, looking at a wonderful tourist area which they cannot enter? We could block out areas suitable for them. We could block out areas suitable for those who want untouched forest territory, completely deserted areas through which they could travel in their canoes if they wished. By approaching the question in a rational rather than an emotional manner we could learn to live together.

I read an interesting article on idealism the other day. It said, among other things, that ideally government exists solely to serve the people, and the civil service exists solely to advise the government. Some people say that basic political intelligence is relayed to the government by representatives of the people who have been elected to this House. It is not new, of course, for mass meetings to be held in constituencies across this country at which public figures, elected representatives, appear.

Moreover, this is a new age in communications and this is where the pressure of opinion originates and strengthens until finally things are done. For example, meetings have been held in both Ontario and Quebec on the interprovincial national park proposal I have discussed. This involves Members of Parliament being absent from the House if they are to contribute in this way to a better environment.

I hope the news media will, in all fairness, recognize that on many occasions such as this it is necessary for Members of Parliament to be absent from the House for legitimate reasons, trying to get programs off the ground in their constituencies, keeping in touch with constituents, and so on. In this way, public servants and Members of Parliament can get together and learn to know one another. It seems to me that discussion is one of the simplest

June 27, 1972

things, one of our cheapest products, yet it is often neglected.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Randolph Harding

New Democratic Party

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-12, an act to provide for the establishment of an environmental council of Canada. Our party has been calling for such a council for a long time. On two occasions we have moved amendments in the House and in committee calling for such a council. In fact, going through my files I found an amendment of ours dated February 9, 1971, which was directed to Bill C-207 and the substance of it reads:

That the minister of the environment shall create an environmental council of Canada whose task will be to:

(a) conduct and publish studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada

(b) make analytical reviews of environmental questions which are of public interest

(c) advise the federal and provincial governments in the area of pollution prevention and clean-up

(d) advise particular ministries as to the interrelationship between resource development and environmental protection

(e) advise as to the need for specific environmentally oriented research

That amendment was turned down by the government. I cannot recall much support being forthcoming from some of the members who are suggesting that the bill before us today should be passed. Frankly, I am very much in favour of it.

There is no doubt that Canada is in need of an environmental council. I am not thinking in terms of a council which is attached to a department or to the government. Such a body should be established along the lines of the Economic Council. It should be completely divorced from the political field. It should have power to check carefully into various environmental concerns which face our nation, and it should report regularly. It should have a strong research staff. It should report without fear or favour and recommend what action governments should take to ensure threats to the environment are dealt with.

Very often, members of this House and the general public do not possess the necessary background with which to evaluate the environmental issues which Eire brought to their attention. A body such as an environmental council could play an important role in such an evaluation. We just do not have the advantage of a non-political source of expertise, though such an organization is urgently required in this day and age. It was with these thoughts in mind that we urged the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to accept our proposal that an environmental council be set up at the time the re-organization bill was going through the House.

I know that we have a council of some sort attached to the department, but here again it is under the control of the government and will not do the type of research or make the recommendations that one would expect from a completely independent council. For that reason I endorse

Environmental Council of Canada

the legislation currently before the House. I might add that there are several sections of the bill that perhaps should be altered. Nevertheless, the idea is good and I am pleased to see the hon. member at least interested enough to bring it before the House for debate.

I understand that two or three other members wish to speak on this very important matter, and though there are other things I should have liked to say, may I in closing reiterate that our group is in favour of the bill. If the bill is not acceptable to the government, the least the government can do is to give serious consideration to setting up an environmental council, if necessary by amending some existing legislation. In any event, let us move toward the establishment in Canada of an environmental council. We need it, and it is one of the best ways to get at the root of some of the major clean-up problems confronting the nation.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal

Mr. Speaker, I too will shorten my speech since others want to speak in support of Bill C-12, to set up an environmental council. By coincidence, only yesterday I received 14 or 16 letters from a grade 5 science class in the village of Hillsborough in the constituency of Fundy-Royal. My hon. friend who proposed the bill anticipated for me very neatly a way in which to illustrate to the House the interest of young Canadians in the subject of pollution.

As is often the case, letters from youngsters are much more direct and succinct than those written by adults. As I say, these letters were written by a grade 5 science class, composed of Linda Smith, Patricia Lockhart, Jeffrey Wilson, Edward Jonah, Jeffrey Irving, Donna Milton, Dale Ryder, Kelvin Rose, Timothy Taylor, Kim Eagles, Sheldon Steeves, Lisa Hopper and Lloyd Branscombe.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment)

Liberal

Mr. Corbin:

Great Canadians.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fairweather:

We may laugh at this, but each of these youngsters has an interest in the subject and then-views are equal to any others who are taking part in this debate today. I will see whether the House does not agree with me by quoting three of these letters.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Grant Deachman

Liberal

Mr. Deachman:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want the hon. member to know that members on this side of the House are not laughing at him but are thoroughly enjoying, with him, the pleasure of putting these youngsters' names on the record.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fairweather:

Mr. Speaker, I do not hide the fact that I am putting these children's names on the record. I think children who are interested enough in the procedures of Parliament are entitled to the processes of Parliament. If the hon. member has any doubt about that, let him listen. Linda Smith writes:

Something should be done about the oceans and seas. They are full of pollution. Soon the marine life (animals) will die and we'll be sick. People do what they want because the sea is big and there is room for pollution in it. They are putting sewage, garbage and oil in it. Please do something about this or the same thing will happen to our beaches and lakes.

Very straightforward: no horsing around with that young Canadian. The next letter is from Jeffrey Wilson,

June 27, 1972

Environmental Council of Canada who incidentally sends his love, something not often sent to a Member of Parliament:

Will you please help me? Will you please stop pollution? Fish and other sea life are being killed. Try to find another way to drill for oil under water or stop. Thank you.

The whole statement is there and the minister and his staff could not find a more eloquent way of putting the problem. Lastly, a letter from Jeffrey Irving:

I know you are very busy but please try to find time to read my letter. Raw sewage is being dumped into our many lakes, rivers and oceans. This is not only polluting the water, it is killing our fish for eating. Not only for me but for many other people try to do something about it.

My hon. friend is trying to do something about it by proposing the establishment of an environmental council. I support his bill and commend him for bringing the matter to our attention.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

June 27, 1972