You have not caught her yet.

Mr. Wenman:

I caught her in a contradiction. She is passing the buck. Where does it stop?

I want to know what is our overall water policy. While we are espousing these fine words and bringing forth these bills, which are just pieces of paper, virtually raw sewage from British Columbia cities is spewing forth into the Fraser River and on into the Pacific Ocean. It is flowing from Quebec cities into the St. Lawrence and on

April 28, 1975

into the Atlantic Ocean. The sludge runs down the rivers of Manitoba. A couple of weeks ago there was concern about a big slick. There is black oil all over the beaches of White Rock in British Columbia.

Black Rock.

Mr. Wenman:

They are now calling it Black Rock. In spite of all this we still have no over all water policy.

I have always wanted to know how all this piecemeal legislation fits into the over all plan. When I questioned the minister in the House about our over all policy and how this all fits together, the minister said there is no over all water policy. Surprisingly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agrees. He says it has not yet been decided. It is time the Prime Minister and the minister decided what is to be the over all policy for Canada. They should lead the world in this way. After all the glowing words and magnificent speeches across Canada and throughout the world, they come home to a country which has no water policy.

Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):

Why don't you stick to the bill?

Mr. Wenman:

The hon. member knows there is no policy and it bothers him. I enjoy his glowing remarks. I also look foward to hearing the minister's response.

The basic weakness of this bill is that it is piecemeal legislation. It does not tie in with an over all policy. I have only been here since last July 8, but since then I have been trying to find out from the minister how this all fits together. She will not tell me.

Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):

Read the Arctic waters pollution bill.

Mr. Wenman:

I know the member from British Columbia is concerned. British Columbia has one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have the most to lose. However, we have the most to gain if this bill becomes more than just a paper tiger.

The good member from British Columbia talked about the problem of tanker routes. Is this legislation an admission of defeat with regard to tanker routes on the west coast of Canada? Is it a softening of the resolve of the minister and the government to stop that tanker route along the coast of British Columbia? Have we stopped making representations? Will this be regulated in some other way? I hope not. I hope that this legislation was born out of the resolve and ideals expressed by the minister in the speech from which I quoted. I hope it is this kind of motivation which drives her on, rather than a concern that it falls short. I hope this is more than an expedient sop to those asking the minister for action with regard to the tanker route. I hope the minister's resolve will continue.

The minister heard two members from British Columbia express concern regarding tanker routes. How does that relate to the bill? Will the bill give the minister authority to stop those tanker routes? We want an answer from the minister.

Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.

Dumping at Sea

Mr. Wenman:

I would be very pleased to answer a question.

Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):

Can the hon. member give us some idea how to stop these tankers from going down the coast in international waters? If he can answer that question, he will be telling us something.

Mr. Wenman:

I would say that at the present time we are working for an international law at the Law of the Sea Conference. I hope that will eventually be acceptable. The control will come that way. I like to think the Government of Canada has some impact in the Congress in Washington. Canada will be supplying energy resources, be they coal, oil or whatever, to the United States. We are currently selling, will sell, or will share these with the United States, as expressed in their continentalism policy, which I do not like. As we share those resources, the United States has an obligation and a responsibility. I believe this government has negotiating power to gain what is right for Canada.

There are diplomatic tools. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) should be involved in some way. We need a government policy that goes beyond the piecemeal approach of this legislation and the piecemeal approach of the cabinet. Ministers are not co-ordinated to work together on issues such as the tanker route.

The minister was recently in Washington. What pressure did she bring to bear with regard to these tanker routes? Perhaps she will tell us this evening what she said to the American environmental officials and to the President of the United States. What have the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had to say about this? It has been too little to satisfy the British Columbia members in this House.

The tanker route question is very significant. The parliamentary secretary stated in his speech that it in some way relates to this bill. I believe it was the parliamentary secretary who said that even when these tankers are unloaded, there are still 2,000 tons of oil in them which have to be flushed or washed out and dumped somewhere.

This kind of legislation is sort of related to sin. Prior to the Reformation people would pay and their sins would be forgiven. This legislation is similar to that. You pay to pollute. You buy the permit and are able to pollute. Another thing wrong with the bill is that there is no authority under international law to enforce this law. Even if we pass this bill it will not have international support. It will not apply to the high seas unless there is some accord. There is no authority for policing at the international level.

If this cannot be policed at the international level, how are we going to police it at the local level? We must rely on our national sovereign authority. However, how can we rely on that when we do not have an adequate force to police the three-mile limit? We cannot protect our own fishermen inside that limit. Therefore, how are we going to protect 12 miles or 200 miles? When we ask the Minister of National Defence about this, we are told that the military is being cut back. This is being done at a time when we should be increasing surveillance.

April 28, 1975

Dumping at Sea

I have talked about some of the limitations of this bill and the concerns I have for it. I commend the authorities who drew up the bill and who are pushing the minister. I have talked to some of the officials in the minister's department. I am impressed with their keenness and desire to do what is right for the environment of Canada. However, the minister is kind of pulling back and saying, whoa, not so fast. She is trying to push the Prime Minister and the cabinet. I suggest the Minister of the Environment should take a leaf out of the book of President Nixon and start kicking a bit instead of pulling and pushing. I support this bill in principle.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Wenman:

I will even put my cynicism aside for a minute and give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I shall assume, at least during second reading, that the bill is a product of idealism rather than merely a convenient sop to those who are concerned about the pollution of the oceans, even though I know the minister does not possess the authority necessary to back up this legislation.

When the time comes for amendments to be made we intend to make sure that this bill is capable of being enforced, unlike the contaminants legislation which could not be enforced. I have not obtained a legal opinion as to whether the bill before us can be enforced, but I am nevertheless concerned about this aspect. So I commend the minister, and accept the measure as being put forward on an idealistic basis at this point. I look forward to examining the bill, clause by clause, during the committee stage, and I hope that in the end we can produce an act which is evidence of some leadership, hopefully something which will bring us closer to the over all water policy which I demand of the minister for Canadians and for the world.

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):

I rise to make a brief intervention in this debate. My interest is mainly in the danger of pollution on the west coast.

First, I would like to make a few comments about the question period this afternoon. I may have missed something in the translation from French into English of a reply by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve). I attempted, unsuccessfully, to get an early copy of the Hansard report, but it appeared to me that this afternoon the minister indicated she thought the danger of oil spills from oil tankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca had been eliminated with the projected movement of the harbour from Cherry Point to Port Angeles, where it is presumed they will have an offshore loading point.

Port Angeles is not outside the Strait of Juan de Fuca but is some 50 miles inside the entrance to the strait. While the danger is not as great if the tankers come only to Port Angeles as it would be if they come as far as Cherry Point, there is still considerable danger-there is a danger of collision in the confines of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. So, while it is an improvement over the Cherry Point location, it is not as good as if the harbour were located at Neah Bay or at Gray's Harbour, which would take it outside the restricted waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

I hope the minister will do what she can to see that the movement of the offshore loading point toward the ocean is accelerated. She will then be able to answer truly in the House of Commons that the danger is, to the best of her ability, now removed.

My second reason for rising in debate this evening is to call attention to the difference between the proclamations of the government concerning anti-pollution measures and what happens in practice. For example, the following appeared in the Vancouver Sun on May 4, 1973, quoting a statement made by former environment minister Jack Davis:

"Up to $20 million a year in federal government loans is available to clean up pollution in the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca and their tributary waters", Environment Minister Jack Davis said today.

It would appear that such a fund would help out the people on the West Coast without any great strain on the administrative facilities. However, an oil spill occurred a short time later, and at that time there was nothing but confusion in the handling of the clean-up operation, the problem appearing to be who should do the cleaning up. Should it be the Ministry of Transport or the Department of the Environment? They just didn't seem to know who should do it. The view of one spokesman for the federal environmental emergency service was reported in the Vancouver Sun as follows:

Put in what Chris Hatfield, federal environment emergency coordinator, calls simple terms, it goes like this:

"If a spill originates with a ship within the Vancouver harbor

boundaries, the take-charge guys will be the National Harbours

Board.

Outside the harbor, the federal ministry of transport.

From the land into the inlet, the federal environmental

department.

From land to land, the municipality and the province."

As Mr. Hatfield says, this doesn't mean that the level of authority assigned to any specific area is solely responsible for clean-up.

If an oil spill occurs in the middle of the night, a more confusing policy than that set out by the government would be hard to conceive. A few days after the article appeared, the municipality of Oak Bay had the misfortune to be affected by an oil spill which happened during the hours of darkness.

No one knew what ship the spill came from, and for the benefit of the minister I would like to point out here that when a spill does take place speed is of the essence in dealing with pollution caused by oil washing up on beaches. If you wait for as much as a day the problem is multiplied.

The Oak Bay municipality got right to work and cleaned up the oil spill-a very small one. They then sent their bill to the Department of Transport. It was referred back to them and they were told it was somebody else's responsibility. There the runaround started.

On March 4, 1974, as recorded at page 121 of Hansard, I rose in the House and asked the then minister of the environment, he having just completed a long speech on fisheries, if he would mind telling me his policy on the clean-up of oil spills. I asked my question in the following words:

Will the minister assure the House that when oil spills occur from ships and when the federal government, whose responsibility it is, is

[Mr. Wenman.1

April 28, 1975

unable to identify the source, the federal government will at least pay for the cleanup rather than expecting the municipal governments to assume what could be enormous costs?

The minister, Mr. Davis, said:

Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. member of that. Several years ago amendments were made to the Canada Shipping Act which provided for the collection of large sums of money. That money is available for compensation to those who are affected by oil spills.

MR- McKinnon: Would the minister then explain to the House why the Department of Transport turned down the request of the municipality of Oak Bay for compensation for cleaning up an oil spill there some two months ago on the grounds that they could not identify the ship which spilled the oil?

Mr. Davis:

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member have a chat with me. Perhaps our departmental people can do something about it.

Surely to goodness, having heard this from a minister of the Crown, one would assume that the government did indeed intend to reimburse the municipality for the costs involved in cleaning up an oil spill which occurred at night on one of its fine beaches. But such was not to be the case. Mr. Davis was approached by the municipality, but their request was turned down. An election ensued and Mr. Davis was turned down. He did not return, and the ministry changed hands.

We tried once again to get payment of this very small sum from the new minister-I think it was only about $463-but it is not the amount of the sum that is of concern. That makes it even more disgraceful, that they would not even consider paying such a small sum. They turned it down on a technicality. First, they said it was because they could not identify the ship. The other objection I will come to in a moment.

I do not rise here because of the smallness of the sum or in the hope they will find it in their petty cash, or make a LIP grant or an OFY grant from sources where money is easy to find. I rise because this kind of occurrence could happen to any municipality with a coastline. Indeed, it is more likely to happen in the future than it has in the past. Next time the sum might not be small but might be rather large.

In any event, on February 6 I had occasion to write to the minister and ask her if she would stand by a commitment made by Mr. Davis, when he was minister, to pay for the clean-up of that oil spill. I received a letter in reply via the mayor of Oak Bay, which disturbed me. It was a complete disavowal of the statement made by the minister's predecessor; indeed it was stated that there would be no payment forthcoming.

At the same time there were some objections taken in the public press to the amount of money that has been collected in this fund to be used presumably to fight oil spills, and I understand shipping companies are no longer willing to pay their contribution, particularly as it appears the money is not going to be spent to clean up oil spills except under very specific circumstances.

I wrote to the minister again and was favoured with a reply dated March 11, some six weeks ago. At this time the minister took advantage of another technicality. It was now agreed that not being able to identify the ship would

Dumping at Sea

not keep you from collecting from the fund. I should like to quote the minister's letter of March 11;

In order to claim against the fund for cleanup costs of an oil spill, "Her Majesty in the right of Canada or a province or the other person that incurred that loss or damage" must first be able to establish that the spill came from a ship-

If there is oil on a beach that has been brought in by the tide you assume that it did come in from a ship, but it is kind of hard to prove. The second reason given, which is the case the minister has made for not paying this just debt, is:

-and secondly, must have obtained authorization by the Governor in Council prior to commencing cleanup (section 734). The claimant may then proceed in Admiralty Court against the administrator of the MPCF.

Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you were mayor of a small municipality and someone told you that a small oil spill was drifting on to one of your beautiful beaches, would you feel like getting authorization by the Governor in Council before you started to clean it up? For one thing, it would be too late; the time to stop an oil spill of that nature is before it gets on to the beach. I think it is outrageous that the minister should hide behind this technicality and avoid paying just dues to clean up this spill, particularly in light of the platitudinous statements that are made at regular intervals by the minister's department to the effect that they are interested and are willing to help in the maintenance of the environment in Canada.

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this interesting bill which concerns the whole country, and certainly the province I represent with its long and lovely coastline, and its connection with the greatest of all the oceans. We have come to realize that even the vast scope and size of that ocean are not sufficient to prevent it from damage of all kinds, damage that has become commonplace in recent years.

At first glance the bill seems to cover more than it actually does, and I appreciate the explanatory words of the parliamentary secretary in his address at the commencement of the deliberations on it. It does not apply to most situations one would have thought it would apply to-it does not apply, we learn, to the dumping of garbage or to the kind of dumping that ships do when leaving port, such as discharging various waste oil products into the harbour. That is not the sort of situation we are talking about here.

Some years ago we in this place used to receive notice almost weekly of some vessel that had been fined for discharging oil into a harbour. It was obvious from the fines levied that this was simply a licence to continue the practice because it was cheaper to dump and pay the fine than to dispose of the material in some other way. This is one of the thoughts that strike me as I read the bill, that the penalties laid down as maximum fines, considering the products involved, are not all that great, even if the maximum fine were applied every time.

We are really talking about a limited range of activity involving production of materials which are frequently byproducts of processes that are in themselves very expensive, where the gain from the sale of energy or such products could be very large indeed. Even if there were an insistence on the maximum fine being levied, one wonders

April 28, 1975

Dumping at Sea

whether we would not find a situation where it would be cheaper to commit the offence and pay the fine than to dispose of the material to be dumped through some other system. In this regard a likely offender could be a government department.

The bill provides for the application of a permit before action. Here again one wonders how difficult it would be to obtain a permit, particularly if one of the government's own creations were involved, one of its semi-autonomous organizations that could very well have a real problem of disposal. We also know there are various projects under way involving use of atomic power. There are waste products here that could be very damaging, and which in some instances have been dumped at sea by certain countries. Possibilities of land disposal along the British Columbia coast are somewhat limited by the terrain.

I think there would be a real suspicion in the minds of many people who read this bill that, in one sense, the bill is not so much against dumping but rather is a bill that legitimizes the whole business. It makes dumping permissive. It speaks in terms of the issuance of a permit to dump if it can be established that there is a risk to health or something like that.

There are also escape clauses to prevent loss of life. The west coast of British Columbia is notoriously stormy. If anyone were going to do some dumping, obviously the time to do it would be during the winter season when storms were more severe. It would be a relatively simple matter to file a report stating that the seas were high and the risk to life was great, and that the cargo that was to be disposed of on land had to be dumped overboard. There are extensive possibilities along this line. Then there is the policing aspect. Here again our patrolling is notoriously weak and we have an inadequate coastguard.

In British Columbia through the recent winter we knew how restricted we were in terms of finding lost cars that contained highly volatile substances. These cars were lost off a barge and were not located for some length of time. The whole search machinery on the Pacific coast is not too accurate. One suspects an offence could be committed and the offending ship could return to port without being found at all unless there is considerable contribution by the Department of National Defence, which department, the bill assures us, would be involved. However, knowing the restricted budget in that area and the utter lack of capability by that department to fly over the Arctic any longer, much in the bill about the Arctic Ocean surely is nothing but brave words and a pious hope that in passing this bill we will have accomplished something.

We should realize also that a good deal of the preamble to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary dealt with the fact that this is a convention of the United Nations and that 90 or 92 nations gathered together to debate it. We also know that the powers of this international organization are fading literally by the day and that its powers to intervene in disputes verging on war are very slim indeed. One suspects that the power of the United Nations to intervene for the purpose of preventing a nation which is determined to choose the cheaper way of disposing of its waste would be very slender indeed. The principle of the

bill is one which I think we can welcome, but its application, both to this country and internationally, is something about which I think we could well maintain an extremely healthy skepticism.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):

Order, please. Before recognizing the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) I should remind the House that if the minister speaks now this will close the debate at this stage of the bill.

Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to all the interventions concerning Bill C-37, an Act to provide for the control of dumping of wastes and other substances in the ocean.

Mr. Speaker, I would like simply to give the reasons for the introduction of this bill. As we all know, the seas are only a single body of water, and coastal countries should not make improper use of the sea in general, or even of their own coastal waters. As the sea goes, so goes mankind, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) said in quoting one of my recent speeches at the Law of the Sea Conference.

The sea used to be considered a purifier with unlimited capacities, but today, with a better knowledge of the oceans and the capacity to measure the quality of its waters, we have to question whether the sea will be able to keep forever its purity and its quality. A number of member countries of the United Nations, concerned about sea pollution, tried to develop what has been called the Oslo Convention, which suggests that coastal countries unite to protect the sea.

Wishing as ever to protect the environment, Canada, which, in passing, became one of the fore-runners in this field by creating its Department of Environment and introducing its environment policy, wanted to be among the first 15 countries to sign this convention. But for this, we must pass an act to make our standards and regulations compatible with those of other countries.

This is the basic reason for this bill. We already have in Canada several acts which allows us to protect oceans against pollution, but this legislation had to be added to these acts, to make them compatible with those of the other countries who will sign the convention.

I am very pleased with the co-operation of the House in referring this bill to committee where we can, at leisure, study it in detail. I shall limit myself to answering some of the questions, perhaps the most urgent, brought up by hon. members, notably their concern about the possibility of radioactive substances being disposed of in the oceans. Must I remind then, Madam Speaker, that a Canadian policy forbids categorically the dumping of radioactive substances into the ocean? Disposal of those substances is governed by the Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, according to extremely severe regulations that are constantly up-dated.

Another hon. member spoke of inspectors or analysts, whom I could appoint and whose appointments could give jobs to all the Liberal candidates who were not elected.

I think, Madam Speaker, we shall have to be more concerned with Progressive Conservative members, for

April 28, 1975

most members on this side of the House were elected. Consequently, there is little to be done to do them a favour. Anyway, I believe it will be realized on closer examination that when I say "every analyst or inspector",

I do mean, Madam Speaker, to provide every government department whose ships are sailing our oceans with the necessary authority to stop and examine ships that might fail to comply with our regulations or statutes.

This bill does not deal with a number of problems which were raised by hon. members opposite. I guess they took this opportunity to raise questions which are of concern to them. I am also concerned about those questions, especially the matters of sailing and supertankers. I tried my best to answer their questions at a different time and I will do so again in the future, but tonight is not the right time to tackle those problems which, although they are not totally unrelated to this bill, are are not exactly the subject of our debate tonight.

This bill bears a certain relationship to the Law of the Sea Conference which was mentioned by some members although the Oslo Convention was initiated a long time before the law of the sea discussions. It even took place before the Stockholm conference, which brought to the attention of the whole world that great problem of ocean pollution which is a due cause for concern for every country.

This bill, the Stockholm conference and other events too, are steps from a total freedom of oceans towards a certain limitation of that freedom and an identification of the interests of countries with a seafront in order to protect and develop oceans, and also towards the necessary development of sea management principles and, in a more significant way, the realization that we have to bring countries with a seafront to exercise that management duty in areas off their coasts which might fall under their jurisdiction.

The necessary protection of environment is one of the strongest and most significant arguments at our disposal to demand that the management authority of maritime countries be extended to a 200-mile limit for instance. Such is the character of the request made by Canada and other countries at the Law of the Sea Conference. That bill, however, goes quite beyond that 200-mile area which could be covered under this new jurisdiction granted to coastal states. It goes quite beyond that, applying as it does to an area where the sea is quite deep, an area which formerly was supposed to belong to everyone.

Grotius who proclaimed total freedom of the seas is severely challenged nowadays. The sea, which is a common heritage of mankind, must henceforth be submitted to regulations governing its use. Consequently, even if it is claimed that oceans are the common heritage of mankind, some countries must take charge of their management so we will not make ill use of them as in the past on the plea that they were entirely free.

This bill deals with the practice of dumping waste in the sea without worrying about the effects of such a practice.

Western Grain Stabilization

As the sea once belonged to everybody, all those who wanted to get rid of their waste, dumped it into the sea.

And it was believed, as I mentioned earlier, that the sea had the ability to purify everything; some substances however cannot be eliminated, and there is a point of no return beyond which the sea might not be able to rejuvenate itself.

A number of the problems which my hon. colleagues have mentioned-need I remind them-are already covered by such other legislation as the Shipping Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. There are also regulations which govern the activities of ships within ports, and prohibit the discharge of waste waters in areas which are in the immediate vicinity of ports. Bill C-37 supplements a number of existing legislative measures in Canada which permit us to administer the oceans. This measure will be characterized by the fact that in so doing, we are joining other countries in the signature of an agreement to protect the oceans of the world.

This act will succeed. Its concept reflects the efforts and reflexion of many countries. It is not, as suggested an hon. member, a licence for polluting the sea. Surely the hon. member is aware that if we make it compulsory that an application for a permit is made before anything is dumped into the sea, it is because we have every intention of checking the nature of the substance to be dumped, the manner in which it will be discharged, and the place where it will be disposed of. The permit is an instrument allowing us to control the activity.

Several countries have expressed their intention of ratifying the convention, but ten countries of the world have already enacted the required legislation for consistency among them. The convention will be effective as soon as fifteen countries will have signed it. We are seeking for Canada the honour of being among the first fifteen signatories to the convention. We should like to be among the first who will co-ordinate their administrative measures for the enforcement of a legislation of this extent.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I support the motion that Bill C-37 be referred to the committee for consideration.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):

Is the House ready for the question?