1971-02-19

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, having given Your Honour the required notice under Standing Order 17(2). My question of privilege relates to a continuing error which has been repeated in this morning's news concerning the contents of the bill which we passed yesterday afternoon.
I do not rise to protest misleading headlines-we are used to that sort of thing-but rather to protest the failure to report to the people of Canada what was in the bill that we passed yesterday. I raise my point of privilege because this error was broadcast on the CBC news this morning and it appears on page 1 of this mornings' Toronto Globe and Mail and on pages 27 and 29 of this morning's Montreal Gazette.
When Bill C-203 was first introduced, the news media immediately referred to it as a bill increasing veterans pensions and allowances. We have repeatedly pointed to the fact that it does not do that. Those increases were announced by the minister on December 2, but we do not yet have the legislation to bring them into effect.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the CBC news announces that yesterday we passed a bill dealing with veteran pension increases, when the Globe and Mail says the same thing on page 1, and when the Gazette repeats it on page 27, and even again on page 29 in reporting the incident, or alleged incident, concerning the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) being "obscene but not heard", I suggest this is a disservice to the Canadian people and will mislead the veterans of this country.
My point of privilege can be corrected quite easily, Mr. Speaker, if the government will now bring in legislation to increase veterans pensions and allowances as promised on December 2.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will recognize that there is not a question of privilege in the point he has raised. As I have said from time to time, there may be a grievance, in this instance in the way the activities of the House of Commons have been reported, but I do not think that this is tantamount to a breach of parliamentary privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), that in light of the government's bargaining with its employees in Department of National Defence establishments in Atlantic Canada, and specifically in light of the fact that the government is now offering the top wage in a majority conciliation report to its employees at HMC Dockyard, Esquimalt, B.C.-an increase of 42 cents an hour-and is offering the bottom wage in a minority conciliation report-an increase of 27 cents an hour-to its employees at HMC Dockyard, Halifax, the subject matter of bargaining over wage issues with prevailing rate employees be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister for the purpose of obtaining some clarification regarding the recent conference between the federal government and the provinces on the constitution and in particular the entrenchment of language rights. Would it be correct to say that in the communique there was no agreement indicated, without some reservation at

February 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
least by the provinces, regarding the entrenchment of language rights in fields within provincial jurisdiction?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the measure of agreement was stated in the communique. I am doing my best to try to understand what the Leader of the Opposition is asking. As I say, it appears to be clear in the communique, but perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to ask a supplementary question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I might be more specific in order to help the Prime Minister. Was there any agreement to entrench language rights, for instance, with respect to provincial courts in the country apart from federal courts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously not, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in the communique about provincial courts. Even when we mention federal courts I would caution against using the word "agreement". He knows that this was indicated as a feasible approach, and I would not, on behalf of any of the provinces, want to say that they agreed in a firm way. It was considered to be a feasible approach to constitutional amendment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I ask again for the purposes of clarification. Was there any agreement that any rights now entrenched in the British North America Act in respect of the use of language in the courts would be removed? I am referring now to entrenched rights which exist, for example, in the province of Quebec. Was there any agreement that these would be removed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If there had been agreement on that, Mr. Speaker, it would have been stated in the communique, but it was not.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which arises from the Prime Minister's indication the other day that either the French version or the English version of the communique could be used as it suited one's case. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there was a consensus among the provinces that any province could move into a more or less unilingual position, une position unilingue, que ce soit l'anglais, que ce soit le frangais, with regard to courts or official documents and so forth and so on?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Monsieur le president, qu'on lise in English or in French la position est la meme; le communique does not talk about ce qu'on disait en reponse to the Leader of the Opposition.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is linguistic gear shifting. I am using the terms of the communique. Since the Prime Minister insisted the other day that they meant the same thing. I ask again whether there was agreement between the premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister that any province could decide to move into a more unilingual position than now
exists under the constitution and in practice, or is the interpretation that appeared in the public media yesterday and today one that has arisen as a result of the confusion caused by being able to use whichever version of the communique one wants to use?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Naturally, the subject was discussed, but if there had been agreement on anything of this nature it would have been put in the communique. There was nothing in the communique to this effect. As I told the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago, we did indicate in the communique that the federal government would be obliged under this proposed formula, if it were adopted, to entrench the two languages in the federal courts as we do now under the Official Languages Act. But there was no reference in there to what would happen to the provincial courts.



PROPOSED AMENDING FORMULA-EFFECT OF PART III

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, without shifting language gears, and looking at the English text of the communique issued after the conference, the statement of conclusions, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the third proposal under the amending formula setting out amendments of concern to Canada plus one or more but not all provinces is the type of feasible approach which could allow Quebec and the federal government to remove section 133 from the British North America Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, predict what would be done with section 133. As the communique says, all governments will want to see the implications, legal and otherwise, which flow from the adoption of such a formula. The question asked by the hon. member is one which I cannot answer. It is a matter of legal interpretation-what would happen if such an amending procedure were in the constitution. It would depend upon the form in which it was there and it would depend on what else was left in the constitution and what was withdrawn.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate part of the Prime Minister's answer in that this does involve an interpretation of a third feasible approach to the amending formula. But given the wording of the communique that the constitution could be amended by a resolution of consent at the federal level, plus the consent of the legislature of a province concerned, if there is any thought of amending the fundamental rights in the BNA Act for one province, what is the position of New Brunswick and its statute passed in 1968-69, an Act respecting official languages in New Brunswick and section 16 of that Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I say with respect that it seems to me we are becoming involved in a rather complex and complicated constitutional discussion. The hon. member perhaps might ask the question briefly and I suggest the Prime Minister should attempt to reply to it briefly.

February 19, 1971


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will ask it briefly, Mr. Speaker, and, with all deference, I think pretty directly. In view of the Prime Minister's longstanding interest in extending and amplifying a bilingual approach to the federal institutions of Canada, does he as the leader of the government and the Prime Minister of this land think you can have bilingualism from coast to coast and yet have retrograde steps within a province eliminating, reducing or restricting rights which have been there for several years and affecting rights which have been extended in some provinces like New Brunswick and goodness knows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That obviously is put in the form of an argument. The hon. member is asking whether the Prime Minister thinks so and so. He is, of course, inviting the Prime Minister to express an opinion, and I do not think that in those terms the question should be answered. The hon. member has made an argument rather than asking a question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. In view of reports in today's papers as a result of an interview with the Premier of Quebec last night, and in view of the private nature of the meetings of the constitutional conference last week or the week before, can the Prime Minister tell the House and Canada if the interpretation of the Premier of Quebec is correct with regard to section three of the amending formula in the communique and what might happen to section 133 of the BNA Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I would think the hon. member's question is hardly in order. I suggest at this point that we should go to another subject.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Peace River, but I caution hon. members that if we spend 10 or 15 minutes on the first question we could have rumblings at the end of the question period and, if so, I think the rumblings should be aimed in a direction other than the Chair. I will recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Rumblings are what I am used to, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister if the communique on page 4 indicates that the new proposals are an addition to what is presently in the British North America Act or are they to be considered as replacing the existing provisions of that Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the communique does not enlighten us on this subject.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why we ask you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Contrary to what hon. members opposite can do, I cannot read the minds of the provinces on this subject.


Robert Jardine McCleave: How about reading lips?
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-EXPEDITING OF TABLING OF STUDY

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister on another subject. In view of the statement made last night or, to be more precise, early this morning by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the effect that the government does not yet have a clear, overt and manifest policy on the issue of foreign ownership, can the Prime Minister say whether the government is taking steps to expedite the tabling of the study on this subject being undertaken by the Minister of National Revenue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are taking such steps, and I think it is safe to gamble on the fact that we will overtake by far the New Democratic Party and the statement of its policy.


Robert Jardine McCleave: You call that progress?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My second question is supplementary to my previous question. I shall not comment on the remark just made by the Prime Minister. In view of the further statement made early this morning by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources alluding to the debating of this matter in Parliament, can the Prime Minister say whether the debate will be on a white paper presented by the Minister of National Revenue or on a firm position taken by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On one or the other, Mr. Speaker.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-INTRODUCTION OF IMMEDIATE INTERIM POLICY

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I would like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of difficulties that have arisen in a number of cases, including the one which was debated in the House last night, is the government now giving consideration to bringing in an immediate interim policy to deal with the problems of takeovers of Canadian firms because of the very obvious difficulties facing many companies, as was expressed in the House last night, in that they simply do not know the rules by which to operate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. We are not envisaging an interim policy, as the hon. member says. We regret that in some cases we had to act in an ad hoc fashion, and we want to avoid that as much as possible. We would like to have not an interim but a stated policy of the government. We do not have the facility of the New Democratic Party of being able to have several policies.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Fuddle-duddle.


Gerald William Baldwin: That requires a certain amount of intelligence.

February 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROJECTED TAKEOVER OF HOME OIL BY UNITED STATES COMPANY-MEASURES TO PREVENT SALE

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In view of the reply of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last night to the effect that he had no authority to say to the House what the government will do in the event that the present procedures, about which he was hopeful, do not succeed, will the Prime Minister now give the House an assurance and a commitment that if the procedures now being followed do not succeed measures will be taken to prevent the sale or takeover of the Home Oil Company by the United States firm, Ashland Oil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated the government's policy and its approach to this particular problem. I have nothing to add to that.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has he given the Minister of National Revenue a deadline by which time the white paper on foreign ownership must be produced, and can he give us some idea of when that deadline might be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not so authoritarian that I would give a minister a deadline.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering that a National Defence spokesman has stated that the presence of the Armed Forces in Quebec following the invocation of the War Measures Act has given rise to additional expenses of $3 to $4 million, would the Prime Minister tell us today if his government has decided to absorb these additional expenses or if the province of Quebec will have to foot the bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave when this question was asked previously, except to say that the figures published are wrong; the exact figures are those given by the minister to the committee yesterday when he stated that the total would be under $2 million.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
May I ask him whether the negotiations are continuing with Quebec and whether he can assure us that he will be shortly in a position to tell us who will foot the bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has nothing to worry about; it will come one of these days.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can he say whether or not his department and the Department of Transport have come to an agreement regarding the establishment of a joint air services training school and whether that school might be located at Clinton? We were promised an answer on this matter by February 1. Has he an answer today?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Would the minister speed up the negotiations and, if this base is not going to be used for this purpose, make it available to somebody else who might use it?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in connection with the very regrettable recent accident on the Canadian National Railways line in Fraser Canyon in which three lives were lost. Is this accident being thoroughly investigated by his department, and will the minister impress upon the CNR the desirability of increasing its safety and warning measures so that such accidents will not occur again?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing whether or not there is a relationship between the accident and the safety measures undertaken by the CNR. I can tell the hon. member that the usual thorough investigation is under way into this regrettable accident, and as soon as the report is available I will make it public.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. When he is investigating will be ascertain whether or not slide detectors were evident, and at the same time will he advise the commission looking into railway mishaps generally to include this accident on their agenda?



POSSIBLE SALE OF POTASH TO CHINA

Mr. Lome Nysfrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of recent press reports regarding
February 19, 1971

a possible sale of Canadian potash to China, can the minister say whether or not he has had any discussions with Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan regarding such a sale, and whether any negotiations are now under way with China?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that subject was raised at the time of the recent meeting between the two governments, and I am inquiring into it now. It is not only a question of need; it is also a question of desire to buy and capacity to pay.



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAM

Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citizenship, but in his absence will direct it to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that latest government estimates indicate that 1,350,000 students will be looking for jobs this summer, and that at least one university, the University of Manitoba, reports that only 15 per cent are guaranteed jobs whereas at this time last year 40 per cent were sure of finding work, when will the government be announcing the details of its youth program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Will the Prime Minister expedite the decision since already the delay has caused postponement of a national conference on youth problems scheduled for later this month but now put off until mid-March?



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to direct this question to the Secretary of State or to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada for the last two days but since both are not in the House today may I direct it to the Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware of the hiring of Alex Bandy by the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. Has the Prime Minister requested the Solicitor General or the RCMP to make a security check on Alex Bandy and, if so, has he been given a security clearance by the government?
Right Hen. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): I do not
know the answer, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry the hon. member has not been able to catch your eye. Maybe he can catch the eye of television when he goes out of the chamber.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



ESTABLISHMENT OF REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on December 14, 1970, as reported in Hansard, the Prime Minister indicated that pursuant to the report of the Royal Commission on Security a policy regarding a security review board as recommended has been established but not implemented, can the Prime Minister indicate when this policy will be announced and at what time we will be able to debate the report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I did not hear everything that was contained in the question. There seemed to be a fair amount of noise opposite. I believe the question has to do with an announcement concerning a security review board. The question is under active consideration and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement in the not too distant future.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the National Harbours Board at Vancouver is requiring its employees to fill in a federal government form which includes questions that, in my view, are contrary to the intent of the Criminal Records Act. They have to do with whether the employee has ever been convicted of an offence or dismissed, whether he has ever visited a communist zone country in the past 26 years and what is his nickname. Would the minister look into this situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question and for having supplied me with a copy of the questionnaire. I have asked the National Harbours Board for an explanation. I have also checked to determine whether the questions being asked are permissible or whether they should be changed. I will give the answer as soon as I obtain a reply from the National Harbours Board.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has a special responsibility in this area, if he

February 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
has anything to report to the House and the country regarding the announced sale of the publishing firm of McClelland and Stewart?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporaie Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what specific responsibility that question refers. I have no announcement to make, although I understand that one of my colleagues has.


Douglas Charles Rowland: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I address that same question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather that the hon. member for St. John's East was about to redirect his question in the way that the hon. member for Selkirk has attempted to do by a supplementary question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was rising to his feet to respond to the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have done what I said I would do yesterday, and that is to obtain as much information as I could. First, my officials have been in touch with Mr. McClelland and he has confirmed that the company is for sale, that a sale to foreign interests is not contemplated and is unlikely, and that if it should ever be contemplated he would be in touch with me first. Secondly, the interdepartmental committee has met on a number of occasions and they have divided the work of investigation. The Secretary of State is preparing a policy on book publication which might very well include the establishment of a Canadian publishing development corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: An announcement to that effect will be made in due course in the proper way. In the meantime the Secretary of State is to meet on March 1 and March 2 with publishers. This was planned some time ago. I also intend to attend that meeting to demonstrate that it is both a cultural and an economic problem. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, in my department officials are working to step up activities in the export field. We have commissioned Dr. W. H. Clarke, Vice-president of Clarke Irwin Limited, to provide us with some immediate short-term assistance in this field. We are increasing our participation in trade fairs abroad and we are considering the feasibility of establishing Canadian book centres abroad. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I perhaps can assume that the "fourthly" was also "lastly". I am sure the minister will be given an opportunity to give us the "fourthly" by way of a supplementary question that I gather the hon. member for St. John's East wishes to ask.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, hopefully, will give the minister a chance to give us
his "fourthly". Does the minister's answer refer to the interdepartmental study which he alluded to yesterday? If not, would he now undertake to bring us up to date on that subject, as he did in the House during his reply yesterday?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the study which I have already tabled is the basis of the assessment of the situation which has been going on. Decisions are developing from that basis. Fourthly, the Minister of National Revenue, with whom I have consulted, also assures me that this aspect of book publication is part of his study of foreign investment in Canada.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is also studying the possibility of assisting Canadian publishers in establishing a book publishing firm in the United States to give them access to that market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I contacted the Secretary of State in Chicoutimi this morning, and what I have said is the only thing I have been authorized to say.



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In answering a question on January 27 the minister indicated his concern about inadequate pollution facilities at the Churchill Forest Industries project at The Pas, Manitoba, and mentioned that he would be meeting with the appropriate Manitoba minister during the following week. Has the minister had that meeting with the Manitoba minister?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisier of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a long telephone discussion with Hon. Rene Toupin and his advisers. There has also been some correspondence exchanged on this subject. We have advised him of the new standards which we are developing jointly with the provinces and which would apply to the new kraft mill in northern Manitoba.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the very strong concern among many of the wildlife authorities in the province of Manitoba regarding what they consider to be poor liaison between the federal government and the Manitoba provincial government on this matter?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been held between officials of my department and the officials of several departments in Manitoba concerning pollution in the northern part of the province.

February 19, 1971



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the concerns which have been expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and others about regional development incentive grants, including such things as two grants being made to one operation where there is simply a fence running down the middle of the plant, grants being made to marginal operations and grants being made to operations which have already been started, as well as the concerns about the extent of grants to foreign concerns, is any review being made of this program with a view to taking into account these concerns?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are continuously, especially through the Treasury Board, attempting to assess the value of our various programs. If the hon. member has any particular details that he wants to communicate to the minister responsible, I am sure his information would be welcome.



PROPOSED GRANT FOR PULP MILL IN MEADOW LAKE AREA

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the visit by the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet to Saskatchewan last weekend, is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the House whether any progress has been made with regard to a grant for a pulp mill in the Meadow Lake area in view of statements made by the Premier of Saskatchewan to that effect yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was to be in Meadow Lake and that he discussed this matter with members of Mr. Thatcher's cabinet, but I am not in a position to say if and when an announcement will be made on his behalf.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the very serious differences that have arisen in the last few days in negotiations between defence employees and the Crown-and pray God that the negotiations do not break down-could the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
indicate what plans he has to maintain essential defence capabilities, including the search and rescue capability, on the east coast, in the event of a serious breakdown in labour negotiations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question is hypothetical.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence give some assurance to the House and to Canadians generally that he will not permit a serious breakdown in labour negotiations that would affect our defence capabilities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member should know, these negotiations come under the responsibility of my colleague the President of the Treasury Board. I am following them with active interest, but of course the responsibility is that of my colleague.



FUTURE USE OF MEAFORD TANK RANGE

['The report of the task force will be made public. Its terms of reference include a deadline which will be in the fall of 1971, in other words, late this year.']
Mr. Percy V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Now that military operations at the Meaford tank range have been terminated, can the minister tell the House what plans he may have for the future use of this property or for its disposal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As a result of the examination of the usefulness of properties in western Ontario for military purposes it is not entirely impossible that the Meaford Range, instead of being phased out, may continue to be used as a range. As the hon. member knows, we have a severe problem anyway because of the large quantity of unexploded ammunition on this site.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to direct my question to the taciturn Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns an important possible takeover. Is he in a position to advise the House and the country of any new developments with reference to the seemingly imminent nationalization by the government of Guyana of the important Alcan establishment there?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. We are following the discussions between the government of Guyana and the Canadian company very closely but I am not in the position to say anything on the subject today.

February 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Recently the minister's office announced that the federal government would participate in an inquiry into the ecological consequences of the Bennett Dam on the Peace River Delta. Can the minister tell us whether this inquiry is the consequence of a federal initiative or whether the federal participation was in response to an invitation from the government of Alberta? Just what is the motivation of the federal participation and to what extent will it go?


John (Jack) Davis: The motivation is both federal and provincial. Both Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned about this problem, as the hon. member knows. A task force has been established, the chairman has been appointed, and the force is now at work on the problem.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it within the terms of reference of the federal representatives to pursue inquiries to establish the human responsibility or the degree of human responsibility for the tragic situation affecting the Peace River Delta?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry a few moments ago. Will the report of the task force to which he referred be made public, and when may the report be expected?


John (Jack) Davis: The report of the task force will be made public. Its terms of reference include a deadline which will be in the fall of 1971, in other words, late this year.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the question I asked him yesterday about the removal of tariffs on a portion of the production of tires in Canada. Has any study been undertaken of the effect the removal of the tariff will have on the cost of production and on the level of employment in the rubber industry? If such a study has been made, can the minister make the results available?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know whether there is a thing called a study in 20 pages, bound, and that sort of thing, but I know my department is extremely well informed on
this subject. I have confirmed to the hon. member and others on a number of occasions that discussions are going on between the department and the various companies in the tire industry in Canada with regard to a "tire plan". I am not in a position now to say what classes and levels of tire imports might be permitted free entry, and so on. It would be premature to do so at this stage.


Max Saltsman: In the absence of a formal study, will the minister assure the House he will carefully consider the effects of this proposed change in view of the high level of unemployment in Canada, and that he will not take any action which would tend to increase that level?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the purpose of this exercise. The purpose is to rationalize the industry in order to strengthen it, to confirm the jobs that it provides and possibly, to increase their numbers.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since Quebec is apparently going ahead with its plan to establish a press council, and since there is still some affection left between the press of Canada and the Prime Minister, can the right hon. gentleman say whether it is intended adopt the Davey Report recommendation and establish a national press council soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not heard of anything like that.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: May I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation supervising and controlling the situation with respect to Pestalozzi College in Ottawa better than it did in the case of Rochdale College in Toronto? I understand a $6 million loan is being made to this college.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: would hope so, Mr. Speaker.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the objects of Pestalozzi be different and will the management be different from the type of management at Rochdale?

February 19, 1971



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: May I address a question to the Solicitor General? Having regard to the extremely high suicide rate in Canada's federal penitentiaries, 23 cases since September and 80 attempts which failed, when does the minister expect to make a statement on this very important subject so that the present trend may be reversed?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is not by making statements that we will solve this problem. This is an extremely complex matter, and one must consider, in our society, that the suicide rate is increasing more and more. This is obviously not an excuse that could justify the increase of the number of suicides in penitentiaries. Furthermore, statistics indicate that 50 per cent of the people who have committed suicide over the past 12 years have done so while undergoing psychiatric treatment, and during their first year of detention. In fact, we are conducting investigations on this. We do want an improvement, and the best way to achieve this would be to make more personnel available to the inmates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the minister should be making a statement at the instigation of an hon. member.


John Gilbert: Would the minister also examine the reasons for the high prison population in Canada-80 for every 100,000 persons compared with 60 in Sweden and 21 in Holland?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: should like to ask whether the Minister of Transport has consulted with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with respect to the new Digby-Saint John ferry, and can he assure the House that the ferry will go into operation under temporary measures before the docks are completed in Saint John?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This was among the subjects I discussed in Saint John, New Brunswick, on Monday. Since my return I have consulted with my colleague the Minister of Public Works. It is the intention of both my colleague and myself to speed up the work and also to make some kind of temporary arrangement so that the schedule can begin on time.
Inquiries of the Ministry REQUEST BY SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER FOR INVESTIGATION OF FREIGHT RATES


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister accede to the request made last week by the Premier of Saskatchewan for an investigation into the freight rates in that province by appointing a royal commission to investigate freight rate levels?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am
not certain as to the supplementary nature of that question. Mr. Thatcher has asked for a lot of things but so far he has not asked for a ferry for Saskatchewan. On the basic subject, we did make considerable progress in discussions with regard to freight rates in western Canada. Whether the route of a royal commission is the most logical or not, I am not certain at this stage in the discussions. There appears to be general agreement that the most productive route at this time might be to examine the rates for individual commodities and isolate those which are generating the most difficulty. This is the route I expect we will follow.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Did the minister or anyone in his department discuss the contents of the clean air bill with all the provinces before it was introduced into the House. If not, which provinces were not consulted?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the proposed clean air legislation has been discussed in principle and now in terms of a published bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the minister. The hon. member must realize that this is the first order of business today, and perhaps that is the time to ask this kind of question. We should not anticipate the order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to reply to the question regarding the 500 employees of Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland who were deprived of a day's pay as a consequence of an emergency being declared arising out of a severe snow storm?

February 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have a written reply from the CNR which I fear is too long for me to read to the House, but I would be glad to send it to the hon. member immediately.



PROPOSED TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the government assure the House that serious consideration will be given to the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization concerning the televising of the proceedings of the House so that the Canadian people will not be further deprived of the histrionic and linguistic abilities of the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Since negotiations have broken down at the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt and since the Treasury Board's offer actually increases the regional disparity from 85 cents to $1.15 an hour for the work involved, would the Minister of National Defence now intervene and ask for an industrial specialist to be immediately assigned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out that the negotiations are under the jurisdiction of my colleague the President of the Treasury Board. I follow them with great interest but am not directly participating.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Leroy Skoberg: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of the question and since there is a strike in Halifax at the moment, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can do so with unanimous consent of the House. I might say that I stretched a point in allowing him to ask his question when the question period was ending. I must now ask whether the House gives unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member cannot ask his supplementary. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure today in introducing the second reading of Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution in Canada. The short title of the bill is the Clean Air Act. It deals with the quality of our Canadian atmosphere. It deals with the setting up of a number of monitoring stations across the country, research into air pollution, arrangements for the setting up of air pollution abatement projects, and the enforcement of air quality emission standards from coast to coast and from the international boundary line to the high Arctic.
There are frequent references in this new clean air bill to national air quality objectives, national air quality guidelines, and national air quality emission standards. The word "national" turns up again and again. This is deliberate. We want our clean air regulations to be truly national in scope. We must insist on their enforcement in every province in Canada as well as in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. These regulations dealing with air quality objectives, air quality guidelines and air quality emission standards will, therefore, be truly national in scope. They will not be regional; they will not be provincial; they will not be local. They will be Canada-wide in their extent; they will be Canada-wide in their application.
I stress this point because a number of members opposite have expressed some scepticism. They have accused the government of taking a fragmentary approach to pollution abatement in Canada. I have denied this. I have denied it repeatedly in this House. I can now point to numerous clauses in our new clean air bill to prove my point.
As I said last week during the debate on the government organization bill, this government is opposed to the creation of pollution havens in this country. We want
February 19, 1971

industry-and particularly new industry-to meet truly national standards. We want these industries to design their plants and run their operations in such a way as to meet national norms. We want them to meet our national standards at all times. We want to prevent big industry from exploiting the economic weaknesses in some parts of the country. We want to stop pollution havens from being created in the less fortunate and less affluent parts of our nation.
I have already used several terms which require further definition. I mentioned national air quality objectives, national air quality emission guidelines and national air quality emission standards. I should like now to say what I mean when I use the words "objectives", "guidelines" and "standards", and to do so before I go on to discuss some of the major powers and institutions referred to in this bill.
Air quality objectives relate to the great outdoors. These objectives are standards writ large. They are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister but I understand that the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni wishes to rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Barnett:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Some of us are really quite interested in what the minister is saying. I am wondering whether he could be given the courtesy of a less noisy background in this chamber.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I began by saying that air quality objectives relate to the great outdoors. These objectives are standards writ large. They are standards applied to large volumes of air over large areas of Canada. When we talk about objectives we are talking about ambient air. We are talking about large quantities of air. We are talking about the quality of air in general. We are talking about air in which there may be a number of pollutants. These may be widely dispersed. They will be dispersed as they are in the air we breathe, whether it be downtown in a major city like Toronto or out on a mountain peak in the Rockies.
Air quality objectives, then, relate to the big air and to the average air sample in a sizeable area, zone or region. Objectives, to repeat, relate to ambient air or air in general. They do not relate to particular points of emission-points of emission such as the top of a smokestack or the jet pipe of an aircraft taking off from Malton airport near Toronto.
Air quality emission standards do relate to points of emission. Standards, in other words, apply at the source of the pollution itself. They are measured at the outlet point. They are measured at the top of a smoke stack or at the tail end of a jet pipe of a DC-8. So standards are definite as to location. They nail down the quality of the effluent at its source. They are more precise. They are enforceable by regulation.
I have left the word "guidelines" to the end. Guidelines are standards of a sort. They also apply at the point of emission, at the top of a smoke stack or at the end of the jet pipe of a DC-8. But they are not enforceable. They
Clean Air Act
are recommended standards. They are standards that we should like to see enforced. They are standards which may well be enforced in the future. They are a guide to future action. They are an indication that, sooner or later, we may be declaring these same guidelines to be standards and enforcing them at the source of the pollution itself.
noon)
I referred earlier to air monitoring. Bill C-224 enables the federal government, to quote the bill, "to establish, operate and maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations throughout Canada". It will permit the federal government, in other words, to flesh out our present national air sampling network. Federal and provincial efforts in this direction will be further integrated and the data flowing from this improved network will give us a comprehensive picture of the incidence of air pollution, not only in urban centres, but also in the great Canadian outdoors. This data from the air monitoring network will be used not only for spot purposes in particular locations, but also to give us a better idea of long term trends. We will be able to forecast what is likely to happen over a period of time. We will be able to trace the effectiveness of special abatement programs aimed at improving the quality of the ambient air in our big and great outdoors.
Referring again to our proposed air quality objectives-the objectives which apply to the big air outdoors-I should like to say this: these objectives will apply to individual pollutants. Take sulphur dioxide, for example; we will have uniform ambient air quality objectives established for the entire country. These objectives will name the concentrations in terms of hard numbers, indicating what is desirable, what is acceptable and what is tolerable in this country. These objectives will be developed using all the scientific data we can gather from domestic sources and from other countries. We already have a considerable expertise of our own. By using all this data and all this expertise in respect of sulphur dioxide, for example, we will come up with a framework of air quality objectives regarding one pollutant after another.
The framework to which I refer is described in a position paper on air pollution which I will shortly be distributing to hon. members opposite, if I have not already done so. It will be made available in quantity to members of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Fisheries and Forestry which, I hope, will be reviewing Bill C-224 on a clause by clause basis. Our framework for national air quality objectives postulates three ranges; they are "desirable", "acceptable" and "tolerable". The desirable band of the range describes the lowest range of concentration of a pollutant which is desirable in this country. The next describes a middle range or less desirable range of concentration of a pollutant. This is the acceptable range. Finally, there is the tolerable range which reports the highest concentration tolerable in this country. To go beyond the tolerable range, by definition, gets us into the intolerable. Once a situation becomes intolerable, in so far as an individual

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
pollutant in this country is concerned, all our resources national, provincial and local, must be brought to bear on the cause of the problem. These resources must be brought to bear to correct a situation which exists.
These three broad bands of ranges, in rising degrees of concentration in a community, will be worked out for each pollutant, and specific mixtures of various pollutants. They will deal with average concentrations of these pollutants in the big air outside. They will deal also with long and short-term considerations. The lower limit of the desirable range will correspond to the normal background concentration, or detectability of a pollutant. The upper limit of the tolerable range is the maximum tolerable concentration of the selected pollutant, and whenever and wherever it is experienced this would place an unacceptable or intolerable burden on the people of Canada.
Our long term national goal is to have ambient air in all parts of Canada falling within the desirable or lowest range. This will take many years to accomplish. It, therefore, represents a long term goal for many parts of Canada. It forms a sound basis for an anti-degradation policy for the unpolluted parts of Canada. It clearly indicates the long term target for our more heavily built up and industrialized areas of the country.
The use of these three ranges, in rising degrees of concentration from desirable through acceptable, and through acceptable to tolerable, fits in with our need to establish priorities in tackling the problem of air pollution. The areas which show the highest concentrations are the first to attract our attention and concern. The areas in which deterioration is continuing to take place must also be given high priority. Of course, we will be publishing much of this information on a day-to-day or a month-to-month basis so the Canadian public will also have an idea of what is going on in this regard.
Our surveillance programs will also be linked to these ranges. The extent and sophistication of our surveillance will increase as the pollution levels increase from the desirable through the acceptable and to the highest or tolerable range. In this range, the surveillance will be designed not only to identify time trends, but also to locate the major sources of pollution as well.
Control standards and methods of enforcement pose other problems. Strategies will have to be developed for each stage of production; that is to say, for the raw material stage, the actual processing stage and the waste dispersal stage for each industry. Control at the raw material or processing stages in industry is usually most effective. These controls are usually more effective because they are more easily and readily administered, and also go to the source of the pollutant. It is further envisaged that, in addition to setting formal control standards, that is to say standards at the chimney top or at the outlet of a jet pipe, all three levels of government will attempt to convince industry to follow the practice of using the best available technology approach. This will apply with particular force to new installations, new plants and new additions of machinery and equipment used by industry and by government in this country.
I have been talking so far as though the main polluters were industrial plants and government institutions. The Canadian public is also a major offender. Take our use of the automobile, for example. We will have to bear down on regulations in respect of engines that are installed and the fuel they use. We will have to get the lead out, so to speak. We will have to move in on the various kinds of fuel which we as individual Canadians burn. We can do this by controlling the quality of the fuel at its source. We will have to get the lead out of our gasolines, and we can do this by using the new sections of the new clean air act which focus on fuel of all kinds.
It is possible for us to decree at the federal level what kinds of fuel are manufactured in Canada as well as the design of fuel burners. We can control fuel and fuelusing engines at the manufacturing or factory level. We can also stipulate that imports of fuels and imports of machines meet our new Canadian standards. Again, we can deal with this big air pollution problem at a relatively few points of manufacture and points of entry.
The bill we have before us today will provide us with yet another weapon to add to our arsenal of Canadian laws dealing with pollution of all kinds, air, water and soil. We already have the Canada Water Act, which was passed during the last session of Parliament. We have amended the federal Fisheries Act and we have put more teeth into the Canada Shipping Act. Our main thrust so far, however, has been directed towards the quality of water in this country. Now, we are turning to air in the belief that air pollution also poses a serious threat to our environment. While it is not as obvious as water pollution, it may be more insidious in many ways. It may well be a greater threat to human health than water pollution. It may also be more pervasive and more embracing than many of us think.
Let me give you an example. Let me focus on oil pollution for example. I am told that the amount of oil dumped or lost in the seas and oceans in the world amounts to around two million tons a year. Fifty million tons a year evaporate and are otherwise discharged into the atmosphere. In other words, we are pumping 25 times as much oil into the world's air mantle as we are into salt water. Much of the oil which goes up also comes down. Much of it comes down into the oceans themselves. Our experts tell me that at least ten million tons comes down in the seas around us. In other words, air transported oil is five times as effective in polluting our oceans as are the oil tanker spills and other kinds of spillage. This is a very round figure. It may be out by an order of magnitude. But it proves that air pollution is a serious matter. It also indicates that air pollution is a major source of our environmental difficulties, not only locally in our cities, but also at the far ends of the earth.
What I have said about oil applies equally to heavy metals. It applies, also, to the chlorinated bi-phenyls such as DDT and PCB's. No wonder our scientists are finding DDT in the flesh of penguins caught in the Antarctic. No

February 19, 1971

wonder fish are showing high concentrations of lead in the waters off southern California.
As hon. members know, we have proceeded first in our attack on pollution in water. Canadians generally have recognized that the pollution of our rivers, lakes and ocean fronts needed action. The froth, the scum, the closed beaches, the dead fish, were there for all to see. But now they are becoming increasingly concerned with air pollution. They are beginning to notice the smog. They are beginning to look on smoke, not as an indication of industry in progress, but of inefficiency, slothfulness and a wilful disregard for the quality of life around us.
Most provinces, today, have water authorities. They have provincial departments concerned with water management. They have water pollution control boards and they have water commissions. Now, they are beginning to ask their pollution control boards to look at air as well. They are also beginning to develop their own clean air acts. It is appropriate, therefore, that we take the lead at the federal level; that we provide a basic framework within which the provinces, and the municipalities, can develop their own laws and their own local standards.
Knowing of their interest in, and their concern about, air pollution, I have visited all our provincial capitals in recent days. Without exception our provincial authorities, who are concerned with air pollution, have welcomed our federal initiative in respect of clean air. They have welcomed the idea of national ambient air quality objectives. They like the idea of national guidelines. They are prepared to accept national air quality commission standards set at the point of emission. All they ask is that they be consulted, that they have some say in the development of these particular objectives, guidelines and standards. I have given them that assurance. And, having been given that assurance, they have encouraged us to do all we can, not only to eliminate the worst examples of air pollution in this country, but also to project our own Canadian thinking on air quality to other countries and into the international sphere as well.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are placing considerable reliance on our federal concern about human health in the clean air bill. Air pollution can strike directly at the health of human beings. Man has no choice but to accept the air he breathes. He has to breathe it whether it is polluted or not. By contrast, man can avoid polluted water. He can drink other things. He can process polluted water and make clean water fairly easily. But, in respect of air pollution, man is in the same vulnerable position as a fish in a polluted lake. He has to live with the pollution. He has to live with it and adjust to it as best he can.
Again, air moves. It moves from place to place, from region to region and from nation to nation. It sweeps across continents and oceans as well. It carries many foreign substances along with it and some anti-life substances. It carries them over great distances. If, by any chance, some of these pollutants get into the upper
Clean Air Act
atmosphere they may stay there for years. Eventually, they can fall out again. But when they fall out again they may well land on another continent or end up in the oceans themselves. They may go indeed to the ends of the earth.
Air pollution presents us with yet another problem. It is sometimes difficult to pinpoint the sources of pollution itself. Changes in weather and in the direction of air currents make it difficult to put the finger on specific points of emission. They can only be identified over time. They can only be identified as a result of a great deal of research and as a result of a great deal of effort particularly at the national and even at the international level, and this costs money.
We know that the economic burden of air pollution is very high indeed. Our economists tell us it costs Canadians somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion annually. If you add up health costs, building maintenance costs, corrosion costs and cleaning costs, you end up with a very impressive figure indeed. It amounts to several per cent of our gross national product. It is worth eliminating, not only in terms of human health and comfort, but also in terms of economic efficiency as well.
In developing the bill before you now, the government has been guided by certain principles. We recognize that the provinces have a direct responsibility in respect of air pollution. Considerable emphasis must therefore be placed on co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. This can be best accomplished by the federal government entering into formal agreements with the provinces for the purpose of designating air quality problem areas, for the development of special air control measures, and for the development of air quality enforcement procedures. There is also recognition of the need for direct federal action in the event of the failure of other levels of government to take the necessary corrective measures to control air pollution where such pollution affects or is likely to affect health and indeed life. We also see the need for national air quality objectives to serve boih as long term goals and to prevent further deterioration of existing air quality.
In drafting the legislation we have come to grips with the basic problems involved in trying to protect the quality of air. I will now try to briefly describe some of these problems. We need to know more about the causes and effects of air pollution and the bill will allow us to work closely with the groups within Canada and in other countries that are involved in this vital area. I should note the valuable work done by the Department of National Health and Welfare-which laid much of the groundwork for Bill C-224-by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and others, was basic to the development of this legislation.
From these departments, and as a result of close cooperation with other segments of our scientific community in Canada, we have begun to close the gaps in our scientific knowledge about the effects of pollution on

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
various receptors-man, vegetation, wildlife and so on. As our technology advances and as society continues to inject enormous quantities of waste into the air, soil and water environment we must be ever more alert to potential hazards. We must therefore, ensure that we are before the fact in respect of our research. We must anticipate. We must make sure we are heading off emergency situations and not dealing with them after they occur.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the public's concern, combined with industry's new awareness of its responsibilities, will lead to enthusiastic compliance with the major provisions in this bill. But we must have methods to ensure its compliance. Thus, there are inspection provisions and substantial fines incorporated in the text of Bill C-224 as well. If the bill stopped there, I think we could say that it was a good piece of legislation, but one essential element would be missing. I do not believe that this or any other government has the right to impose pollution controls on industry and the ordinary citizen unless it is prepared to live by the same rules. Bill C-224 makes clear this government's intention to put its own house in order, to make sure that federal establishments meet our national standards and exceed them by a considerable margin wherever possible.
This brief outline of the provisions of the bill will be expanded when the bill comes before the standing committee. I hope that at that time a number of our officials will be available, especially those who have not only helped to develop the text of this act but who have also had considerable experience working with our provinces, municipalities and industries over the years.
In my opening remarks on the new government organization bill recently, I stressed the interdependence of life forms on this planet. I said that there was little sense in shutting off air pollution emissions from a factory stack, only to find that they were being dumped into the river or plowed into the soil. Within our new department, whatever its name may be, we will be taking an over-all approach to pollution. We will have the technical expertise to deal with it in all its forms.
In summary, I believe that our main problem is to deal with man and his habits, essentially with man's greed for material gain. This is really at the root of our environmental problem. Psychologists tell us that man has a hierarchy of needs ranging upward from those associated with basic survival, through security needs and social needs, eventually to recreational needs. It is ironic that our interest in air pollution control begins at the top of the scale, essentially with a concern by the general public for aesthetics, people who can no longer enjoy the view of Mount Royal from Sherbrooke Street or Grouse Mountain from Hastings Street in Vancouver. But now our concern is related to our most basic needs.
This bill focusses more directly on human health and indeed survival. The bill will provide us with the framework and the mechanism to carry out this fight for our survival. It warrants the support of all Canadians, and it certainly warrants the support of members from all corners of the House. I hope we can clear second reading of the bill this afternoon and get on to the detailed committee stage of the bill in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry next week.


Louis-Roland Comeau: 1
welcome the speech which was delivered by the minister in the House, a copy of which was sent to us by the officials of the department. I want to say at the outset, so that I will be understood immediately, that members of this party accept the principles and objectives stated in the bill. I will have some questions to raise to which I hope we will receive answers, perhaps on second reading. Possibly we will be able to receive more answers in the committee. However, we do accept the broad principles, or at least the objectives, which the government is trying to achieve through the bill before us.
One thing that concerns me is that the bill was introduced in the House and given first reading on February 9. Today is February 19, so exactly 10 days have elapsed since the introduction of the bill. This means that the opposition members and the public have been given only a few days to examine the bill and to form an opinion on it. This is typical of this government which talks about participatory democracy and yet allows only 10 days to investigate such an important subject and to consult with the provinces and municipalities. Perhaps this government has had a chance to consult with the other levels of government. Certainly, they have had time to do this since 1967 when the necessity for a clean air act was first made obvious.
But so far as members of the opposition and of the general public are concerned, we have only had 10 days to look at the proposed legislation and to analyse it objectively. We do not know what the feelings of the city of Montreal are with regard to the bill. Only one editorial has appeared on this subject. I have looked through all the newspapers in the reading room and that is all I have been able to find. As I said, we have been waiting for this type of legislation for three years, and now we are only given 10 days to examine it. This only points to the fact that the government does not have a plan for the legislation they propose to put forward this year. This is an obvious deduction from the fact that three or four bills have been placed before the House only a week after their introduction. I object to that practice very strongly.
We should have been given much more time to study this measure. If the government had been really anxious to introduce a bill to cope with this problem, they could have introduced it last September because they have had three years during which to prepare this legislation. Today, it is urgent that a clean air bill be implemented. However, let me remind the House that we have been pressing for it for three years, and now we are given only one week in which to prepare our comments on it. It is a dam shame that the government has not planned its

February 19, 1971

legislative program in a much better fashion, so that we could have been given the opportunity to criticize this or any other type of legislation objectively.
Another thing to which I object is that, according to the cover of Bill C-224, the minister who introduced the bill was the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). Inside the bill, however, we find that "the minister" means the minister of the environment. There is no such man as the minister of the environment. I almost raised this as a point of order at the beginning of the debate, but I did not do so because I suspected that Mr. Speaker had a look at the bill and, therefore, I thought I might be wasting the time of the House. But I wish to point out, if only for my own satisfaction, that the minister of the environment has not yet been created. The government organization bill has not yet been passed. This points out the lack of planning of this government with respect to its legislative program.
There was a public relations announcement with respect to the establishment of the new department in which it was mentioned that the minister of the environment would be introducing the clean air bill. However, there is no such thing as the department of the environment at present. Perhaps the time to change the wording will be when the bill is before the committee, but I point this out merely to show that the minister takes everything for granted. The government takes it for granted that the government organization bill will be passed. The government and the Minister are so sure they are not going to accept any amendments that they are able to say, "Even though the department is not established as yet, we will mention it in this bill". At this moment the department of the environment is not established. If it is not, then the government has no right to tell us that it will not accept any amendments with respect to the government organization bill, and it has no right to include the name of the new department in this bill.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Today you are against planning, another day you say, "They don't plan." You don't know where you are going.


Louis-Roland Comeau: You are absolutely right, Mr. Minister, when you say you don't plan. A member only needs to look at the Order Paper to see what is there. There may be ten pieces of legislation that have to be introduced. This is one that has been coming for a long time. It just points out the arrogance of the government and the contempt it has for Parliament. Ministers don't give a darn about debate on the government organization bill. They say, "It is going to pass. If it passes next year that will be all right, but we are not going to accept any amendments."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


John (Jack) Davis: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is he aware of the fact that if the government organization
Clean Air Act
bill does not pass, or if it has not passed in time, it will be imperative to change the name to "Fisheries and Forestry"? This presumably would be done in the standing committee, and I assume the member would have an opportunity to attend that committee and discuss every clause in the bill.


Louis-Roland Comeau: But that is what I was saying. We hope the members of the committee will have an opportunity to change the name. That is why I did not raise a point of order at the outset. But I know very well, as do other hon. members, that the government will not change it anyway.


John (Jack) Davis: But it will have to.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That is the way it operates. But do we have any assurance that this bill will not be completed before the reorganization bill is passed? The way the organization bill is moving at the moment it does not look as though it will get an easy third reading.
However, Mr. Speaker, this bill incorporates seven main ideas. It proposes to establish, operate and maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations throughout Canada. As I understand it, data obtained from these monitoring stations would be compiled and published on a regular basis. At present there are 25 monitoring stations across the country covering all provinces except Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. What will happen with respect to those two provinces? There is nothing in the bill which says that additional stations will be built in them.
The minister dealt at length with the question of national standards, and started off by saying that the word "national" appears in several places throughout the legislation. It is true that it does, but what does it say? The bill gives authority to set national air quality objectives, not standards, and to set national emission standards where there is significant danger to health, or where international agreements on air pollution control are involved. It also gives authority to set national guidelines. So, the word "national" appears many times but there seems to be confusion, and there certainly is confusion in my mind. Are there real national standards, or what is all this talk about guidelines and objectives?
As I understand the bill, national emission standards may be set if emissions constitute a significant danger to human health or violate international agreements into which Canada has entered. I shall deal with the problem of international agreements later. Not long ago an IJC report was filed dealing with this matter. These standards will specify the amount of any pollutant allowed from any stationary source or coming from any federal premises.
As I understand it the federal government may also publish national emission guidelines, and these will be different from standards because they will be enforced through persuasion rather than by law. As I understand it, guidelines will be used in those provinces which do not conclude special agreements with Ottawa. These are

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
questions that the minister will have to answer in the committee. If Ottawa does not have special agreements with the provinces, then the standards will certainly not be national.
When we are discussing these things in the committee we can quote the very tough terms the Minister used within the past year or so, and even recently in this House as recorded at page 2830 of Hansard:
-why run the risk of losing everything when uniform national standards can provide us with all the protection we need?
He has talked in that way about air and water. But now, we find that according to this bill that attitude depends on agreements with the provinces.


John (Jack) Davis: That is not true.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That might not be true, and if it is not then I can be corrected in committee. The parliamentary secretary can talk for himself. I am just raising these questions because there has not been enough time to examine the bill thoroughly. We have had only ten days.
Another of the seven main points deals with the right to set emission standards in the case of federal works. This is good. First of all, we must set an example before trying to impose on others things we are not willing to do ourselves. I mentioned at one point the matter of agreements between the provinces. I think the minister dealt with this when introducing the bill. We have read what he intends to do in that regard. The sixth point has to do with inspectors, analysts and so on. As I understand the bill, an inspector may enter premises emitting air pollutants and take samples. After that, I suspect he will make a report and see that the law is enforced. The other point I wish to deal with in general at this time is this. The public must be assured that their rights are protected.
Having alluded to all these points, may I now return to the question of national standards, or emission standards as they are called, or to the guidelines which are discussed throughout the bill. So far as I can see, nothing in this bill tells us what these guidelines or standards are. They have not yet been established and there is no information as to when they will be established. Therefore, this bill cannot be implemented until the guidelines or so-called national standards are set out. This omission is typical of the government. When dealing with the question of oil pollution under the Canada Shipping Act, it did the same sort of thing. This happened three of four months ago. The government said to shipowners that their ships could not enter Canadian waters until a federal pollution inspector had inspected the ship. However, the owners do not know what standards the ships must meet if they are to operate in Canada under the law.
The same sort of thinking applies to these so-called national standards and guidelines. The regulations have not yet been promulgated and this bill cannot be implemented until that has been done. I hope that when the
minister first appears before the committee he will say to us, "Look here, these are the types of regulations that we shall be issuing." Unless those regulations are established, we are wasting our time here. Unless those regulations are established, the people will be able to say that the government is introducing this legislation for political show, to make people believe that it wants to clean up the air. Without regulations the legislation is meaningless. I ask, in the absence of regulations how is an inspector to know whether sources of potential pollution are meeting national standards? How is he to know what those standards are, when the criterion for those standards has not yet been established? How is an inspector to judge these matters until these regulations are promulgated?
The bill relies solely on agreements with the provinces. Before any positive action can be taken, there must be agreement. This part has been included in the bill in good faith, as I understand. It is hoped that there will be agreement with the provinces. I should be interested to see what initiatives the government will take to make sure that every province has comparable legislation or is willing to accept the provisions of the present legislation. That is why I say that more than one week is necessary for the study of this matter if we are to discover from the provinces whether they are able to accept what is in the bill or whether there is to be any comparable provincial legislation.
I return to the question of standards. Although the bill speaks of what the minister calls national standards, these standards in reality are a little bit of window dressing. Inasmuch as those standards can be applied to federal works undertaken by business, they can be called national standards, I suppose. But they can only be enforced in the provinces if the provinces agree. If the province concerned agrees to the standards, everything is fine. However, if the province does not agree to accept these so-called national standards, then there is absolutely nothing that the federal government can do to implement those standards in the province in question.


John (Jack) Davis: That is not correct.


Louis-Roland Comeau: If that is not correct, I hope that the minister will explain these matters in committee; because that is how it appears to me.


Mr. Aiken:: Challenge the minister.


Louis-Roland Comeau: This is my interpretation. I challenge the minister to tell us where the Bill makes provision for this. I see the parliamentary secretary is making a note to tell us in his reply where the bill provides for the establishment of national air quality standards.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It does not.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Where in this bill is there language setting out national air quality standards?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is not in the bill.

February 19, 1971


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) says that it is not there. 1 have not seen it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: And the minister said twice that it is in there.


Louis-Roland Comeau: He has lots of explaining to do. He knows darn well that that language is not in the bill. The word "national" appears in lots of places; the bill is polluted with that.


Mr. Corbin:: We will give the hon. member another ten days.


Louis-Roland Comeau: It appears that everything is based on agreement with the provinces.


John (Jack) Davis: That is not correct.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The minister says that is not correct. I repeat the challenge I gave to him when he was talking to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) and trying to obtain information. When he replies at the end of the second reading debate, I challenge him to point out where in this bill there is provision for the establishment of national air quality standards. I submit that that provision is not in the bill.


John (Jack) Davis: Does the hon. member want the page?


Louis-Roland Comeau: The minister must look at the bill again. Perhaps he has not had the time to examine the bill, because we have spent very little time on this matter.


John (Jack) Davis: Perhaps the hon. member ought to read the bill.


Louis-Roland Comeau: May I turn to another point? There will be difficulty in obtaining convictions, and the penalty on conviction is a fine only, so far as I can see. I wonder whether fines will mean very much to industries that have been convicted. Is it contemplated, for example, that jail sentences will be meted out in certain circumstances? Perhaps we ought to discuss that in committee. Also, the legislation makes no provision for citizens to sue air polluters or for individuals to sue the government or to sue inspectors who have failed to do their job. The Ottawa Citizen of February 1, 1971 reports an interview with the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Near the end, the article reads in part:
Mr. Davis said the question of citizens' pollution rights was under consideration.
'We're hoping to come forward with a piece of legislation within 12 months which will deal with this respect to all kinds of pollution within federal jurisdiction,' he said.
Apparently, therefore, Bill C-224 is not the total legislation that we can expect with regard to air pollution. That is what the article means. If the government is not ready to proceed with legislation in this area, why does it not wait until it is ready? Before the establishment of these objectives or initial standards no public hearings are to be ordered, if I understand the bill correctly. All
Clean Air Act
these things will have to be taken into consideration and I hope some answers will be forthcoming from the minister with respect to provincial agreements and the other points I have raised.
An interesting editorial appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 15. The writer had been in a position to study the bill for four days. It reads:
The federal government's clean air bill is a slight step forward. It promises, essentially, to set standards of air quality. Standards are fine. Standards are needed. But what do they accomplish by themselves?
Montreal already has standards. They do not prevent hazardous situations of the kind which existed here several days ago-


Jean-Luc Pepin: What do you suggest? Bring back the death penalty?


Louis-Roland Comeau: I hope the minister will make a speech on this subject. He is affected by it and we should like to hear more of his interventions. As a rule he just comes out and smiles at us. Even when he is serious, he smiles. If the minister responsible for this bill is correct, and these standards are national standards, and it is desired to make them effective, how can we ensure that something will be done with respect to preventing air pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: Pass the bill.


An hon. Member:: You are not used to that.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Oh, the hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) always makes his usual comment. He sits there in the back row and that is the sort of comment he makes. That is how effective he is. They even kicked him out of-well, I will leave it at that.
We can pass all the regulations and all the pollution measures the minister wants us to pass. We have been dealing with all kinds of pollution bills in the last couple of years. But you cannot enforce a lot of these damn things.


An hon. Member:: That is a four-letter word.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Not as bad as the ones used by the Prime Minister. I do not degrade myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Louis-Roland Comeau: Anyway, money is needed in order to comply with these regulations. The government's attitude with respect to all these pollution programs has been "Kick industry around". I am not saying industry should not be kicked. Industry has to be kicked around. But we have to accept our responsibilities, too. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal-these are not industries. They are municipalities, and they must have money if these regulations are to be enforced.
What happens around the Detroit-Windsor area? Large sums of money will be needed to clean up pollution there
3582

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
and it can only come from the federal government. Until the federal government is prepared to make a budget available for dealing with pollution problems, these regulations cannot be enforced.
The whole question of international agreements in this field is an interesting one. A few weeks ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) tabled a report in the House dealing with the pollution of the Great Lakes and other matters. The report stated that it would cost something like $66 million to clean up the air to the standard of Ontario's maximum permissible pollution levels and that most of the money would have to be spent in the heavily-industrialized Windsor-Detroit area. Obviously, money has to be provided, and, equally obviously, good international relations must be established with the United States.
These are only some of the difficulties the minister will have to face. I trust he will be prepared to accept amendments put forward from this side of the House in the course of the debate. We shall be prepared to explain our objections to the measure more fully in committee.


Randolph Harding: It is almost one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hon. member for St. John's East has a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to our proceedings at the present time. Prior to the adjournment at one o'clock the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) made the point that this bill was not properly before the House-at least, that was the thrust of his remarks-because the interpretative clause of the bill, clause 2, paragraph (h) defines the minister as the minister of the environment. There is no minister of the environment.
There is at the present time a bill before Parliament, Bill C-207, the government organization bill, and included in that bill is a section dealing with the proposed department of the environment. That bill is presently under debate before the committee of the whole House. I have an amendment to it, also currently being debated, which seeks to change the name of the proposed department of the environment to department of fisheries and the environment. Consequently, I submit to Your Honour that this bill is not properly before the House because it is consequential upon Parliament passing Bill C-207. Parliament has not given its consent to Bill C-207. Accordingly, I submit to Your Honour that the bill now before the House should be withdrawn until the House has disposed of Bill C-207.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Are there any other comments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, you will recall arguments of the same kind made in the House during the last session when we had a number of bills of an interrelated nature dealing with the question of water pollution, and more specifically the Canada Water Act. At that time the Chair had the opportunity of considering similar points of order and rejected at that time those points. In response to the hon. gentleman I should like to suggest that the question has been considered by the Chair in the past, and I would invite the Chair to examine this precedent of last year. In the meantime may I suggest that until the Chair has had an opportunity to examine those precedents in detail we should proceed with the debate on second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Are there any
further comments?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Your Honour has had a chance to look at the remarks I made on this subject just before one o'clock, but on the basis of what the former President of the Privy Council has stated we could never introduce anything new in this House. All decisions would be based on previous rulings. The fact is that if this bill is passed it will make a mockery of the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to Bill C-207. This bill again anticipates how the House of Commons will deal with the government organizational bill. The government will not accept any changes or amendments, specifically the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East. I suggest that only Parliament can decide if an amendment to a bill is acceptable. I suggest that this bill is not properly drafted and that it should not be brought before the House at this time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on this matter. As Your Honour may be aware I supported the proposed amendment to the organization bill. However, I suggest that if there is any question of the propriety of this bill being before the House, that question should have been raised before the minister was allowed to speak on the bill. Apart from any other consideration that might be given, the fact that no objection was raised on this point at the commencement of the discussion, with the House being allowed to carry on with the debate, would in fact indicate that the bill is in order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Oh, come off it, Tom; that's terrible.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the debate has been allowed to continue without prejudice to the dispo-

February 19, 1971

sition of the amendment to the other bill and, therefore, really it is not in accordance with the procedures of this House to raise this point of order at this stage of our proceedings.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, I have two very brief points to make. Our remarks should not in any way be taken as belittling the importance of this legislation. The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) indicated our feelings earlier today about this piece of legislation. My first point is in response to the suggestion of the hon. member of the NDP. The bill now before the House stands in the name of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). This, in itself, is very confusing because when one reads the bill he finds the minister of environment mentioned all the way through. I was surprised to find this to be the situation. I am sure many other members were confused by the way this bill was presented. It creates a false impression. I do not blame anyone but in fact, on the cover of the bill, there is a reference to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Throughout the bill there is reference to the department of environment.
My second point relates to the remarks of the former House Leader, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). The Minister of National Defence referred to a precedent set by a ruling of Mr. Speaker some time ago. That ruling would indicate that legislation which is anticipatory could be passed by the House. I contend that in the present situation we have a unique set of circumstances which cannot be decided upon the basis of the precedent cited by the minister. There is before this House a proposed amendment to the effect that there shall be a department of fisheries and environment. That amendment is vitally important to all marine areas in Canada on the Atlantic and British Columbia coasts. The amendment proposes that there shall not be a department of environment but that there shall be a department of fisheries and environment.
If we accept the bill now under discussion as it is drafted, we will be anticipating the results of proposed legislation. We will be anticipating that the House will create a department of environment. The amendment before the House in respect of Bill C-207 suggests there shall be a department of fisheries and environment. This bill refers to the minister of envionment and, therefore, anticipates the establishment of a department which does not now exist.
If we agree to Bill C-224 we will be passing legislation that cannot be enforced because there is no such department and no such minister. If we vote for Bill C-224, then, in effect, we are voting against the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East to Bill C-207. This is a reiteration of remarks made on February 17, but the situation now is more serious. If we pass this bill we are legislatively ruling out the possibility of accepting the hon. member's amendment to Bill C-207. If that happens, we might as well give up the ghost. I am not speaking as a Conservative Member of Parliament but as a Canadian legislator.
Clean Air Act
In respect of the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, I suggest the situation now before the House is not the same as the situation which resulted in the precedent to which he referred. The amendment before the House to Bill C-207 is completely different. While I support this legislation, I suggest it should be withdrawn until we conclude our discussion on Bill C-207.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to make one further comment in relation to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), as referred to by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan)? The front page of the bill now under discussion refers specifically to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and the body of the bill is anticipatory because it refers to the minister of environment. In this way, the government is anticipating a decision of the House of Commons. It anticipates that Bill C-207 will be passed without amendment and that clause 2 will be accepted. Clause 2 is now before the committee of the whole House and has not been voted upon. In this respect, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed that the custodian of the rules of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has not taken part in this very interesting debate. I had expected he would have been in the forefront of this debate to protect the rights of Parliament.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to refer Your Honour to my point of order which was raised on February 17 and which can be found at page 3489 of Hansard. This was a point of order I raised in the committee of the whole House. It had to do with the government anticipating the actions of the House by bringing in estimates for the department of the environment, which is in effect the proposed department of the environment. Again the government was anticipating something which it had no right to anticipate, namely, that Parliament would give consent to the government's proposal and as a consequence thereof that Parliament would reject my proposal which is now before the committee of the whole House. My proposal is an amendment to the bill to change the proposed name of the new department from the department of the environment to the department of fisheries and the environment.
I submit to Your Honour that the government has no right to anticipate the actions of Parliament in this regard and, consequently, that the Chair has an obligation to protect our rights by ordering the withdrawal of this bill which is not properly before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the second time this week my good friend, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has taunted me because I had not taken part in a debate on a procedural point. I may say to him that I believe it is very well known that when a point of order is raised by a member of the opposition and I stay in my seat, it is
3584

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
probably because I disagree with the point of order but that I am quite willing to let the government look after itself. This time, however, I am on my feet because I disagree with this point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are not infallible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, but I do not
raise phony points of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: I think you have been sucked in. Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East is rising on a question of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have not been here as long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Indeed, I have respect for him and look up to him as an authority on the rules of the House and if you like, with respect Your Honour, as one of the custodians of the rules. I suggest to you, Sir, it is not in keeping with the reputation the hon. member has in this House for him to suggest that my point of order is a phony point of order. It was raised in all sincerity and with honest intentions. I hope the hon. member will not impute these improper motives to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In a spirit of goodwill, Sir, if what I have said carries an implication he does not like, I apologize to my hon. friend because what we have before us is a serious matter which I think should receive serious consideration. In any event, I hope he is satisfied that he got me to my feet in connection with this point of order. I have three things to say.
First, I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) had a valid point when he spoke a moment ago. I do not believe he should have been attacked as he was by the hon. member for St. John's East. It is a fact that on January 26, when a point of order was raised in respect of the omnibus nature of the government organization bill, Your Honour ruled that the time to raise a point such as that was after the bill had been given first reading and had been printed. In other words, that is the time at which to consider whether a bill as a whole is properly before the House. It should be done before the second reading debate commences and not in the middle of it, as is the case now. I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was quite right and I agree with Your Honour's ruling on that point, even though I was not happy that you did not find it possible to divide the omnibus bill.
The second thing I wish to say is that I invite my friends of the official opposition to take note that what they are raising is not a point of order against the bill as a whole but against one subclause of one clause of the bill.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: It is the right time to do it, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not the
right time to do it. The time to do it is when we are on

that subclause which will be when the bill reaches the standing committee to which it is being referred. There are rules about what one can do at the second reading stage. At this stage we deal with a bill as a whole and not the clauses. Unless my hon. friends have a point to the effect that the bill in its entirety is improper, I suggest they do not have a point at all. I urge them to withhold this point of order until the bill reaches the committee and that clause is under consideration.
The third thing I wish to say is in respect of the remarks made by my good friend from Gander-Twillin-gate about our role as legislators, the passing of bills and so on. May I say to him that we are not passing this bill at this point. We are only debating a motion for second reading and the referral of the bill to committee. If we were at the third reading stage and were passing a bill that had within it a clause which was inconsistent with some other bill that had been passed, their point would be valid and I would be backing it. But that is not the case. We are not passing a bill. We are considering proposed legislation and the likelihood is that there are a number of details in it which members may not like or which they may find offensive. However, for the life of me, I cannot see any point of order in respect of the propriety of the bill as a whole, which is what the hon. member for St. John's East has asked Your Honour to find. I hope my friend is grateful to me for having yielded to his request to take the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contribution to the important point of order. Indeed, I consider the arguments which have been put forward so interesting, and the point itself of such interest to all hon. members, that I would suggest, if there is value in my suggestion, that we continue the debate which is going on at the present time. Within the next half hour or the next hour, I will have an opportunity, in the peace and quiet of the Speaker's Chambers, to look at the arguments which have been submitted to this House by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and the very important and relevant comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Then, perhaps I can give a ruling which will be a little more thoughtful than if I gave it at this time off the top of my head. I feel the matter is important enough that I should give it a few minutes serious consideration. But I do not think the progress of the discussion should be arrested and I suggest to hon. members that whoever had the floor at the time the point of order was raised might conclude his contribution to the bill in a substantive way.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, we have started the debate on the second reading of Bill C-224, the clean air bill. I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister when he spoke before lunch and outlined the aims and objectives of this new legislation. I should like to thank the minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his speech so that we could follow his remarks. I regret I do not have a written copy of my speech in order to return the compliment.
February 19, 1971

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two brief comments I would like to make on the minister's presentation this morning before I proceed to the main part of my talk which will deal generally with air pollution problems and then with several clauses of the bill in which I feel there is a general weakness. The minister indicated that the legislation which we currently have before the House was not a fragmentary approach to air pollution problems. Then, he indicated that he was very anxious to bring about the disappearance of pollution havens in this country, and said that the bill was heading in that direction. I would like to point out to members of the House that this legislation does represent a fragmentary approach to air pollution, and nothing could be farther from the truth than to kid the public of Canada that here we have a piece of legislation which is going to tackle air pollution from one end of Canada to the other.
Once you delve into the terms of the legislation you will realize exactly what I mean. It seems to me that this is just another example of the Canada Water Act which left the federal authorities almost powerless to act. We are going to get exactly the same type of treatment under the so-called clean air act as we did under the Water Act. I want to give one or two examples as I go along. What has the government done about automobiles? They are not covered by this bill and yet automobiles contribute 60 per cent of the total air pollution in this country. Yet, the minister and his department are trying to tell us that the proposed clean air act will tackle the problem of air pollution. I say to him that he may be able to deal with some of the fuels, but it will be the motor vehicle act under which emission standards for automobiles will be administered. There is nothing in here to deal with that. This legislation deals with nothing but pollutants from stationary sources. There is nothing here that deals with the emission standards for aircraft, one of the key problems facing the nation today because pollutants from aircrafts are doing immense damage to the biosphere.


John (Jack) Davis: May I ask the hon. member a question? Was the hon. member here last year when we passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Act which dealt with automobiles?


Randolph Harding: Certainly, I was. The very point I am making is that we have some standards, but there is no provision in this bill to co-ordinate the activities of these departments. We have been making this point for weeks. We are in the process of dealing with a government organization act, 1970, which sets up a new department of the environment with respect to which my friends here raised a point a moment ago. We spent a whole day trying to get the minister and his department to insert the phrase "national standards" in that legislation, but we were turned down. National standards are mentioned here, but when you investigate the powers of the act you find those standards do not carry the impact which the people of Canada would like to think they carried. I am very much afraid that, again, we have here only a partial
Clean Air Act
approach to the over-all problem of air pollution in Canada.
I want to make it perfectly clear that this is a new bill in which we are trying to deal with air pollution the first time. It is a step forward but, as usual with most of the legislation we have been getting from this government, it does not go far enough nor does it encompass a sufficiently large area. The bill does not contain sufficiently clear definitions. We find that instead of this federal government department giving clear and straightforward leadership in the clean up of pollution problems, they are hiding behind the constitution, just as they did in the case of the Canada Water Act, by saying that they cannot move because provincial or municipal jurisdiction is involved. We all know the trouble we have had in trying to solve problems because of divided jurisdictions. As my friend here says, this is constitution pollution. But I want to say that, as a result of meeting people and organizations in Canada interested in cleaning up pollution, I have discovered that they all want guidance from the federal government. They are sick and tired of having the solution of pollution problems delayed because of mixed jurisdictions.
The people of Canada demand that some kind of national standard be set, and backed up by national enforcement. Such a program would focus our attack on pollution problems without fear or favour of industry, without fear or favour of governments and without fear or favour of individuals who do not mind polluting if it means an extra dollar in their pocket. We are not getting this type of leadership and we are not getting the type of legislation that would give this type of leadership to Canada. We are getting a little tired of this partial approach.
I referred to the initial remarks made by the minister, for whom I have great respect. Once we get the new legislation through, I can assure him he will have all the backing we can possibly give him in the matter of its enforcement, in the matter of beefing up standards and in the matter of drawing attention to problems in Canada to try to get stronger legislation on the books so we can solve the pollution problems from which we suffer.
Before I speak on certain clauses of the bill, I should like to say a few words about the very general approach to the problem of air pollution which I believe every nation in the world will eventually have to take. Earth is a space craft. We are whirling around in space with a thin envelope of air surrounding us. We have had trouble with water and with soil pollution. Now, we are having trouble with the air we breathe. This is why all over the world danger signals are being put up by eminent scientists, research groups and governments, warning that the very existence of mankind on earth is threatened by some of the activities in which we are presently engaged, activities to which we paid too little attention in the past. The situation reminds us of the extinction of the buffalo on the prairie or the denuding of our vast forest areas.

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
Air has always seemed to be a limitless resource. We thought we could go on pouring pollutants into it. It was only as we began to understand the extent of global air pollution that we recognized air is a commodity which depends on delicate recycling mechanisms, and which can be subject to destruction. Air pollution is not a new problem. Smoke from coal fires in the larger cities in England caused so much trouble in the fourteenth century that laws were passed providing the death penalty for those responsible. Even then, they knew that the health of city residents was being threatened. As we moved through the centuries down to the present time, we have banished a lot of particle pollutants from the air. No longer does dense smoke pour out of coal burning factories. But now we have the problem of noxious fumes getting into the atmosphere, sulphur dioxide from various types of factories, all of which cause problems for people who live in urban areas.
There are many problems associated with pollution. It is becoming abundantly clear that as the standard of living increases in Canada, the United States and other countries, our chance of polluting the atmosphere, and our water and soil, increases. That is why there is such urgent need for us to set strict controls if we are to solve the problem. I would like to make reference again to something I have raised on a number of occasions in this House. It is that one cannot tackle pollution by itself. There are several other factors that must come into our over-all attack on pollution. One is population. I am not thinking just in terms of holding the world population at a stable level, although I think something must be done quickly along that line, but there are other aspects of population growth that must be examined. This should be part of the over-all problem to be examined by the department of the environment.
What are we going to do about the urban areas? What are we going to do about existing industries? Are we going to disperse some of them to other parts of Canada? Are we going to allow industry to grow in cities? It has been estimated that within a very short period of time Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver will contain half the population of our country. Government departments must start over-all resource and population planning if we are to solve some of the key pollution problems facing us today. The same type of planning must take place in other nations. The planning must be international, but there is no sign of it appearing. One or two departments are examining urban problems, but there is no over-all planning taking place.
There is also the matter of resource development pollution and the recycling process. As I have said on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, we are one of the most wasteful nations in the world. We should be recycling many of the products that we use instead of throwing them away, causing pollution from one end of the country to the other. More research should be undertaken into recycling processes. I have already mentioned the automobile. According to statistics, 60 per cent of the total air pollution on the North American continent comes from the automobile. I do not know what the

percentage is in Canada. It might be higher than that in some cities. We cannot have effective national standards unless all pollutants are covered.
I join the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) in criticizing the government for bringing this bill forward at this time. We have had copies of it for just about nine or ten days. I sent copies of it to some 20 or 30 individuals and organizations who would like to assist in getting better legislation for the people of Canada, and with one or two exceptions I have not yet had replies from them.


John (Jack) Davis: Why not become a member of the committee?


Randolph Harding: I did not hear the minister's comment, but if he referred to work in committee, yes we can do a lot of work in the committee. But there are many organizations which cannot afford to send representatives to Ottawa. There are many individuals with expertise in air pollution problems who must express their views through their Members of Parliament. This is called participatory democracy, and that is the reason I regret we did not have an extra four or five days in which to get some consensus from such people.
May I now talk about the bill itself, Mr. Speaker? I said, initially, that it is a step forward. Our party has every intention in the world of backing the legislation. When it comes before the committee we shall attempt to move amendments to those clauses that we feel are weak. We shall suggest amendments to the minister which we hope will strengthen the bill or insert provisions which we feel are missing. Of course, we hope that our amendments will be accepted. I believe that every Canadian has the right to breathe clean air, to drink water and to live in a clean environment. I believe that those rights should be specified in the constitution. Canadians should have the right to live in a clean environment. The clean environment ought to be guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I think that the Bill of Rights will need to be amended one day, to provide for this additional right.
As I pointed out, this bill is aimed primarily at stationary sources of pollution. They are mentioned in the bill. In his talk the minister said that this part of the bill would be applied widely. This is what worries me most of all. Here, again, there is a lack of a single, uniform and united approach to air pollution problems and, as sure as fate, Mr. Speaker, we will run into the same sort of problems with this bill as we ran into with the bill dealing with water pollution in Canada. On our statute books there are dozens of statutes dealing with pollution. In this country there are regulations of all kinds on this subject. Scarcely any department of government is unaffected by laws or regulations aimed at stopping pollution.
I have said previously on the floor of the House and I will say again now that, although there are all kinds of statutes and regulations which are designed to deal with pollution, those laws have been ignored for years, and
February 19, 1971

years. Our research on this matter covers a period of several years. Some departments have never laid a charge under their regulations. According to our research, in a period of more than seven years not one single charge has been laid under a number of such pieces of legislation. One or two departments have laid charges. The fisheries department has laid charges, as has the Department of Transport, with relation to shipping. Otherwise, only a minor number of charges have been laid. Most of such legislation on the statute books has never been enforced. In addition, legislation aimed at attacking pollution has never been co-ordinated. Apparently one department will not be responsible for the co-ordinated attack on air pollution problems. Consider legislation dealing with motor vehicle emissions, Mr. Speaker. Consider also legislation such as the Aeronautics Act, and legislation affecting shipping and emissions from steamers. Consider the Railway Act. Under all these acts, anti-pollution regulations have been passed. I could cite a number of additional acts. I am not disputing the validity of these acts, I am merely saying that the regulations, under these various acts, that deal with pollution ought certainly to be the responsibility of and under the control of the minister of the environment. Unless there is this over-all and co-ordinated attack on the problem, I am afraid we shall get into some real trouble.
There is another weakness in the bill, Mr. Speaker. There is no mention of funds. You know, if we are to solve the problem of air pollution, water pollution or any other form of pollution, we must make available tremendous amounts of credit to municipalities, provinces or to other organizations which are to attack the problem. I wish to make it clear that in this legislation, as in other similar types of legislation which have come before the House, there is lots of talk but we are not told where the money is to come from to do the job which must be done within the next two years. We cannot delay any longer.
My time is drifting along, Mr. Speaker. I wish to deal with several other clauses of the bill. In particular, I wish to deal with clause 7. I know that in the committee we shall deal with the bill clause by clause, yet may I draw to the attention of hon. members this particular clause? It purports to set up national emission standards. I am in favour of national emission standards; there is nothing wrong with them. I submit that if one studies the wording of the clause, one will find it somewhat revealing. It reads:
7. (1) Where the emission into the ambient air of an air contaminant in the quantities and concentrations in which it is consumed or produced in the operation of stationary sources of a particular class or classes specified by the Governor in Council would
And then follow certain conditions with respect to national emission standards.
(a)	constitute a significant danger to the health of persons, or
(b)	be likely to result in the violation of a term or terms of any international obligation . ..
So, unless I am mistaken, national emission standards under the legislation are to apply if the emission becomes
Clean Air Act
a health hazard, or if it violates some international obligation. May I point out that there are other facets to the pollution problem to which emission standards should also apply. How about property damage? Does this clause cover property damage? The act refers vaguely to those emission standards and to how those emission standards are to be established. Apparently one of the criterions on which such standards are to be based is the wording, "... constitute a significant danger to the health of persons." The emission may cause a little bit of discomfort; it may cause a little bit of nausea but, as I read it, that emission will not be covered by the law. The emission might irritate the skin but, unless it constitutes a significant danger to the health of an individual, it will not be included. I hope I am wrong. I hope that the minister or whoever may speak on his behalf later will clarify that point.
I want to say this; the people of Canada are sick and tired of having their environment polluted by noxious fumes, by smog and other pollutants. You can damage individuals without greatly affecting their health, you know. I frankly admit that the damage to health is of primary importance. The clause says that the danger must be a significant danger. Who will determine at what point there is significant danger? There is no definition here which adequately covers the point, though an attempt has been made. One could drive a horse and carriage through this clause, yet I am talking about one of the key clauses of the bill, the one which deals with national emission standards. I am more than worried as I check this clause. I sincerely hope there will be serious consideration by the government of all these points before the debate is concluded.
I now turn to clause 8. There are to be national emission guidelines. The minister has made it clear that the guidelines which will be set may eventually become enforceable. If it is felt that higher objectives are needed, I cannot take exception to this approach. However, Rome was not built in a day, and air pollution will not be cleaned up in a day. But I want to make it crystal clear that these national emission guidelines are not enforceable and there is nothing here which will make them binding upon provincial governments or municipalities which are suffering pollution. I hope the municipalities will take cognizance of these standards and will eventually accept them.
Time is drifting along and there is another clause or two with which I should like to deal. One point was made clear by the minister in his speech. It has to do with fuels. Provision is made in the bill, and I think it is a good move, to place responsibility for the inspection of fuels with the new department. This will be an excellent way of preventing pollution before it starts. An indication has been given that standards will be set to make sure that oil does not contain too much sulphur, for example, or that the type of coal which may be used in a thermal plant does not have a sulphur content high enough to cause serious air pollution.
February 19, 1971

Clean Air Act
I was concerned about the arrangements made for the inspection of motor fuels. I understand, now, that gasoline is also subject to inspection by the new department. If this is the case, I am very pleased. This is one of the points which was not made clear. It is certainly a provision we need in the legislation. Motor vehicle fuels must come under the control of the department, to ensure that they do not contain too much harmful pollutant.
There is one clause of the bill which deals with fines. The newspapers have given tremendous play to the fines which could be levied under the act. A fine of $200,000 is possible: this has been the headline. Canadians have drawn the conclusion that Parliament is going all the way with this bill. Yet when we read the bill closely we find that not many institutions will be liable to a fine of $200,000, though a deterrent of this type is certainly one of which we can approve. I hope the department will be tough enough to levy such fines in cases where a plant or operation is neglecting to live up to the terms of the legislation.
In closing, I repeat that I do not think this bill really sets the national standards which we want. It lacks a co-ordinated approach to pollution-this is the most depressing part as far as I am concerned-and it leaves a number of fields uncovered. I am thinking in terms of the department of the environment. Mention was made of the department having authority to deal with soil pollution, noise pollution and so on. But there are other fields

radiation and microwave emissions, for example. So far this country has almost completely ignored them. It may be we do not yet possess the expertise necessary to lay down regulations. I do not know. I do not believe we have. But I feel we should at least begin research and get on with the work of cleaning up pollution wherever it is found in our environment.
Again let me say that while the bill does represent a step forward, it is a fragmented approach to the problem. I hope the minister will accept some major amendments to the legislation when they are put forward during the committee stage.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley Easi):: Mr. Speaker, because of the vital importance of this bill I did not intend to speak, but since we seem to be creating some air pollution in the House of Commons today in some of the speeches we have heard, I feel I should get up in defence.


An hon. Member:: Don't add to it, then.


M. Ervin Pringle: I am not naturally critical; I am a rather good natured man but I have to express some criticism, possibly because sitting here in the rump of the House, a little of it rubs off on me. Air is something none of us can escape. We are not obliged to go near water resources. We are not obliged to go into areas where there are garbage dumps or outpourings of effluent. But we all breathe the air every day: we cannot escape it. I therefore consider this bill to be in the nature of a priority issue. I congratulate the minister upon introducing it and I hope it will move into committee immediately. I

want to be very brief because it is important that the bill get into committee in the next few minutes.
There is a great deal of evidence that air pollution is increasing to a greater extent than many of us realize.
I belong to a group of people who have spent the last 15 to 20 years flying their aircraft across North America at low level and encountering a high concentration of air pollution. I recall going into areas like Los Angeles on a perfectly clear day, and although the tops of buildings were visible it was necessary to approach and land with the use of instruments. I have sat in a hotel room in the city where you could see a blue haze across the room and into the bathroom. It was so bad that one had to go to the beach or to some other area to escape it. I am not talking about industrial pollution but about pollution from automobiles-which, of course, are directly controlled by individuals.
I think we would do well to concentrate on pollution research. This bill contains a clause referring to the widening of our research facilities. I firmly believe that although we must kill pollution, we must at the same time maintain industry. This is a point that I feel is not sufficiently emphasized in our legislation. Our air is subject to pressure inversions, so that although pockets of pollution are able to escape and disperse at certain times, they cannot at other times. I recall when Vancouver had only a small area of pollution, but now pollution has crept up the valley as far as Abbotsford and it is getting worse each year. A temporary release as a result of a violent storm is as much as we can expect.
This bill is very important and I hope we will not be prevented by technicalities from proceeding with it. The members who have been screaming "national" on almost everything are the ones who continually stand up and want to protect the provinces. They ask why the government is not doing this for Newfoundland, or that for Nova Scotia; yet they talk "nationally" on a bill of this kind. They do not accept the fact that the provinces of this country still have rights and they will continue to have rights. Even though we are able to reform the Constitution of Canada, I do not believe that in our time or in my grandchildren's time we will ever eliminate the rights of the provinces. So let hon. members be objective. When they stand up and say a measure must be national in scope, they must realize that they are asking the government to impose itself upon provincial jurisdiction. I do not think such imposition would be accepted by the provinces.
Certain measures must be national in scope, of course, and the provinces agree they must be national. As a matter of fact, I think that in the very near future controlling air pollution will be international in scope. For example, when the wind blows from Chicago, to the south, this terrible air pollution from the industrial mills moves north far enough to reach Canada. The same things happens along the Great Lakes; when a south wind blows, Canada is no longer responsible for its own air pollution. Since we are going to monitor our air
February 19, 1971

quality, if the tolerances are exceeded what will we do about it unless we reach international agreement? And if we have an international agreement, shall we impose our standards on the United States, for example? Will we work out mutual agreements with the provinces?
In view of these factors, I hope this House realizes that we have a vital bill in front of us; that we have 10 "countries" in this great nation of Canada, each of which must be considered. Either hon. members agree that this should be strictly a federal matter and they should stop yacking about the provinces all the time, which they are supposed to represent, or they admit they know full well that the provinces have rights and that the federal government cannot impose itself, unilaterally if you like, upon the provinces in environmental matters.
I know of no other bill that strikes at the lives, the livelihoods and the social welfare of the people of Canada as much as the bills we have before us, such as the organization bill and Bill C-224. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing-and, unlike the previous speaker, I intend to close only twice instead of four times-I hope that immediately we call the question and get the bill into committee where hon. members can provide a useful service. I admit their speeches in committee do not get back home as readily as they do from this chamber, but the importance of this bill is already back home. I think we should accept that, and I hope we will get this bill into committee as soon as possible.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have accepted the invitation of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) to close the debate immediately following his speech, but there are a few things I want to add to what has been said, though certainly I am not going to take very long. In the first place, I agree entirely with the objectives of this bill in controlling air pollution throughout Canada. The objectives are desirable and the problem is urgent. Therefore, I think that we should get the bill into committee as quickly as possible.
I should like to point out that in my opinion the bill winds its way through the jurisdictional jungle of the Canadian constitution in masterly fashion, but it fails to cut through the maze in a forthright manner or as a result of having made advance arrangements with the provinces. This was the case with, and also the weakness of, the Canada Water Act. There is one exception to this general weakness and that is the section of the bill that relates to fuels, with which I will deal later, which I think does deal with the problem forthrightly.
Without provincial concurrence and joint provincial legislation, I think this bill is a futile gesture, such as was the case with the Canada Water Act. A clean air bill has been promised for two years. I am not going to lay the blame for the delay on the present minister, because it was not he who made the promise. A clean air bill was promised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and it appeared to me that the delay in getting it before Parliament was caused by the government trying to make a co-operative effort with the provinces. So the situation confronting the government on
Clean Air Act
this bill is not as difficult as it was when the government introduced the Canada Water Act. I had hoped that the provinces would be consulted so that this bill could avoid the jurisdictional problems experienced with the Canada Water Act. Unfortunately, as far as I can gather from the speech of the minister today, it was only three or four weeks ago, after the bill had been drafted and was ready for introduction, that the minister toured the provinces to acquaint them with its terms. It is not enough to have the provinces not objecting and it is not enough to have them invited or consulted because, as in respect of the Canada Water Act, we need concurrent legislation.
There is provision in this bill for the government to join with the provinces in making arrangements and contracts, but the provinces cannot carry out their part of such an agreement unless they have concurrent legislation. The provincial governments, like the government of Canada, cannot act on their own without the authority of their legislatures. In other words, merely because we have this legislation at the federal level does not mean that provincial governments will be able to enter into agreements on their own. We do not have concurrent legislation and we do not have any indication that it will be forthcoming. To the credit of the minister I should say he has in the past few weeks tried to save the day by consulting the provinces. He has obtained an agreement and co-operation, but as good as his intentions might be, it is really not co-operation we need-we need legislative authority. This is still lacking, and it is fundamental.
Let me now turn to the matter of policy on national standards of air quality. The minister stated today that this bill authorizes such national standards. It is my belief that it does not. I do not want to split hairs about it, but we have the same problem we had with the Canada Water Act. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) kept telling us in one breath that he could not involve himself with national water standards because he did not have the authority, and in the next breath he told us they existed. Neither of these statements was accurate, and the result is that we now have the Canada Water Act which is an ineffective piece of legislation. As far as getting national air quality standards is concerned, this bill takes four runs at the problem. It takes a run at it in clause 4, where it says that this provision will apply where air quality objectives-I stress the word "objectives"-are defined and authorized. That is fine. We have objectives, but that does not say we will ever reach them.
The bill takes another run at this in clause 7 where it refers to national emission standards and guidelines; I stress the word "emission" because this does not relate to the quality of air but to the quality of emission into the air in various places. This clause is limited to cases where emissions constitute a significant danger to health or which are likely to contravene our international obligations. Let me point out the word "significant". I imagine that is there to give the federal government, or Parliament, statutory authority. It refers to a significant danger to health as being the criterion rather than a
3590

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
danger to health. Any prosecutions under this statute will be very difficult. Here again, this could save the jurisdiction under the national authority, but it is so limited because of the use of the word "significant" that it does not cover the standard case.
The bill takes another run at national air standards policy in clause 8 where it refers to the establishment of guidelines. Guidelines can be related to objectives to be followed, but guidelines have never been very effective. They have been suggested in almost every area of this Parliament, but they have very seldom worked because they are unenforceable. The bill takes another run at national standards in clauses 9 and 14 where it refers to the establishment of emission standards for federal works. That is still only one area, and it is not national.
I am not trying to split hairs, but I do not think the measure authorizes the setting up of national air quality standards. I do not think the authority is there. I looked through the bill, and the first thing I attempted to find was this authority. I could not find it. Therefore, the bill cannot authorize the establishment of these standards.
Most provinces do not have legislation along these lines, and I am sure none of the provinces have concurrent legislation because this bill has not yet been passed. If the government has doubt about the constitutional authority to establish national air quality standards-and I think they certainly have grounds for doubt-I should like the minister to tell us about the efforts made over the last two or three years to get provincial assistance to adopt effective legislation. There was nothing in the minister's introductory remarks today to the effect that there has been provincial co-operation in bringing in any new legislation. In the latter part of the minister's remarks he mentioned provisions in respect of federal government works.
Much of the bill is devoted to the method of the federal government policing itself. The main part of this bill is directed toward the operators of federal works. This is certainly a desirable objective. I think it is a sad commentary of the government of Canada when it has to legislate against itself. That is exactly what we are doing by this bill. Who is going to pay the fines if they are levied against federal works? It seems to me that if anybody pays these fines it will be the people of Canada, because that is the source of money for public works. This seems to be a very unusual situation because the federal government is legislating against its own public works and is providing fines for breaches against this measure. I would like to think there are in existence no situations which would justify this type of action. I have no doubt that this legislation could be used against public works, but it seems sad that we are being asked to pass a bill directed against works of the federal government.
I said I wanted to speak about the general provision concerning fuels, their manufacture and importation. To me this is the most significant feature of the bill. In a simple and straightforward way the federal Parliament assumes its responsibility in clause 22 and provides for
[Mr. Aiken.)
regulatory authority in succeeding clauses. The foundation is laid, in the clauses on fuels, for effective action in many areas. The definition is broad enough to include motor vehicle fuels, domestic fuels and industrial and commercial fuels, all of which are the principal causes of air pollution. So while I do not feel the remainder of the bill will be very effective, I believe the clauses on fuels, as in the case of the Canada Water Act in the section on phosphate detergents, may be the only part that is effective and enforceable.
In my belief, the clauses on fuels save this bill because there are no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it. Parliament is facing up to the situation and saying that we will accept responsibility for fuels. We know this is where most of our air pollution comes from. It remains to be seen whether the government will follow up these clauses with effective regulations and enforcement. If it does, then the clauses on fuels to my mind could represent the breakthrough.
I should like to say a word or two in respect of offences and penalties. When a great fuss is made about the amount of a penalty of $200,000 a day, or something in that order, this hits the newspapers and sounds good. We had the same "big deal" in respect of the Canada Water Act, but no one to my knowledge has been charged. Certainly no one ever received such a fine. I suppose if someone wanted to outdo this bill he could provide for a fine of $1 million for doing something. I do not think the amount of the fine levied is the true test of the bill. The true test is whether or not it stops air pollution.
I do not believe the size of the maximum fine will do the job at all. Here, as in the case of the Canada Water Act, people have the idea that almost everybody will be subject to this large fine for polluting. One has to look at the bill to see what it really says. The $200,000 fine applies only to a federal work of undertaking under clause 9 (1) (b), an emission which constitutes a significant danger to the health of persons under clause 7 (1) (a), or violation of the terms of any international agreement under clause 7 (1) (b). These are the only cases to which the fine applies. It is not a general fine in respect of anyone who pollutes the air. I believe this should be clearly understood.
The last point I wish to discuss is that of the federal commitment to expenditure. As in the case of the Canada Water Act, I have searched vainly through this bill to find any commitment by the federal government to involve itself financially in activities, works or pilot projects to reduce air pollution. I could find none, except perhaps one clause to which I will refer. Aside from maintaining monitoring stations and setting up standards of various types, there would seem to be no provision for expenditure except in clause 19 which authorizes the minister to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the implementation of pollution programs for the control and abatement of air pollution. It is possible that in the implementation of programs the government could very well involve itself in expenditure, but it is a very vague provision and one which certainly does not
February 19, 1971

leave either us or the provincial governments with the belief that the federal government wishes to involve itself.
We might as well be honest about it. The provincial legislatures are interested in working with the federal government in such areas when money is to be provided. Provincial governments do not like to go out and spend money while the federal government sits back and says, "Go ahead with it, boys. We hope you do a good job because we have passed some laws which we hope will help the situation. You put up the money". This is where we ran into trouble in respect of the Canada Water Act, and I do not see any improvement in this bill. Money talks, and money is in short supply.
There is no indication that the federal government will involve itself in expenditure here, and the estimates which were recently tabled showed vast increases in spending but very little for the implementation of this legislation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not see the likelihood of immediate, concurrent provincial legislation or provincial co-operation unless the federal government is prepared to do something in the financial field. This has not been indicated in the bill or even in the minister's introductory remarks.
At the beginning I said that the objectives of the bill are worthy. A real effort has been made by the drafters to cover the ground within the obviously limited framework laid down by government policy which, once again, is woefully lacking in respect of real co-operation with the provincial authorities. There are many things which undoubtedly could have been done to improve the bill. As I say, the drafters of this bill have carefully wound their way through the constitutional problems without actually meeting them head-on.
I hope this bill will be effective. We want to see it referred to the committee so that we will have an opportunity to do what we can to improve it. But so far as the fundamental principle is concerned, it is not there. The provincial co-operation to fill-out the legislative authority as between the two jurisdictions has not been provided, the groundwork has not been laid and we are left once again with a federal bill which is limited in its jurisdiction and which has no really effective means of controlling air pollution throughout the country.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a good deal of interest to the speeches of hon. members on this bill. In many ways I found most interesting the remarks of the minister in introducing the bill, not because his speech was necessarily better than that of the hon. gentleman who just spoke, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), but because, naturally, we look to a person who introduces a bill in this House to state its basic scope and purpose at second reading stage.
The minister, as he usually does when he gets on to subjects touching on pollution or on standards, waxed very eloquent. He stated his ideas with great determination. I suggest, however, that if one examines the realities
Clean Air Act
of the situation, the contents of his speech are somewhat misleading. I like to hear the minister say that he believes in national standards, whether he is talking about air pollution, water pollution or any other form of pollution. I also believe in national standards. I think these are ideas which should be promoted throughout Canada. I think that in particular those of us who happen to be members of the federal Parliament of Canada have a responsibility to seek to do that. However, a problem arises when we have a minister introducing a bill and creating the impression that there are, in fact, provisions of the bill that are not really there. This is the danger I see developing in respect of the bill we are now considering and in respect of other bills that have been dealt with in recent months.
If the minister had said in his opening remarks today that this bill was a beginning in moving toward national standards with regard to emissions that go into the ambient air, then I think his statements would have been more in accordance with the contents of the bill. But if I heard the minister correctly, he said categorically that the bill creates standards which are national in scope, which are Canada wide and which are not provincial or municipal.
These are brave words, the kind of words we like to hear coming from a minister with some responsibility over the control of the quality of the environment, whether or not he has the title. But if one examines the contents of the bill it becomes apparent that it is treading lightly on the constitutional eggs, taking great pains not to put any stress or strain on the fragile shells of the elements of our constitution, on the fragile sensibilities of some of the provincial authorities.
This may or may not be necessary or desirable at this point, in face of the realities of political life in Canada, in face of attitudes that are made evident from time to time by some of the provincial Premiers of Canada. If I wanted to explore this question in detail, I could perhaps use the Premier of the province of British Columbia as a point of reference for some remarks. But the fact is that this bill does not create national standards. I do not think that we in this Parliament would be doing a service to the people of Canada if we tried to create the impression that in this bill we are providing a complete and final answer to the problems of the regulation and control of emissions that go into the ambient air, to use the phrase that is used in the bill.
What I think we should be doing in discussing a bill of this kind is to emphasize that we are dealing with what I would term the constitutional building-blocks of a new Canadian Constitution. We are dealing with things that are, in this era of our history, of most urgent concern to Canadians everywhere. Part of our responsibility in discussing a bill of this kind should be to attempt to make the people of Canada aware that we are having to work within a very difficult constitutional framework when we start discussing such problems as are dealt with in this bill. Let us not kid either ourselves or the people of Canada that we are in fact creating standards that will be uniform and complete all across Canada by what we are proposing to do today.
3592

February 19, 1971
Clean Air Act
I think the minister is right when he puts the emphasis on his belief in national standards and expresses his desire for their establishment. I think the minister is right in the sense that he is echoing the kind of feelings about these things that more and more Canadians are having. In this sense, all of us in this chamber have the responsibility of seeking to share with the minister the job of providing leadership and understanding which may bring about an approach to these matters that is more in keeping with the realities of Canadian social and economic life.
The minister in his speech did touch upon the constitutional aspects of the bill. He made reference to the fact that we are using the powers of the British North America Act in respect of trade and commerce as a federal jurisdiction. Of course, in section 91 (2) of the BNA Act there is a direct reference to the power of the Parliament of Canada to deal with the regulation of trade and commerce. But I think it is interesting to note that the minister also made reference to the fact that we are using the federal health powers in this act. One can search the BNA Act in vain in trying to find any reference to health as a stated function of the government. There is reference in sections 91 and 92 to the operation of marine hospitals by the federal government and other hospitals by the provincial governments, but this is about as close as the BNA Act comes to touching upon the question of health.
It has been quite evident, and constitutional practice has made it clear, that in fact there is federal jurisdiction in health and it is operative within certain limits. But it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister might have made reference in his speech to the power of the Parliament of Canada to make laws respecting good government in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects "by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces." Perhaps this question of the federal power in the field of health may flow in some respects from that.
I can only speculate on these things, not being a constitutional lawyer or a person who could ever anticipate being made a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. But I emphasize this fact because in my view the minister who is responsible in this area as a member of the government should be putting more emphasis, in the speeches he makes in this House and elsewhere, on the question of the limitations that the constitutional framework imposes so far as coping adequately with problems of air and water pollution is concerned. I have looked through the bill. I would not say I have studied every clause in detail, but it is very observable that all through the bill, when it comes to the regulation of the kind of works or undertakings which come directly under its jurisdiction it is most carefully limited to those that lie in the federal field.
In the powers of inspection and enforcement provided in this bill there is a great contrast with the kind of authority conferred upon the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) by some of the amendments that
were made to the Fisheries Act last year. Of course, the minister at once would say that this difference stems from the fact that sea coast and inland fisheries are clearly assigned to the federal field, and therefore the responsibility is clear and well defined in respect of the quality of water inhabited by fish, and its protection from pollution. But in his speech the minister said there is 25 times more pollution coming into Canadian waters from the air than is being put into those waters by spills from oil tankers and other sources.
One could develop an intriguing argument that if, under the Fisheries Act, the minister has the authority to ensure that certain standards of water quality are maintained, and if these waters are being polluted from the air, therefore the jurisdiction of the minister obviously extends to the maintenance of the quality of the air. I am not in a position to say that if this were being argued by lawyers before the Supreme Court, the minister and his spokesmen would be on the winning side; but I suggest this reveals very clearly how interrelated is the matter of total environmental control and how important it is that the Canadian people not only understand the need for the maintenance of quality but understand in more depth the constitutional and other problems that lie in the way of achieving this goal.
I think that once the people of Canada understand constitutional matters of this kind in a way that comes close to home, to the practical matters that affect their life and welfare, then they will be behind the efforts that may be made from time to time in the federal Parliament and there will be a body of opinion across Canada that any provincial government would ignore only at its peril. For this reason I felt I would approach discussion of the principle of the bill from this point of view, because it is a point of view that I feel the minister has failed to advance sufficiently. It may be as a result of a natural desire on his part to create an impression in the minds of the Canadian people that the government of which he is a member is establishing a creditable record of achievement. In saying this I am not trying to belittle the efforts that the government and the minister have been making in this field, but there is a responsibility on us to make the people of Canada understand the limitations of what we are doing as well as the excellence of certain features of the legislation.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that the minister is ready to rise, and it is just before four o'clock. I would reimind hon. members that there is a point of order before the Chair, raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). The Chair still has the point of order under advisement. It is now four o'clock. I should say to hon. members that next time this item of business is called, the Chair will be in a position to make a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East.
It being four o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.

February 19, 1971


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be the wish of the House to let the minister close the debate before the question is put. We would then have completed the debate and the question could be put, depending on the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I indicated earlier, the Chair is not ready to make a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. If hon. members wish, the minister might be allowed to close the debate. But the motion obviously cannot be put until a ruling is made by the Chair.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to give unanimous consent to the minister because of what Your Honour has just said with respect to the ruling which has yet to be made. However, if I did give consent it would be with the understanding that what the minister had to say would not in any way jeopardize the ruling subsequently to be made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just to make it clear, the minister, as I understand it, would be speaking on the substantive motion and not on the point of order. I reiterate that the motion will not be put until the Chair has made a ruling. On those conditions, if it is agreeable to hon. members the minister might be permitted to close the debate. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. First I must say that I appreciate the remarks made by hon. members from all corners of the House. I will be looking forward to the positive and helpful suggestions which they will be making to improve this legislation in the Fisheries and Forestry Committee, legislation which I think they all agree is important and which should be passed by Parliament in the best possible form.
I only want to comment on one aspect of this legislation which was referred to by nearly all hon. members speaking on the bill, and that is the constitutional or federal aspect of it. The government already has been engaged with the provinces in a discussion on constitutional powers, and particularly on powers in dealing with pollution and the quality of the environment of this country. The proposal made by the government to the provinces has been that of concurrent power, which should clear up a number of difficulties, particularly trans-border difficulties between provinces.
I think smother important aspect of the bill is the requirement on federal agencies to clean up. I have certainly expressed the opinion to the provinces that federal institutions must conform to local bylaws and provincial regulations in every way. The provinces themselves, particularly last fall when the Premiers met with the Prime Minister and again recently, appeared to indicate that they thought the federal government should take leadership in this area.
Clean Air Act
I think that the doubts which have been expressed in various corners of the House about constitutional powers in respect of pollution will not be borne out. Indeed, I think that the provinces will co-operate in every way in th,e execution not only of the clean air act but of every type of legislation dealing with pollution in this country. I thank hon. members, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In accordance with the agreement reached previously, the debate on Bill C-224 having been concluded, the question will not be put until this item appears again on Orders of the Day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and ask the indulgence of the House. I do not intend to take up too much time with my point of order because there is little enough time for members to speak in private members' hour. What I must say could perhaps be decided upon in a couple of minutes. Item No. 36 on the Order Paper under private members' public bills is Bill C-69 which stands in my name. It is a bill respecting the presence of the national flag of Canada in both Houses of Parliament. Since I think there is a consensus on all sides of the House on this question, I wonder whether Your Honour would ask if there is unanimous consent for this item to be brought to the top of the list and to be given second and third reading.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Perhaps the bill could be disposed of completely, after which we could get on with other business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: There is not unanimous consent.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


John Leroy Skoberg: that Bill C-27, to amend the Canada Labour (Safety) Code (marine workers), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
February 19, 1971


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambion):: Mr. Speaker, try as we may, it seems to me we cannot get away from the constitutional dilemma in which we so often find ourselves. It is refreshing to see an hon. member on the other side of the House recognizing that we do live under a federal form of government and that we do encounter difficulties of the kind to which he referred.
I believe the legislature of Nova Scotia is to be commended for taking what might be called the first timid steps in the area affecting the safety of these workers. I compliment the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-
February 19, 1971

berg on bringing forward this legislation. Whether 50 people or 50,000 are affected by it is not important; it is a means of calling attention to the fact that a portion of our working population may not have the protection, under the safety code, to which they are entitled. It should again be emphasized, though, that we do have a constitutional problem in this area, as in many others.
The hon. member saw fit to relate his amendment to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code with the idea of determining which measure would be the more appropriate. I would call attention to a booklet called "Planning for Safety" which is put out by the accident prevention and compensation branch of the Department of Labour. One of the paragraphs in this excellent brochure reads as follows:
The Canada Labour (Safety) Code is an employment safety act which, subject to any other act of the Parliament of Canada, applies to all works, undertakings and businesses under federal jurisdiction. Through its circular 1968-54 the treasury board issued "Occupational Safety Policy-Public Service of Canada", whereby the principles enunciated by this act, as well as any regulations issued under its authority, may apply also to the public service of Canada.
The hon. member is asking the federal government to assume jurisdiction in this instance by accepting the proposed amendment. I welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate of this kind because the emphasis is placed where it should be placed, that is, on the safety of workers in Canadian industries whether they are employed in mining, the production or chemicals, marine undertakings or some other field.
As one who lived in northern Ontario for some time when my father was working underground for International Nickel, I recall that the theme at that time seemed to be "production first and safety second". Then, due in large measure to the fact that a union came into full effect in the mining industry in Sudbury and northern Ontario, the company took a second look at its position. Those concerned found to their surprise that by making safety the No. 1 priority, production improved. So any move which emphasizes the importance of safety is something we should be happy to support, particularly having regard to the publicity received by debate on almost any subject in the House of Commons.
It would be folly to suggest that consideration has not already been given to this problem. In fact, my research on the subject, limited as it was by the facilities and personnel available to me, turned up a considerable amount of information and illustrated the concern which both industry and government have shown for the safety of workers in industry. Indeed, I was surprised to find that such a large measure of concern was shown not only by labour but by management.
The subject of industrial safety seems at last to be getting the recognition it deserves. I doubt whether one can visit any factory or workshop in Canada today and not see signs drawing attention to the number of days which have elapsed involving loss of time, or drawing attention to the fact that a certain crew had the best accident-free record during the month. There was a time not so long ago when we did not see this interest taken
Canada Labour (Safety) Code in many industries. That position has now changed, due to the legislation which has been enacted and due, also, to the interest shown by the kind of amendment which the hon. member is proposing today.
It may be of interest to note that during my research into the area covered by the hon. member's bill I received a copy of the INCO "Triangle" containing a reference to Creighton Mine, Ontario, where I was born, some 12 miles out of Sudbury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: An article in the magazine is headed: "The boys at Creighton have done it again-one million safe man-hours from October, 1970, to January 10, 1971." This, in itself, is significant. Even more significant is the fact that this is the twenty-fifth time since 1946 that this kind of recognition has gone to what are called here the "Creighton boys". This indicates the kind of co-operation and recognition that labour is giving in this field. I was interested to read that the Ontario division general manager, Mr. Johnny McCreedy-hockey enthusiasts will recognize this as being a famous name in hockey circles-had stated, with regard to the safety efforts of employees:
This certainly attests to a fine co-operative effort on the part of the entire work force in safety in conjunction with a high level of production.
So there is something to be gained not only by workers but by management. I hope that all companies, particularly those engaged in the marine industry which we are discussing today, will take note of the statement made by Mr. McCreedy. Some underground workers have the idea that they are not working in a particularly safe place. As one who had an opportunity to work underground, I can tell the House I felt much safer working there than I did working on many construction enterprises. I do not know whether marine workers feel that their work is as dangerous as that of workers underground. I hope that the standards of safety set out in the bill will move every industry covered by the code, particularly the marine industry with which we are dealing today, to emulate the fine record to which I referred a few minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I hope hon. members will not applaud for too long because I would like this bill to get to a vote if possible. I think the Canada Labour (Safety) Code should be concerned with the safety and health of workers engaged in the maritime industry.
As I have said, I do not think the hon. member has made a mistake in bringing his amendment under the aegis of this bill. Perhaps he had good advice from a member of the legal branch of the Department of Justice or from one of the officers of the Department of Justice, but I feel he has brought his amendment within the right area, and it is surely a matter that is within the aegis of the federal government's responsibilities. On our coasts we are dealing with international traffic, which is

February 19, 1971
Canada Labour (Safety) Code surely an area wherein the government might show some initiative in bringing in the kind of amendment suggested by the hon. member.
As I have said, it is very difficult for Members of Parliament to do much in the way of research work, in view of our limited facilities. Those of us who preach that we should have larger offices, executive assistants and the like do so not so much to make a small empire for ourselves as to better perform the services we were elected to carry out, namely, to conduct research on bills, particularly the sort of bill we are dealing with today. In the research I did I was able to find a paper or treatise-I am not sure of its proper appellation-prepared by Mr. A. A. Evans. It has to do with the ILO and is headed "Technical and Social Changes in the World's Ports". In chapter 8 of this work he refers specifically to safety and welfare and he has this to say:
One of the new trends affecting dockers is the increasing attention paid to their safety and welfare.
Safety and welfare considerations are embodied in some of the over-all new settlements-
It is incumbent upon union representatives to see that this kind of protection is afforded. If it is not provided by legislation, certainly it should be provided under settlements or agreements. This chapter continues:
-on the United States Pacific coast both parties to the agreement have accepted a special safety code to supplement the federal regulations.
I do not wish to usurp the position of the government, but it must be recognized that there may be particular areas of expertise where unions and workers would have the kind of ability, intelligence and knowledge to supplement what federal legislation must deal with more or less on a universal basis. Mr. Evans continues:
-the employer may choose methods of work and there is a proviso that "longshoremen shall not be required to work when in good faith they believe that to do so is immediately to endanger health and safety". In order that advantage should not be taken of this clause merely to obstruct work, the memorandum of agreement-
That refers to an agreement in 1960.
-provides that "only in cases of bona fide health and safety issues may a standby be justified. The union pledges itself in good faith that health and safety will not be used as a gimmick".
I think this is the kind of message that, unhappily, the unions have not been able to get across to the general public. We only hear about the kind of work that is done in marine safety when it is highlighted in a message like this. Most of the time we hear about striking longshoremen, damage done to cargo, shipping that is held up and money lost. But here the union is obligating itself to act in good faith and not to use this particular section as a gimmick. Mr. Evans continues:
In the settlement covering the St. Lawrence ports it is stipulated that employers and employees shall comply with the longshoring safety code, which contains improved safety regulations and which has become a part of the whole agreement enforceable by law.
On page 186 of his treaties, Mr. Evans has this to say about safety:
The inland transport committee, in agreeing that it was
desirable to accept new types of mechanical equipment, specified that they should be safe.
How many of us can remember that the sort of thing that used to be said was that some new machinery would be brought in but very little was said, if anything, about how safe the particular piece of equipment was. Here it is suggested that consideration should be given to making it safe. He continues:
This points to the importance of examining thoroughly, with the help of experts, what new risks may arise when new methods of work and new equipment are being introduced. This should be standard procedure.
Those of us who are not particularly concerned with east or west coast ports may not be interested in this, but Sarnia is midway along the Seaway and has a fairly large number of ships passing through from Japan, Great Britain and other countries which I will not list because it would take too long to do so. Therefore, I have some concern for the safety of marine workers.
One of the matters about which we have heard lately is containers. From the little reading I have done, I understand that Halifax has taken the lead in this area, recognizing that it has to compete with the Seaway. As I say, from what I have read Halifax seems to have done very well by adopting containerization. Mr. Evans' treatise suggests that the use of containers will reduce the number of accidents for any given tonnage of cargo handled, if for no other reason than that the number of man-hours of exposure to risk will have been substantially reduced. He goes on to say:
It is almost certain that the accident rate measured against the actual man-hours of exposure will also decrease, because dockers' accident statistics show that a high proportion of accidents occur while cargo is moved by hand.
This is an important subject and other hon. members wish to speak. There is still over half an hour before the end of private members' hour and I feel I have left them adequate time. I felt I should put on the record the point the hon. member is trying to make, namely, that this is an area of federal jurisdiction that should be highlighted through addresses in this chamber.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the previous speaker even though I could not relate them to the amendment before the House. I thank him for his kind words about containerization. The points he makes about safety on the docks and about containerization are very true. But those matters are not before us now. The difficulty that has been recognized by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) who introduced this amendment to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code is one of jurisdiction and the application of jurisdiction. In other words, it is a problem first of recognition and then of acceptance of responsibility.
In and around the docks and ports of this country a continuing debate has been raging for a long time as to who has jurisdiction, in what situation and under what circumstances. It is to this that I think the amendment is directed, and in recognition of the problem here on the

February 19. 1971

floor of the House perhaps some progress has been made toward its resolution. Certainly this amendment would go a long way to eliminating once and for all the type of question that comes up when accidents occur in and around our docks.
The difficulties involved in accidents result from provincial jurisdiction. Many of these ports do not come within the federal purview. An injured individual has no recourse, because it is not spelled out either under provincial or federal law whose responsibility it is for the safety of these workers. There are all sorts of safety conditions laid down and they are spelled out in working agreements. This forms part of the philosophy and administration of ports operated by the National Harbours Board, cities, corporations and other port agencies. I suggest there is some difficulty in respect of national defence operations. This problem will not be solved as a result of the adoption of this amendment. This problem has been recognized. The hon. member has attempted to deal with it, and I hope the House will allow this matter to be referred to the committee in order that it may make recommendations to the government to accept responsibility and jurisdiction in this type of accident.
The comment I should like to make about this bill is that I am still not satisfied with the Canada Labour (Safety) Code because it does not effectively deal with accidents occurring in connection with vessels at military bases. I refer to military vessels tied up at a dockyard, a shipyard or at a military-controlled dock, port, pier or wharf. People working on these ships work under safety standards. They adhere to these standards. In my view federal jurisdiction should extend to accidents occurring in these areas. Men who are injured while working on these ships find themselves without recourse or redress under either federal or provincial legislation.
In the hope that this matter will proceed to the next stage, I suggest that safety standards be set rather than talked about. These safety standards should cover port workers, dock workers, longshoremen, freight handlers and others involved in this type of activity. There is a deficiency in our legislation now, and I hope hon. members will be courteous enough to allow this question to be debated by the committee so that the problem may be solved. This has been a problem since confederation. Something should be done so that marine workers at least have some recourse when an accident occurs.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all indebted to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) for raising this important matter. He has perhaps exposed to public view what one might call the ragged edge of jurisdiction over labour in this country. I am sure that hon. member was speaking with personal knowledge of some of the unsatisfactory conditions we face regarding jurisdiction over labour in Canada.
As I understand the governing rule of law, federal jurisdiction over matters of labour is sharply circumscribed by the provision which limits jurisdiction to mat-
Canada Labour (Safety) Code ters clearly within the federal realm. I suppose in the broad sense this includes railways, telegraph and telephone companies as well as shipping. I am sure the hon. member for Moose Jaw will appreciate that the courts have interpreted the jurisdiction of the federal government in respect of labour on a very narrow basis. Even though the great railway companies of this country are subject to federal jurisdiction in respect of their main operations, it has been held by the courts that their hotels are not subject to federal labour laws.
Similar decisions have been made in respect of other federal operations which the ordinary person would think appear to be part and parcel of the whole sphere of federal jurisdiction. If I interpret the hon. member's speech correctly, his concern is principally in respect of people who carry out repair work on ships. He also includes longshoremen and port workers. Perhaps, as lawyers say, he has done this out of an abundance of caution, not to miss anybody. He, like myself, comes from the great province of Saskatchewan and perhaps we do not speak with a perfect knowledge of maritime operations.
o (4:40p.m.)
The fact is that at the present time longshoremen working at the major ports in Canada are subject to federal labour laws. The longshoremen's unions of Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere are subject to the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. The safety act as it is now worded applies to longshoremen. This is made clear also by some of the references made by my hon. friend and colleague from Sarnia, who referred to certain reports emanating principally from the port of Montreal, such as the Picard report which dealt extensively with port problems in Montreal. He referred also, I believe, to an agreement between longshore employers and employees at the port of Montreal which in a comprehensive way covers safety of operations. The same situation, I am sure, jurisdictionally applied in every major port in Canada. There can be no question that longshoring is a matter which falls under federal jurisdiction and therefore falls now within the ambit of this legislation.
One might wonder why anyone would question whether the other type of worker, the person employed by a shipyard who is brought on board to do repair and maintenance work, might not be covered, but this is part of the great legal conundrum which exists in our courts and in the interpretations which they have given to labour legislation. I make the serious suggestion to the House that we might encounter catastrophic consequences if we adopted the language proposed in this bill. I hold the view, and I believe it is a proper one, that following the decisions of the courts to which I have referred, it could be held that ship repair workers fall outside the ambit of federal jurisdiction, and were this Parliament to attempt to include them specifically in the legislation we might be faced with the possibility of some court, in its wisdom, some day saying that all the legislation is bad.
In my judgment-and in this I share the views expressed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-

February 19, 1971
Canada Labour (Safety) Code
berg) and the hon. member tor Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-this is an area of our life in Canada which merits serious and careful consideration. I refer to the area where federal and provincial labour legislation meet. I believe the hon. member for Moose Jaw, with his great experience in these matters, would be prepared to agree with me that questions of governmental jurisdiction and conflict between governments are sometimes exacerbated and exaggerated by the jurisdictional postures of different unions which may have been established under either federal or provincial aegis. In some circumstances where I have had experience in this field I have found that the situation is immensely complicated. In this type of situation it has always appeared to me there is a necessity for agreement among unions and among employers before one can go to governments for a solution.
In a way, what the hon. member for Moose Jaw is requesting here is not so much an amendment to an important statute but, rather, an attempt to have Parliament make a constitutional declaration concerning the type of workmen who are included within the ambit of federal and provincial labour legislation. I suggest this is an extremely dangerous course to follow. This interpretation of the hon. member's bill was impressed upon me when I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. It seemed to me he spoke very little about the bill or about the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. He was concerned about workmen's compensation, which of course is something not dealt with in this statute.
Whether or not a workman who is injured in the course of his work in a shipyard is covered by the federal or provincial workmen's compensation laws is something which is determined easily in this part of the world and, I should have hoped, elsewhere. But by making this type of entry in the safety code we make no contribution to the solution of that problem.


John Leroy Skoberg: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Duncan Gordon Blair: Certainly.


John Leroy Skoberg: I am wondering whether the hon. gentleman realizes that today neither the federal nor provincial authorities know which way they are going in respect of this area. In my remarks I suggested this bill be considered in committee so that the federal and provincial people could come to an understanding which would benefit the shipworkers to whom I referred and so things would be better all around.
I ask the hon. gentleman whether he would agree that workers in all fields of provincial and federal regulation are covered under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code except ship repair workers.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. friend I think it is important for a determination to be made concerning whether, first of all, this important working group is covered by any safety legislation and, if so, whether it is that of the federal or provincial governments. I hate to expose myself to a wrong interpretation of what I am saying or thinking, but I do not think the proposal in this type of a measure is the best forum for the consideration of this rather complicated problem. I am not sure, from what my hon. friend said, whether or not the problem is uniform across the country. I have forgotten what little I did know about the ports at Vancouver and Montreal, but it was not my impression that that kind of legislative and administrative vacuum existed there. It may well turn out that this is a problem, as I believe my hon. friend suggested, peculiar to one province and one area, which province now has a new government which hopefully can resolve many of these complicated matters.
Having made these comments about the bill proposed by the hon. member, and having to the best of my ability explained why I think it is dangerous for us to proceed with it because I believe we are working toward a point where we might expose the whole legislation to the hazard of disallowance, I should like to say a word about safety legislation in general. This is new legislation that was first enacted in the session of 1966-67. It cut across a lot of existing legislation because, as hon. members are aware, all these federal activities be they in railways, shipping, aviation, telephones or telegraph have long been regulated by other statutes.
One of the problems that the safety legislation created was in respect of new rules and regulations which sometimes cut across or added to the responsibilities piled on these enterprises by the older legislation. There has been a difficult period of digestion in the working out of regulations under the new law and applying them to existing industries which were well regulated under the old laws. That is another reason why at this reasonably early stage in the history of the Canada Labour (Safety) Code it would be highly inadvisable to consider an addition which might have far reaching consequences in terms of the operation of the legislation.
But again I think we must feel indebted to the hon. member for Moose Jaw for raising this point. I would suggest to him, as he might well suggest to me, that perhaps one useful approach to this question of jurisdiction on the margin of labour operations in Canada might be considered by the important unions which are concerned with it. They are the people who live under whatever laws are prescribed, and I fail to see how new rules can be made unless they recognize the position of existing unions and the rights they have acquired under present legislation.


Mr. Ray Perraull (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to commend the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) for his interest in the welfare of ship repair workers, longshoremen and all port workers. I come from one of the great port cities of Canada and although it may be difficult for some hon. members to believe, I am a former ship repair worker. I have spent a considerable time in the yards and have some scars to prove it. I want to

February 19, 1971

assure hon. members that this is a high-hazard occupation. I have paid for many months of my education by working in the shipyard, and many of my chums were severely injured during the time I worked with them. I remember one young man, who was a brilliant student, working in the shipyards of North Vancouver. He was a fine concert violinist. I talked to him one morning and that afternoon he was unconscious and crippled for life. This happened to many of my chums.
I say in all sincerity that there is no doubt whatsoever that ship repair workers who are in a high-hazard occupation deserve all the protection which the law can accord them. We are not in disagreement on this point. The concern about these workers is shared by members on the government side. However, there are difficulties here which I am sure were not apparent to the hon. member when he brought this measure to the House in all sincerity, and I know he brought it in with a determination to help these workers. The intention of the hon. member's bill is to expand the present definition of "federal work, undertaking or business" under section 2(c) of the safety code to include "ship repair workers, longshoremen and all port workers when working on domestic or foreign registered vessels while in Canadian ports".
Regardless of the commendable motives of the bill, as was pointed out earlier by one of my colleagues on this side of the House, it contains an essential defect. The defect is of a constitutional nature. Shipbuilding and ship repairing, as opposed to shipping, are generally not within the legislative authority of Parliament. The amendment, therefore, appears to be clearly ultra vires of Parliament. And for those hon. members who suspect that this is an excuse being offered by government members because of their unwillingness to take what would be unconstitutional action, I quote from the ultimate authority, Laskin in "Canadian Constitutional Law", third edition, 1969, which fairly sets out Parliament's authority in the field of labour relations. I quote from page 434 as follows:
In the field of employer-employee and labour management relations, the division of authority between parliament and provincial legislature is based on an initial conclusion that in so far as such relations have an independent constitutional value they are within provincial competence; and, secondly, in
Canada Labour (Safety) Code
so far as they are merely a facet of particular industries or enterprises their regulation is within the legislative authority of that body which has power to regulate the particular industry or enterprise.
Then a number of precedents are cited. I think this is a particularly relevant quotation from Laskin. Further on it says:
It followed from the Privy Council's position and from its view of the scope of the trade and commerce power that Parliament could not enact general regulatory labour relations measures even with respect to industries or enterprises having interprovincial ramifications. Regulatory control on a federal level could be exerted only in respect of activities which were within federal authority by specific enumerations, e.g., interprovincial railways, telegraph and telephone operations and shipping.
So the dilemma exists here that while the hon. member's proposal is good and sound, and undoubtedly action should be taken to determine the adequacy of present coverage for ship repair workers and no delay should be countenanced in arriving at this determination, the fact remains that Parliament has confined the application of its labour legislation to industries and enterprises which are clearly within its jurisdiction on the basis of such decisions as referred to by Laskin, the constitutional authority.
As far as the present proposal is concerned, shipbuilding and ship repairing only come under federal jurisdiction when companies which by way of their shipping activity are subject to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code utilize their own ships' crews and employees for repair and maintenance of their ships.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.
I hope hon. members will have an enjoyable weekend and will be safety conscious, especially in crossing the streets of Ottawa and climbing the snowbanks.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 22, 1971