1971-06-21

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to table a special report of the Official Languages Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of clause 34 of the Official Languages Act.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Agriculture in both official languages-Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval).

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Special Committee on Environmental Pollution-Mr. Anderson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a report of the Hazardous Products Review Board.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to a motion that I proposed on April 6 in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which read:
That in view of the fact alternate, efficient, comfortable service has not been provided in many areas in southwestern Ontario, as promised at the hearing at Owen Sound in March of 1970, this committee adjourn from place to place in southwestern Ontario to hear representations from interested parties for a complete review of the rail passenger service in the area.
This motion was passed in the committee and reported to the House. In view of the fact that the railway companies have applied for many more reductions and removals of service, I feel that serious economic effects will result in all parts of southern Ontario should the Canadian Transport Commission, which seems to be a servant of the railways, accede to the railways' requests. Therefore, with consent, I move:
That the whole matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, with power to adjourn from place to place in southern Ontario to hear representations from interested parties for a complete review of rail passenger service.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of very urgent importance. This matter is the failure of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to reveal the specific projections of government possesses with regard to the level of unemployment for 1971 and next winter and the campaign by officials of the Department of Finance to redefine full employment at a level of approximately 5 per cent unemployed. This question involves the priority goal for the Canadian economy and must be clarified immediately. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay.:
That this House insists that the Minister of Finance table the government's percentage projections of unemployment for 1971 and next winter; and that this House supports the Economic Council of Canada's definition of full employment as just below 4 per cent unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.

June 21, 1971
Questions



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Randolph Harding (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43, which I believe can be passed without debate. The matter is urgent and deals with the proposed flooding of over 6,000 acres of the Skagit River Valley. The view expressed in my motion has been stated by spokesmen for all parties in the House and I feel it would be useful for this view to be formally recorded. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That this House express its unanimous opposition to the proposed flooding of the Skagit River Valley in British Columbia and that this decision of the House of Commons be transmitted to the United States government through official channels.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
June 18, 1971-The Prime Minister: That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To his Excellency the Right Honourable Roland Michener, C.C.,	C.D., Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of
Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the Order in Council laid upon the Table of the House on June 18, 1971, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Science and Technology, prays that the making of the said Order in Council be approved.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Lewis: 1.	What specific projects are contemplated now or approved by the International Development Research Centre?
2.	In each case, what is the expected cost of the project and which institutions and individuals are involved?
3.	What criteria were used by the Centre in the drawing up of projects and the allocation of expenditures?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. We have consulted the management of the International Development Research Centre who report that the following projects have been approved by the Board of Governors of the centre: (1) research on nontariff barriers to trade in selected developed countries particularly as these affect developing country products; (2) a research study of fertility decline in the Island of Barbados; (3) support for further development and improvement of the new cereal species "Triticale"; (4) support for the development and computerization of an Aligned Descriptor List for the use of international libraries to permit a more effective storage and retrieval of library information; (5) research to determine the technical feasibility of preserving food by osmotic dehydration; (6) research into the origins and motivations for migration of slum dwellers and squatters living in eight cities in developing countries. It is contrary to the policy of the International Development Research Centre to disclose projects being considered by the Board of Governors of the centre.
2.	The management of the International Development Research Centre informs us that project support is presently made available only to institutions. In the case of each project approved, the details are as follows: (1) to the Private Planning Association of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, $18,759; (2) to the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, the Barbados Family Planning Association and the University of the West Indies, Barbados, $69,000; (3) to the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, $12,400; (4) to the Development Centre of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), Paris, France, $28,000; (5) to the Food Research Institute, Canadian Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario, $6,000; (6) to INTERMET (International Association for Metropolitan Research and Development) in collaboration with study groups in the following eight cities in developing countries, $84,000: 1. Bandung, Indonesia;
2.	Lima, Peru; 3. Caracas, Venezuela; 4. Seoul, Korea; 5. Istanbul, Turkey; 6. Ibadan, Nigeria; 7. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 8. Manila, Phillipines.
3.	All projects are considered and approved or rejected by the Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre. At this early point in the Centre's existence, the criteria applied by its Board of Governors in supporting projects and allocating expenditures are still evolving. It would be contrary to the Board's policy of applying flexible and pragmatic guidelines to its activities to articulate any Arm criteria at this time.


CANADA-AGREEMENT WITH OTHER COUNTRIES FOR RECIPROCITY OF PENSIONS
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Does Canada have agreements with other countries for reciprocity of pensions payable to their respective citizens and, if so, with which countries?
2.	What are the terms of each agreement?
3.	With what countries is Canada negotiating to obtain an agreement of the reciprocity of pensions?
4.	Will Canada take the initiative to commence similar negotiations on the reciprocity of pensions with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia?
June 21, 1971


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No. There have been, however, exchanges of letters between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Canada covering certain areas where agreement was reached with respect to payment of social security benefits in each country to former residents of the other country. The exchanges took place in 1959 and in 1961. The agreements are not reciprocal in the usual sense.
2.	The arrangements referred to in 1. above are to the effect that the Government of Canada will inform the Government of the United Kingdom if social legislation is amended in such a way as to adversely affect the position of persons migrating from the United Kingdom to Canada. In addition, the United Kingdom agreed that residents of the U.K. may be considered to have contributed, under British legislation, to their social security plan during periods spent in Canada. They may then, if they otherwise qualify, and under certain circumstances, be found eligible for a United Kingdom benefit.
3.	None. Canada has completed negotiations on reciprocity in social security with the Federal Republic of Germany, which led to the signing in Ottawa on March 30, 1971 of a Convention under which each country undertakes that pensions earned in it will be payable in the other irrespective of citizenship. This was previously provided for in Canadian legislation but the Federal Republic of Germany did not pay pensions which had been earned in Germany to Canadian citizens. When the Convention is ratified, it will be possible for Canadians to receive German pensions.
4.	Canadian officials carry on continuing study of social security relationships with other countries, and informal talks with the representatives of those countries. As the need for a Convention becomes apparent Canada is prepared to take such initiatives as the circumstances require as was the case with the Federal Republic of Germany.


COST OF CANADA'S PERMANENT MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the past fiscal year, what was the cost of Canada's permanent mission to the United Nations?
Questions
2.	How many persons form the permanent mission and, of this number, how many are bilingual and receive the bonus for bilingualism?
3.	What is Canada's annual contribution to the general administration of the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The total cost of operating the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations in New York and the cost of Canada's Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations in Geneva during the fiscal year 1970-71 amount to $1,542,000 (preliminary figures).
2.	On April 1, the total Canada-based staff at the missions in New York and Geneva numbered 51. Out of this total, sixteen individuals have passed the Public Service Commission test for bilingualism, and an additional nine are known to the Department to be bilingual. Twenty-six have either not passed the test or are known to be unilingual. The language differential, for which only the Secretarial, Stenographic, Typing Group is eligible, is paid to four individuals.
3.	Canada's annual contribution to the United Nations regular budget is determined by the level of the budget itself and the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the Organization, both of which are approved by the United Nations General Assembly. Canada's 1971 percentage assessment is 3.08 and its 1971 contribution is $4,890,594.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT-INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ACCEPTED OFFERS
Mr. McGralh: Since the inception of the Regional Development Incentives Act, what was the industrial distribution of the accepted offers disaggregated to major group level according to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (a) the provincial sub-totals (b) the total for Canada?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: See following chart which shows accepted offers to March 31, 1971.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
[Stage Direction]
Accepted Offers-By Province-By Standard Industrial Classification (to March 31, 1971)
i	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	Total Accepted OffersNewfoundland	
12	2	1	2	17Prince Edward Island...	
10	1	2	2	15Nova Scotia	
14	2	-	1	1	-	2	6	1	2	3	5	4	2	2	2	4	51New Brunswick	
15	-	1	-	-	1	2	13	-	-	2	-	4	1	i	2	3	4	49Quebec	
24	-	2	1	20	4	6	33	10	3	7	4	11	4	23	9	7	6	16	190Ontario	
3	-	1	-	-	-	-	15	-	-	1	-	5	2	1	4	2	34Manitoba	
15	-	1	-	1	1	1	3	1	1	15	1	8	2	9	3	3	7	72Saskatchewan	
9	-	-	1	-	-	4	1	-	1	2	4	2	1	25Alberta	
9	-	1	1	1	-	-	4	-	1	1	1	1	3	1	1	2	27British Columbia	-	-	-	-	1	-	9	i	uTotal Canada	
Ill	3	6	4	23	7	15	84	12	8	29	7	40	16	41	18	17	-	14	36	491
June 21, 1971
Questions

Mr. Harding: 1.	What specific aspects of pipeline research are being conducted under the Arctic Land Use Research (ALUR) Program?
2.	Does this program include research into the effects of pipelines on permafrost?
3.	On what date can the results of this study be effected?
4.	What are the amounts being spent on such research?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) the classification of various methods of construction and use of temporary winter roads constructed on soils of high ice content and the study of the subsequent impact of these roads on the affected ground surface and vegetation; (b) follow up studies at three sites of 1970 track and low pressure tire vehicle trails in and adjacent to the Mackenzie Delta to determine the long term impact of various types, loads and operating methods of these vehicles, used in summer operations, on the ground surface, vegetation and the stability of ice soils; (c) financial support to the Geological Survey of Canada to enlarge and accelerate the geological mapping and soil performance testing in the Mackenzie basin and adjacent regions in order to provide geological, subsurface and surface data and soil performance data along the proposed oil and gas pipeline routes; (d) investigations into the energy balance and heat exchange properties of ice soils (permafrost) and a study of the effects, both short and long term, of heat energy changes on soil structures and stability.
2.	Yes in so far as 1 (c) and (d) above are concerned.
3.	Preliminary reports by end of 1971. Final reports by fall, 1972.
4.	The regular ALUR program is budgeted at $500,000 for 1971-72 fiscal year.
Organization
Bio Research Labs, Montreal, Quebec Universite Laval, Quebec, Que. Narcotic Addiction Foundation, B.C.


DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS ALLOCATED TO COMBAT DRUGS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What is the distribution, to date, of the $4.5 million allocated to combat drug abuse?
2.	What organizations and/or individuals have received funds from this allocation (a) what date (b) in what amount?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): 1. Four programs have been initiated from this budget allocation, (a) The Information Program is functioning within a budget of $1.1 million. Data retrieval, data Analysis, information processing and communication have all commenced and portions of the budget have been used to initiate the administrative and scientific components in the Program, (b) The Research Program has a budget of $1.2 million. Grants totalling $369,605 have already been approved for distribution during the current fiscal year. The corresponding budget requested by applicants was $1.4 million. The grants committee meets at frequent intervals to assess applications as promptly as possible. See Appendix for a listing of the organization and individuals who have received funds from this allocation insofar as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned, (c) The Analytical Services Program has a budget of $200,000. New facilities are being established and existing services are expanding to analyze street samples of drugs for the benefit of physicians and institutions in the treatment of drug users, (d) The Innovative Services Program has a budget of $2 million. A number of applications are presently under consideration and at least ten of these will be assessed by a Grants Committee which will meet in approximately one month. The budget requested in the first ten applications is $651,295. Inquiries for funds submitted by more than 100 other groups exceed the $2 million budget for Innovative Services. Many of these enquiries will develop into actual applications for funds.
2. See following appendix.
Individual	Date	AmountC.	I.	Chappell	March	30,	1971	$31,000P. E.	Roy & R.	Belleau	March	30,	1971	25,000D.	A.	Denholm	March	30,	1971	4,500


GRANT-CANADIAN PROTEIN PELLETS LTD., SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Gleave: 1 Has the Department of Regional Economic Expension made a grant to Canadian Protein Pellets Limited in Saskatchewan?
2.	What individuals are listed as shareholders of that company and what individuals are listed as president and vice-president?
3.	What is the total capitalization of the company?
4 Was the feasibility and market study undertaken by the Province of Saskatchewan in regard to the potential develop-

ment of the dehydrated alfalfa pellets industry considered when studying grants for this or other projects?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. No.
2 and 3. Information provided by business firms in the course of government investigation of proposals is on a confidential basis.
4.	Relevant studies are considered, in co-operation with provincial governments and other federal departments.
June 21, 1971


RESEARCH INTO POLAR BEAR POPULATION
Mr. Coates: Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development initiated new studies and examinations into the polar bear population as a result of the concern indicated by naturalists in all parts of the world regarding the depletion in this species of animal and, if so (a) on what date were these studies initiated (b) on what date will a final report be made available to the Department (c) will this report be made public?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Environment):: When the Canadian Wildlife Service was still part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it established on July 7, 1969, the Administrative Committee for Polar Bear Research and Management in Canada. The Committee is composed of representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial governments and co-ordinates polar bear research and management within Canada, (a) The Canadian Wildlife Service started research on the polar bear in 1961. The program expanded in 1966. (b) Reports and Progress Notes are published from time to time. The latest publication is Progress Note No. 13, December 1969. (c) The reports are public documents.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Malie: 1.	What is the salary of the Members of the National Research Council?
2.	What are the basic criteria for the appointment of the Members?
3.	Has the Chairman of the Union Catholique des Cultivateurs been appointed to the National Research Council and, if so (a) what functions has he been assigned (b) what is his salary?
Company
Canadian Johns-Manville Co. Ltd. Les Industries Rockland Ltee Eastern Canada Packaging Ltd. Fibres de Verre de l'Est Inc.
An offer was also accepted by C. J. Brown and Co. (reported February 11, 1970) but later declined (reported June 11, 1970). Four of the applications were withdrawn. In one case an offer was made but declined. Two offers are pending. Two applications are being processed. Information about the firms concerned must remain confidential, because it relates to the competitive positions of the companies, unless and until an offer is accepted.


COST OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON FARM MACHINERY
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the final cost of the Barber Commission?
2.	What were the total printing expenses?
3.	Where were the studies and the final report printed?
4.	What was the total cost of the translation services?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: The Royal Commission on Farm
Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 12(1) of the NRC Act, members do not receive any salary.
2.	Individual competence and ability to contribute to the work of the Council as determined by the Governor-in-Council.
3.	No.


RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY-PROJECTS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	For each year, since the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, how many projects were submitted to the Department from the constituency of Richmond?
2.	What are the names of the companies or individuals who submitted projects?
3. For each project, what was (a) the amount of capital requested (b) the number of jobs created (c) the nature of the project?
4.	Which projects were accepted and what allocation was approved by the Department?
5.	Which projects were rejected and for what reasons?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. 1969-70, six; 1970-71, six; 1971-72, two.
2, 3, 4 and 5. Offers were accepted by four companies
as follows:		
Estimated		
Amount of	Number	Type ofIncentive	of Jobs	Project$307,530	Nil	Modernization186,633	125	Expansion14,274	13	Expansion47,485	112	New
Machinery has provided the following information: 1. The cost to May 31, 1971, is $1,556,433. Additional costs will be incurred during June and July, 1971.
2.	Printing costs to May 31, 1971 are $54,974. There are still some outstanding charges to be paid.
3.	By the Queen's Printer, Ottawa.
4.	Total and final cost is $11,286.


DAIRY SUBSIDY QUOTAS, ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. Yewchuk: Does the government intend to adjust the subsidy quotas on milk and cream delivery to assist the small factories in the raw Cheddar Cheese Industry in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec and, if so, on what date can an adjustment be expected?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: There are no plans to adjust dairy subsidy quotas specifically for shippers to Ontario and Quebec cheese factories.

June 21, 1971
Orders for Return



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many Regional Offices are maintained by the Department of National Health and Welfare at the present time, across Canada?
2.	Where, in each city, town and/or village are they located?
3.	On what dates were they opened?
4 How long have they been in their present location?
5.	What space does each occupy and at what cost?
6.	Where was each previously situated?
7.	What space, and at what cost, did each previously occupy?
8.	Where applicable, what were the costs of refurnishing, remodelling and moving?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO PAKISTAN
Mr. Douglas: 1.	(a) What were the total Canadian grants made to Pakistan in 1969 (b) what were the specific projects, the location of each project and the amount for each of these projects?
2.	(a) What were the total Canadian loans made to Pakistan in 1969 (b) what were the specific projects, the location of each project and amount for each of these projects?
3	(a) What were the total Canadian grants to Pakistan
in 1970 (b) what were the specific projects, the location of each project and the amount for each of these projects?
4.	(a) What were the total Canadian loans made to Pakistan in 1970 (b) what were the specific projects, the location of each project and the amount for each of these projects?
5.	(a) What amounts are being budgeted for 1971 for grants and loans to Pakistan (a) for what specific projects will these monies be utilized (b) what are the locations and amounts for each of these projects?
6.	What amount of relief aid is being made available to East Pakistan?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanlield (Leader of the Opposition):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the unemployment outlook for the balance of the year. I was disappointed that the minister did not make any such forecast in his budget. I presume this was simply an oversight on his part.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition and to all hon. members, if there are going to be a number of questions asked of the Minister of Finance, that the budget debate does not start today, so I would think that statements should not be made but questions asked.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would now facilitate the debate on the budget by indicating the rate to which he expects seasonally adjusted unemployment to decline by the end of 1971?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: If I did that the hon. gentleman would immediately disagree with any figure I might produce. I stand by what I have said: there will be a downward trend in seasonally adjusted unemployment throughout this year and on into next year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the making of his prediction with regard to the growth of the gross national product, in excess of 9 per cent for the balance of 1971, did not involve an estimate of employment or unemployment during the same period, and will the minister not disclose the figures with regard to unemployment in the same way as he has disclosed his estimate concerning the gross national product?


Edgar John Benson: It is traditional in budgetary statements to indicate the estimated growth in the gross national product but not to indicate estimated changes in unemployment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the minister has consistently refused to assist in the establishment of an independent short-term forecasting unit as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada, will he not follow the course suggested by the Prime Minister the other day by disclosing public information with respect to unemployment, bearing in mind the tremendous importance of such information to municipalities and others who are trying to make their plans for the balance of the year?


Edgar John Benson: As the hon. gentleman knows, there are already independent short-term forecasting bodies in Canada-one is at the University of Toronto-which have made forecasts with regard to unemployment, the gross national product and a great many other things.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Since the minister seems to be reluctant to give us his prediction for unemployment this year, may I ask whether there has now been a change in policy in the sense that the hon. gentleman will no longer accept unemployment figures such as the Economic Council of Canada's 3 per cent, and that the figure for full employment will be purely arbitrary, based on how the minister feels about it?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think any government has made known what it would consider to constitute full employment in Canada. The only opinion I have heard in this regard is that of the hon. member, talking about 5 per cent.


Max Saltsman: I hope the minister was not serious in that comment. Otherwise I would have to call him a name which would not be proper in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 21, 1971


Max Saltsman: 1 should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Since on February 17, in reply to my hon. friend from Skeena, the hon. gentleman told the House that his forecast of unemployment levels would be revealed in the budget speech, and since no such forecast was made in the budget speech, would the minister tell the House why he failed to keep this commitment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is argument. Perhaps I should allow the minister to reply briefly but I do not think a question of this kind should be asked at this time.


Edgar John Benson: I have said, and I said during the budget speech, that I expect a downward trend in seasonally adjusted unemployment. That is my forecast.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has a supplementary to the previous question.



OPINION OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE RESPECTING FULL EMPLOYMENT

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In light of what the minister has said, was the highly placed but unnamed official in his department who was reported over the weekend as saying the department considers full employment in Canada to mean 5 per cent unemployment speaking for both the government and the minister in making that kind of assessment?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not even aware that such a statement was made!


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the minister. Is he prepared to stake his reputation on his forecast that there will be a downward trend in the seasonally adjusted rate, and if in fact there is not a downward trend during the balance of this year and next year is the minister prepared to resign? '


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Baldwin:: What reputation?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INVESTIGATION OF APPROVED PROJECTS PROMOTING SEPARATISM IN QUEBEC

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. '
Are officials from his department presently investigating projects accepted under the Opportunities for Youth
Inquiries of the Ministry
program which would aim at providing direct assistance to separatist propaganda in Quebec?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the officials in charge of the Opportunities for Youth program do investigate and make constant checks on all projects under way, but they certainly cannot check allegations as deprived of any element of evidence and specific detail as those made by the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Has the minister delegated any officials from his department to Rouyn-Noranda, so as to ascertain the veracity of my statements?


Gérard Pelletier: I have as yet heard no definite allegations, Mr. Speaker, except that some projects originated from one address in Rouyn-Noranda. That is the address of a regional development council which ensured co-ordi-nat.on of youth projects. We are pursuing the inquiry, but we see nothing abnormal with a development council assisting young people in co-ordinating the presentation of their projects.


David Réal Caouette: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Secretary of State be willing to come with me-I will be holding his hand-to check locally on what is happening?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-NORTHERN WILDERNESS PROJECT-KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in connection with the Northern Wilderness project, which is described in the handout as giv.ng young people the "practical experience of living for two weeks or longer in a wilderness youth camp", in light of the fact that two Americans were fined for growing marijuana at the camp. Can the minister advise whether the full particulars with respect to this project were made known to the government of Premier Bennett of British Columbia, and did that government give its approval to this project?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an opinion on that particular project, but, if the government of British Columbia was not notified, this was an exception and an error, because all provinces, I repeat, all provinces were invited to send us a permanent representative, if they so wished, to check all projects with us. And those that did not send a permanent representative did designate someone with whom we rema.ned in constant communication and to whom all projects were submitted at some time or other. There were no direct contacts between the federal government and municipal authorities because it was up to the provinces to deal with the municipalities.

June 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Conceding that a number of the projects are useful and have very effective purposes, would the minister consider tabling, in response to requests by hon. members, particulars and correspondence in respect of those projects which quite obviously are not desirable?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is undesirable in the opinion of the hon. member for Peace River. He should give me a list of the projects he considers undesirable. On the other hand, I am very pleased that he recognizes at last that there are some valuable projects among the ones young people have submitted. If he wishes to give me a list of the projects he considers undesirable, we will be able to give him all particulars in this matter. There is nothing secret in this connection.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-COMPENSATION TO STUDENTS WHOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked by another member of the Secretary of State. In view of the confusion surrounding the Opportunities for Youth program, largely due to inadequate lines of communication between the office of the Secretary of State and field branches, will he compensate students who have begun their programs and now find their applications for grants rejected?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I object to the hon. member's allegations and I do not see how I can follow up his question unless he tells me which projects are involved.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, is the minister again trying to say that he does not back statements made by Ed DeLong, program director and field representative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative.



MANPOWER


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Was there a directive forwarded to the Canada Manpower Centres regarding student employment to the effect that they not release any figures and statistics on the registration and placement of students to the press and the general public?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I would have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I know of no such directive.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, when the minister does check and finds there was a directive sent on May 19, will he give the House the reason for that directive? Will he also be prepared to table it and explain why his department engages in such restrictive measures in a country which brags about participatory democracy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INCOME TAX


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the government's decision in the budget to eliminate the three-year tax-free period in respect of co-operatives and credit unions. Since the minister in the same budget has allowed the mining industry an extension to 1975 before eliminating their three-year tax-free period, will he consider doing at least as much for the co-ops as he has done for the mining industry and extend the coming into force of the provision affecting co-ops to 1975?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the three-year exemption runs out in 1973, but I would like to check the date. I have had no submissions from the co-ops requesting what my hon. friend indicates should be done.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, if such submissions are made will the minister give them consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that the question is at least apparently hypothetical.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the minister stated in the House when asked a question some time ago that he was not able to announce the names of the president and the general manager of the Canada Development Corporation until the bill authorizing the establishment of that corporation had been passed by the House, and in view of the fact that this happened some two weeks ago, is he now in a position to announce the names of these two gentlemen?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the bill has not yet received royal assent.

June 21, 1971


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question. As the government is now being turned down by even second and third class businessmen to head up with this Edsel-type business, will the minister advise the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -how the government expects-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question asked in those terms is entirely out of order.


George Harris Hees: -to get this headless monster into
operation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings that he should resume his seat when the Speaker is attempting to obtain order in the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to Your Honour for not hearing your admonition, but I was so interested in watching the contortions of the Minister of Finance that I simply lost track of what you were saying.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



WELFARE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare perhaps I might direct this question to the government House leader. In view of the recent findings by the Canadian Council on Social Development that many day-care centres in this country do not meet reasonable standards of health and safety, is the government planning to introduce at an early date a national day-care act as recommended in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women so there can be established national standards together with adequate government contributions?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if by an early date the hon. member means the present session, I would have to tell him the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister rules out the present session is he ruling out the entire session or just the part between now and June 30?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the whole session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How slow can you be?
Inquiries of the Ministry



HOUSING


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Different rates of interest have been established in large cities in order to help small wage-earners to become homeowners. Have these interest rates been standardized now in all Canadian regions to help those who are not living in large centres?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 

IMMIGRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the minister told the House he would not be introducing amendments to the Immigration Act nor to the Immigration Appeal Board Act before the summer adjournment, is he in a position to give the House the assurance that no executive action will be taken to the prejudice of the close to
5,000	people whose appeals are now pending before the Immigration Appeal Board until the House has had a chance to consider any such action?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to follow the hon. member's question. I do not know of any executive action that could be taken which would be prejudicial. Certainly I do not see any being intended. We might examine whether anything can be done, short of legislation, to facilitate dealing with those cases, but nothing that would prejudice the cases that are at hand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am inquiring of the minister because of reports that action might be taken which would abrogate any rights they might have acquired in the interval over the period of two or three years they would have to wait for their appeals to be heard.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member's mind can be completely at rest because in my opinion the legal situation takes care of that adequately and in addition there is no intention to seek any other alternative.
24171-33^

Inquiries of the Ministry



INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS FOR STUDY DURING SUMMER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
June 21, 1971
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration give us an answer to the question I asked a short while ago in respect of presenting amendments to the Immigration Act for first reading so we might study them during the summer recess?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that is now rather unlikely. Although I can appreciate the hon. member's interest in the matter, there are other advantages, as I indicated previously, in examining the situation up to the last moment before bringing before the House the bill we would intend to proceed with.



WELFARE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the House today to answer questions relating to the proposals made by the federal government relating to the integration of federal-provincial social welfare policies. Will the Acting Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will make a statement, particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is now discussing this program on television and in view of his statement that these administrative arrangements would provide an additional $60 million to the province of Quebec?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was unavoidably detained from being here at eleven o'clock. He is arriving at noon today. I shall draw to his attention immediately the representation of the Leader of the Opposition.



TAXATION


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to issue a white paper on the proposed reform of the federal sales and excise taxes for public consideration?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, in my opinion reform is quite a way off. The necessary studies and acquisition of staff in order to carry out the kind of studies I envisage should be done have not taken place at this point.



BROADCASTING


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Did the minister when he was in Victoria have conversations and discussions with his opposite numbers in the governments of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec to resolve some of the conflicting claims in the field of cablevision and, if so, has he anything to report?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker. The program of the conference was very heavy and did not allow for this type of contact. However, I did get in touch with the minister responsible for communications in British Columbia but he made no special representations to me concerning broadcasting.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cabinet directive of June 4, 1970, which understandably is still the law of the land, is the cabinet amending that directive so that the CRTC can entertain an application on June 28 to award a broadcasting licence to an agent of the Crown in right of a province?


Mr. Pellelier:: Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing as yet to change the instructions given to the CRTC. On the other hand, I know of no application being made to the CRTC, for June 28, on behalf of a provincial government agency.



PROPOSED BAN ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING-POSITION OF UNITED STATES NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare having to do with the ban on cigarette advertising. In view of the fact that split-run editions of print media with cigarette advertising removed from editions is possible, will the government ban the entry and circulation of United States newspapers and magazines carrying cigarette advertising?


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that for the moment there is no question of it, except in cases when American dailies and magazines distributed in Canada would advertise Canadian brands of cigarettes.

June 21, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. I will come to him after seeing the hon. member for Waterloo who has a supplementary.



PROPOSED BAN ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING-INVESTIGATION OF IMPACT ON CANADIAN MAGAZINES

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Secretary of State. Since some of the information we are receiving regarding the ban on cigarette advertising is that it will hurt some Canadian magazines-I might point out that we agree with the ban on cigarette advertising-does the minister intend to take a look at the impact of this measure on the media in Canada and perhaps even on the question raised by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is part of the study we undertook on the whole problem of periodicals in Canada, even before the introduction of the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize
the hon. member for Fundy-Royal after the Leader of the Opposition.



INDUSTRY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State give the House some assurance as to when the government will be making its recommendations or on what date it will make its position known with regard to the aid or encouragement it proposes to provide for Canadian periodicals?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I would not be in a position to give a date at this moment. The Leader of the Opposition must be aware of the complexity of the question, in the light of the fact that, traditionally, the press has always been jealous of its independence of public authorities, and that it is necessary to consider indirect means, that is to say assistance that would not affect in any way the independence of the written press. While these measures are intended to help it, their effect should not be such as to impair its independence, or to make it appear less independent of public authorities.



PULP AND PAPER-PROVISION OF NATIONAL REFORESTATION PROGRAM

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Environment and Fisheries. In light of the government's priority concern for pollution in the pulp and paper industry and as conservation and recycling mean reforestation for this industry, is the government considering approaching the provinces to design a national reforestation program and, in view of student unemployment, could these plans be brought forward quickly?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, these sound like questions which will be discussed when the environment ministers meet here on the 29th of this month.



FINANCE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As the minister anticipates a budgetary deficit of three-quarters of a billion dollars in 1971-72 and total cash requirements of almost $2J billion or twice as high as last year, does the minister expect to pay a much higher interest rate on Government of Canada bonds than on the last issue?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is an impossible question to answer.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the Department of National Revenue recently made a ruling which will force school boards to apply for a manufacturer's sales tax licence for any manufactured goods in excess of $3,000?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is looking up that one maybe he could check into this one too. What situation prompted the department to levy a federal tax on the cabinets, shelves, cupboards, racks and stands which are built by the maintenance staffs of school boards and I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question and perhaps the one asked originally by the hon. member ought very well to have been placed on the order paper. It seems to me that kind of question is normally placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, of course it can be considered at the time of adjournment.

June 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



SUBSIDY PAYMENT TO WOOL PRODUCERS FOR 1971

Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister indicate whether a wool subsidy payment will be made to wool producers in the 1971-72 production year, and will the minister make a statement in this regard before the House rises for the summer recess?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot announce when a payment will be made except to say that I have advised the representatives of the wool producers' organization that we probably will not be making a payment for the 1971 production year and that about two months ago we made a payment for the wool that was produced in 1970.



MANPOWER


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister indicate whether he is contemplating any changes in the Occupational Training Act, specifically with regard to the 52-week period and the requirement that a person has to be in the work force for three years, which is denying some people the opportunity to take advantage of the retraining programs?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, both of these matters have been under review but no legislation is contemplated in the very near future. The 52-week rule of course is helpful in bringing courses to a stage where the maximum amount of training can be accomplished in that time. This is the emphasis in the department at the moment.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of very serious statements by members of the Indian government over the weekend, is Canada taking any initiative to have the refugee problem of India-Pakistan referred to the appropriate body of the United Nations?


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will make a statement later this week about East Pakistan and he will certainly cover this aspect of the question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, and I have given him notice. Will released inmates of penitentiaries be treated differently under the new Unemployment Insurance Act from other claimants?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. They will be treated exactly the same because of the easier requirements of eligibility.


INDUSTRY
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier of the Secretary of State. In view of the indication the Secretary of State has given the House that he intends to carry out a study on the matter of cigarette advertising, can he indicate whether he intends to take a look at measures to assist the magazine industry to compensate for the loss of cigarette advertising?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there are some measures under study at the present time, but not only to compensate for the loss on cigarette advertising or products related to cigarettes. We are considering the whole question, that of a viable periodical press in Canada, a problem that existed even before the legislation against cigarette advertising, a problem that still exists and is seriously aggravated by the fact that cigarette advertising represents a high percentage of the total advertising revenue of periodicals. We are considering the whole issue.


TRANSPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications may I ask the government House leader if he would undertake to discuss with the chairman of that committee the failure of the committee to report to the House on a resolution passed by the committee empowering the committee to travel from place to place in southwestern Ontario with a view to discussing the applications by the railways to discontinue rail passenger service, as per the substance of the motion sought to be moved today by the hon.

June 21, 1971

member lor Wellington-Gray-Dufferin-Waterloo under
Standing Order 43?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, I will discuss the matter with the chairman of the standing committee who probably will be in the House later and to whom the hon. member can pose the question directly.
[DOT]i* si* *1*


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Can the minister tell the House what steps have been taken by his department to reach agreement with the Russian government concerning the matter of conservation of marine resources off our east coast?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the	latest	discussions were	during the ICNAF
deliberations at Halifax. There have not been any since. However, we meet the Russians from time to time and expect to again in a few months.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE CONFUSION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the previous one I asked the Secretary of State, and it is not argumentative. Since the minister said earlier that he does not accept the premise that Opportunities for Youth is a confused program, that communications between the minister's office and field branches are very poor, and that the program was set up too quickly and should have been set up last fall, how does the minister intend to deal with Mr. Ed De Long, western regional officer, who made these statements publicly recently in Edmonton?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am always a little suspicious when hon. members start a question by assuring the Chair that it is not argumentative. The question may be in order and the minister may want to reply briefly, but I do feel there are some aspects of it that the Chair has difficulty accepting procedurally. However, I have no objection to the minister replying briefly at this time.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I am allowed to answer these allegations or that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course it is well known that a question should not contain allegations. Sometimes I feel I should take Beauchesne, read the citation for the benefit of all hon. members and remind them of what questions
Inquiries of the Ministry
should not contain. Questions should not contain statements or alleged statements of facts, and allegations. Questions should not be based on allegations. In any event, the hon. member knows that to that extent his question would not be in order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that I should not be using statements, but is the minister again stating that the press is wrong in quoting someone-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.
He *	*


NATIONAL AND ROYAL ANTHEMS
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. It is a perennial one. Now that we are near the end of this session and anticipating another one, can he give the House some indication that legislation will be brought forward to enshrine in statute form our national anthem and our royal anthem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some inquiries on that point and advise the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Gilbert: My question is directed
to the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. In view of the conferences being held very shortly by the Ontario government and the New Democratic Party with regard to foreign ownership of Canadian companies, would the minister set forth the position of the federal government so that these discussions may have a national meaning and context?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will
appreciate that this kind of statement ought to be made on motions.


John Gilbert: May I rephrase my original question to the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. In view of the forthcoming meetings of the Ontario government and the New Democratic Party with regard to foreign ownership in Canada, would the minister make a statement with regard to the federal position so that these conferences may be more meaningful and have a federal context?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be possible for such a statement on government policy to be made before these conferences take place.

June 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


WHEAT SALE TO SOVIET UNION-SHIPMENT THROUGH CHURCHILL
Mr. Roberl Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Wheat Board in regard to the recently announced sale of wheat to the Soviet Union. Is the minister in a position to say whether Russia will be taking delivery of some portion of this wheat through the port of Churchill?


Otto Emil Lang: The agreement included an option for the Russians to take certain portions through Churchill, Mr. Speaker. At the moment I do not have definite word on the amount which will be taken but I shall be glad to look into that for the hon. member.


Robert Simpson: Is the minister in a position to tell the House whether the saving that could accrue to them by shipping through this port was brought to the attention of the negotiators for the Soviet Union?


Otto Emil Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. member that I personally discussed this matter with Mr. Belousov and Mr. Kuzmin when they were here and the Wheat Board had done so before. Mr. Belousov, the Chairman of Exportkhleb, was on his way back to Winnipeg and it was one of the subjects they were going to work on further. A great deal of grain had already been programmed through Churchill. As usual the question was the extra amount of loading onto boats that could be done during the regular period. They were also going to look at the question of whether any later days in the shipping season might be used than had been the practice in the past.


WHEAT SALE TO SOVIET UNION-POSSIBILITY OF RESALE TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Richard Russell Southam: have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board with respect to the recent sale of wheat to Russia. During the negotiations was there any indication by the Russians that this wheat was for use within Russia or was it sold at such a price that Russia could sell it to other countries which are Canada's customers?


Otto Emil Lang: The wheat was sold at the price the board was quoting at the time, Mr. Speaker. In certain circumstances the buyer has the right to select alternate destinations. As has been the custom for a considerable time now, a portion of this particular sale involved flour for Cuba.


CONTINUATION OF MINIMUM PRICE FOR DOMESTIC WHEAT
Alfred Pullen Gleave: 
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the price of $1.95J for domestic wheat will be continued in the new crop year. The exact amount which was involved and which therefore resulted in a higher payment to farmers in the Wheat Board final payment is not known to me at this time. I shall ask the Wheat Board to supply figures on the number of bushels consumed in Canada on which a higher price was in effect. There was a significant difference between the world price and the price of $1.95J, so the amount of money would be significant.


HARBOURS
Jack Marshall: have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister indicate if a proposal has been submitted by or a request received from the province of Newfoundland to improve harbour facilities at Stephenville in order to support the linerboard mill which is a big investment?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Marshall: Could the minister give me a clearer understanding of what will take place with regard to harbour improvements at Stephenville?


Arthur Laing: We are making an assessment of the requirements. We want to be certain that an investment there would be used economically and we are awaiting the presentation by certain people of the uses to which they propose to put our investment.


AGRICULTURE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
The recent budget repeals the 12 per cent sales tax on margarine. Considering that this has an adverse effect on dairy producers, does the minister intend to increase subsidies to the Canadian dairy industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not
regard this as an attack on dairy producers at all, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the hon. member that there have been two increases to producers of dairy products within the last five months.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

June 21, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
June 18, 1971-The following proposed motion:
That the following Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
"To His Excellency the Right Honourable Roland Michener, C.C.,	C.D., Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of
Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the Order in Council laid upon the table of the House on June 18, 1971, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Science and Technology, prays that the making of the said Order in Council be approved."-The Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River rises on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, without in any way objecting to the procedure we are now adopting because it is our hope to facilitate the discussion of this particular proposal, I want to place before Your Honour and the House a suggestion for the future, having in mind that this is the first of the motions dealing with new departments of state under the government organization bill passed by the House.
In this connection the Prime Minister on Friday laid upon the table a proclamation which proposes to establish the new ministry of state. It was not done pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) so no notice was given to hon. members who under normal circumstances might wish to discuss the matter. It happens that there has been a lot of discussion about this particular ministry. There is willingness to see it established, so I do not think any damage has been done. I would point out to Your Honour, however, that what we are doing is substituting this procedure for action by statute with all the opportunities that a statute affords to hon. members to deal with the matter by way of amendment and debate.
I had already informed the government House leader that I was going to raise this point of order and I would urge him to place before his colleagues the necessity and desirability of using Standing Order 41(2) and giving public notice to the House that a proclamation is being tabled. In this way there would be ample time for members to study it prior to debate. In this case my hon. friend the member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) will reply for our party and he should have had an opportunity to study it in order to make recommendations and make a useful contribution to the debate. This is difficult when we are compelled to deal with an important matter on short notice.
I am not really finding fault because we have had discussions preceding this particular proposal, but I would urge that this procedure be followed in future. I know that Standing Order 41 (2) is permissive and not mandatory, but I would suggest that this is the ideal
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry procedure to be used to give adequate notice of the particular proclamation and the details included in it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to make a comment on the suggestion of the House leader for the Official Opposition, Mr. Speaker. As he has stated, the instrument or proclamation was tabled in accordance with the regular procedure. I believe it would be a good thing in the future if on the day a proclamation is laid on the table a minister or member of the government would stand up and advise the House that the instrument is being tabled. In this case it was tabled on Friday. It is true that only the most diligent member would have sought out his notice paper early on Saturday morning in order to find the report-
noon)


Gerald William Baldwin: We were studying another paper on Saturday morning.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and prepare to reply to the document in question. I attempted to some extent to overcome that difficulty by informally telling hon. members that the Prime Minister was tabling this proclamation and that the motion would probably be called on Monday. Having said that, I fully agree that it would be much better in future for the minister to stand up and say that it is being tabled and thus give the House notice.


Gerald William Baldwin: We shall probably be having one every week from now on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,
even if one had been diligent and found the reference to this matter in Votes and Proceedings, which were received over the weekend, it was not possible until this morning to get from the sessional papers office a copy of the actual proclamation. We managed to do that this morning and we make no complaint on this occasion. We welcome the statement of the President of the Privy Council and hope, in particular, that he will give us plenty of warning with respect to the proclamation that we anticipate will be introduced before June 30 having to do with the ministry of state for housing and urban affairs.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the following Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
"To His Excellency the Right Honourable Roland Michener, C.C.,	C.D., Governor General and Commander-In-Chief of
Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the Order in Council laid upon the Table of the House on June 18, 1971, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Science and Technology, prays that the making of the said Order in Council be approved."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the adoption of the proposed text of an order in council for the establishment of a ministry of state for science and technology, I would like to take the opportunity to review briefly where

June 21, 1971
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry Canada stands and has stood in the matter of the organization for science in national policy.
It was only in the last decade-the sixties-that countries first began to consider science as a significant factor in national policy and to seek organizational structures to recognize this fact. As members are aware, it was the Royal Commission on Government Organization, the Glassco Commission appointed in 1960, which first made a comprehensive study of this subject in Canada and reported on it in January, 1963. As a consequence, as early as 1964 the government of the day established the science secretariat within the Privy Council Office to provide a focus for policy co-ordination of those matters which had a singificant content of science and technology.
About the same time, a major study was made on behalf of OECD by a distinguished group of international consultants headed by Pierre Piganiol, formerly Delegue General de la Recherche Scientifique of France. The report of this group had a major influence on the creation of science policy bodies in many countries and was consistent with what had already been proposed in Canada.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to refer to a number of important observations in this report of experts. I quote:
A nation needs a comprehensive and consistent policy tor the support and advancement of science, because there are more opportunities to advance science and technology than there are resources available to exploit them all. The term "science policy" is ambiguous. It too often connotes only a policy limited to the needs of science per se, and excludes the effects of science and technology on the full spectrum of national policies. . . . Maximum exploitation of scientific opportunities requires programs that combine concern for the growth of science itself and provision for the rapid, deliberate application of its fruits to human welfare. That is the substance of science policy in the full sense, as denoting consideration of the interactions of science with policy in all fields.
In 1966 Parliament adopted a related proposal of the
government based on recommendations of the Glassco Commission, when it passed the Science Council Act and created an advisory body somewhat analagous to the Economic Council. The Science Council has a special responsibility in scanning the horizon of scientific and technological developments and is expected to make publicly known the results of its studies and its opinions on scientific and technological matters. In a speech at the inaugural meeting of the Science Council, the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson said:
As governments must be pragmatic, a declared and emphasized aim of government support for science is to foster economic growth; to improve our standard of living and our way of life. To this end, we want to know that the very best available scientific knowledge and resources are being brought to bear on problems-new and challenging problems-such as water resources and water pollution; transportation; urban planning and development; automation and employment; public health; poverty in all its guises and ramifications. I have emphasized these practical applications of science. I am also well aware that it would be folly to overlook the importance of basic research. Some of man's greatest advances have come from the results of research that had no immediate practical aim-so some of our best brains must always be free to explore, to search out whatever lies beyond our present intellectual horizons.
While the demands of the sixties were great, we find on entering the seventies that national aims are changing and that economic growth is no longer regarded as an end in itself but as a means to achieve social progress. Increasingly, we regard science and technology as tools to use in achieving our broad social and economic goals. While the old preoccupations remain, new ones appear and our challenge is to meet them with the techniques and the organizations appropriate to them.
In a Review of Sciency Policy in Canada, published in 1969, the OECD examiners critically studied the Canadian situation and recommended, among other things, that there should be a minister of science without departmental responsibility or other conflicting functions.
Hon. members will also know that in the other place a special committee on science policy was appointed in November, 1967, and that it has been re-established each subsequent session. This committee under the chairmanship of the Hon. Senator Maurice Lamontagne has performed a very valuable service. At its public hearings factual information and opinion and advice have been received from many organizations, including government departments and agencies, and from distinguished scientists, not only Canadians but from other countries as well. This committee has published only the first volume of a two-volume report, and it is clear from the conclusions of this volume that the government's proposal to appoint a minister of state for science and technology and to equip him with expert staff to assist him in discharging his responsibilities, is consistent with these conclusions.
In appointing a new minister of state, it is not intended to fragment the responsibilities of other ministers and the various departments and agencies for which they are responsible. Science and technology pervade almost everything with which the government deals

defence, health, agriculture, the environment, the post office, transportation and so on. The ministers responsible for these many activities will continue to carry full responsibility for them, including the science activities which are essential to them.
The role of the proposed minister of state will be principally one of advising the government on virtually all matters relating to science and technology, including notably, advice on how best to harness the potential of activity in these fields to national goals. His policy-formulating roles will be characterized by activities such as advising, monitoring, forecasting and co-ordinating. The ministry of state will not concern itself only with advice on policies relating to the application and development of science and technology, but also with the co-ordination of programs and activities in science and technology with other policies and programs of the government. The proposed ministry of state will seek to foster co-operative relationships in respect of science and technology with the provinces, with public and private organizations and with other nations.

June 21, 1971

As social priorities turn more toward the quality of life, the uses of science and technology dictated by past priorities and preoccupations appear threatening to many. For some, this dissatisfaction turns to condemnation, not of the use of science and technology but of science and technology themselves. Yet these difficulties are not inherent in science and technology but result rather from their unguided development.
The proposed minister of state for science and technology will therefore be expected, amongst other things, to develop and use forecasting methods to try to foresee, wherever possible, both the short-term and the long-term consequences of utilizing various technologies and to advise the government, and more particularly the departments concerned, of his findings. It is hoped that we can thus avoid some of the undesirable consequences of the misuse of technology which have sometimes been encountered in the past. Nevertheless, if we are to make progress toward our broadened social goals more, not less, science will be required; more, not less, technology will be demanded. Our ability to restore and maintain the quality of the environment depends upon more knowledge and better technology. So, too, does our ability to advance health care, education, or the amenities of urban living.
The ministry of state for science and technology will be concerned with the identification of all of the government's expenditures on science activities and the objectives to which they relate. The minister will be advising on the priorities for such expenditures taking into account the significance of these science activities in support of our national goals.
The minister of state for science and technology will be concerned with international developments related to his responsibilities. In this connection, the OECD ministerial meeting planned for next October to discuss science policy in the '70's will provide an opportunity to discuss with other countries the continuing advances that Canada has been making in the field of science policy.
It is our intention to utilize science and technology still more effectively in carrying out all of the functions of government. The route to this objective may not be a short one. There is an ancient Chinese saying: "A journey of one thousand miles begins with the first step." To reach our destination we must set out, and the government believes the creation of the ministry of state for science and technology and the appointment of the minister of state constitute that necessary first step.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first debate on a motion to approve the setting up of a ministry of state as provided by the Government Reorganization Act recently passed in this session. For that reason we are creating a precedent as far as this Parliament is concerned. Therefore from that point of view this is a rather important occasion, as well as from other points of view.
Science and technology represent, of course, a large field, the boundaries of which are not carefully defined. It 24171-34J
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry
is a field that is not well understood by many of the general public.
The Order in Council which we are asked to approve sets out in considerable detail the purposes of the proposed minister of state. I do not intend to quote at length, Mr. Speaker, but I want to quote part of the Order in Council.
His Excellency in Council is further pleased to specify that the Minister of State for Science and Technology shall formulate and develop policies with respect to
(a)	the most appropriate means by which the government of Canada may, through measures within its fields of jurisdiction, have a beneficial influence on the application and development of science and technology in Canada,
(b)	the co-ordination of programs and activities regarding science and technology with other policies and programs of the government of Canada, and
(c)	fostering of co-operative relationships with respect to science and technology with the provinces, with public and private organizations, and with other nations.
It also states:
. . . the Minister of State for Science and Technology . .. shall assist departments and agencies of the government of Canada in the formulation and development of advice to the Governor in Council with regard to
(a)	the optimum investment in, and application of, science and technology in pursuit of national objectives,
(b)	the organization of the scientific establishment in the public service of Canada,
(c)	the allocation of financial, personnel and other resources to Canadian scientific endeavours, and
(d)	the extent and nature of Canada's participation in international scientific activities and the co-ordination of related domestic activities.
Let me say at once, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party heartily approve of the principle laid down here. As a matter of fact, for some time this party has urged that such a ministry or some other means to bring together scientific policy in a coherent way is one of the most urgent objectives of government organization at the present time.
I want to say a few words regarding the definition of what we are talking about. Science and technology is a wide field. There is the area of pure science which is the seeking of knowledge for the sake of knowledge in the scientific field. This is important and must not be neglected. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has said, and I am paraphrasing, many of the great advances in human science and technology have sprung from research in pure science that was carried out without realizing what the benefits might be. As a fairly highly technically advanced country we have an obligation to make a reasonable contribution to the pool of human knowledge in the scientific field. It is on the basis of this bank of knowledge that future applied science and technology will be based. Pure science, of course, is generally thought of as a field in which only scientists whom we usually associate with universities are engaged. However, there is a wider field. Although that is an important field, the government also has some responsibility to do what might be categorized as pure science in the field of astronomy and many other areas. The divid-

June 21, 1971
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry ing line between pure and applied science is blurred, as is the dividing line between applied science and technology, if there is one.
Then, of course, there is the wider field of applied science and technology which relates to determining how to solve and immediate problem. In these circumstances the taxpayer wants a good return for his money. He wants "bang for his buck," so to speak, and he is perfectly justified in demanding it. There is no point in Canada spending large sums on the development of technology or application of science if the results are to be exploited not by Canadians but by our competitors. Too frequently taxpayers' money has been spent in developing an application of science which does not find itself reflected in an expansion of Canadian industry.
Of course, the government of Canada has a group of responsibilities in the field of applied science and technology. First, it has to spend money on research and development connected with activities in which it is already directly engaged, such as the postal service and transportation. Then there is a wider sphere in which the application of science will benefit Canadians in the future by solving problems which stand between them and a better quality of life. In this direction the government has over the years invested a great deal of money. For very many years, if one includes such aspects of research as that done by the departments of agriculture and fisheries, the object of which is to find the best ways to produce food of high quality more effectively, expenditure along these lines has been continuous. This is naturally something designed to be of benefit to Canadians generally.
There are other wide areas of research which must be stimulated, for example, research into the best environment for Canadians to inhabit in the future. If we are to become a highly urbanized society, what kind of urban centres should be developed in order that Canadians may enjoy a reasonably high standard of life? This challenge is one which faces many nations of the world. There are others which apply more specifically to Canada such as the intelligent development of our great resources in the north.
Perhaps of immediate interest from an economic point of view is the stimulation of applied science and technology in Canadian industry so that our economy may become more efficient, so that it can branch out into new endeavours, so that it can export competitively, so that it can turn out products of high quality, so that it manufactures products which are suitable to the Canadian climate and environment. This, of course, is an area in which the Canadian taxpayer should get a high return on his investment in science.
One thing which distresses me is the relatively low rate of investment in science by Canadian industry itself. I should like to quote briefly from the fourth report of the Science Council of Canada entitled "Towards a Nat'onal Science Policy for Canada." The report has this to say on page one:
In particular, more emphasis in future must be placed on development and innovation-on using science and technology
to produce new or improved goods and services-and more research and development must be done close to the point where innovation will be initiated. This argument leads the Science Council to expect that an increasing share of Canadian R & D will be performed outside government laboratories, by the universities and by all levels of Canadian industry-primary, manufacturing and service.
This is a need which I believe to be generally recognized. It will be one of the great responsibilities of the minister of state for science and technology to advise on government policies which will stimulate an increase in research in the private sector. There is a great field of opportunity there in the way of tax reforms offering incentives of various kinds, and so on.
At the present time the distribution of national research and development expenditures in Canada is heavy on the side of government and light on the side of business enterprise. In this connection, I should like to quote briefly from volume one of the report of the Special Senate Committee on Science Policy where a table is given at page 132 showing that the business sector in Switzerland provides 78.1 per cent of the scientific effort of that country; Japan is next with 62.8 per cent and then Belgium with 61.2 per cent and Germany with 57.5 per cent. I could go on. Canada is in tenth place with only 31 per cent of the total expenditure on science and research contributed by the private sector. This ratio must be increased; more of our research and development must go on in private industry in close co-operation, of course, with our scientific plant in universities, government in an effort to produce a coherent science policy for Canada.
The government must enunciate a coherent and constant science policy and it must fund and support such a policy in a consistent and predictable manner as far as conditions permit. This is a field in which the practice of using the accelerator followed shortly afterwards by the brakes is especially damaging. The importance of science and technology to economic growth and productivity as well as to human welfare generally is beyond dispute, and this is recognized by almost all countries in the world. Yet the proportion of the Canadian gross national product spent on research development in Canada is 1.3 per cent, among the lowest of the industrialized nations. In the United Kingdom, for example, the figure is 2.3 per cent and in the United States it is 3.4 per cent.
Notwithstanding the inadequacy of present expenditures in Canada on research and development, the government has imposed very heavy restrictions on spending for scientific purposes. As part of its disastrous attempt to flight inflation the government has caused the cancellation of a number of major scientific projects wh:cb, if completed, would have contributed enormously to the long-range technological and scientific capability upon which the Canadian economy will depend in future years. These projects include the Queen Elizabeth telescope, the intense neutron generator and a special high altitude research program. In addition, the budgets of the major research granting agencies in Canada-the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council of Canada and the Canada Council-were either reduced or frozen.

June 21, 1971

The long-term repercussions of these government measures will be immeasurably harmful, but they have already had serious short-term effects. For example, the cuts being imposed by the government in present scientific spending in Canada have contributed significantly to the high rate of unemployment among science graduates from Canadian universities. As I have said, there is always the danger that when you put the brake on in a program of this kind you are going to accelerate the brain drain, which means you lose some of the best minds in Canada that have been educated at public expense to other countries, to the permanent loss of Canada.
I urge the government to pay close attention to the Macdonald report sponsored by the Science Council and the Canada Council regarding scientific activities in higher education. We need a clear statement of government policy in this regard. I do not think we want to set up a ministry that in its first couple of years of existence produces only white papers. Enough study has been done by various committees and commissions over the last number of years for the government to evolve a fairly precise scientific policy which should be announced in the near future, even if it is only an interim policy, so that some immediate benefit will stem therefrom. I do not think that the Canadian people want windowdressing or stalling tactics, with the government saying that now it has a ministry it has to start again at the beginning and see what it is going to do. I think we have passed that stage now.
Consideration must also be given to which standing committee of the House will deal with matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the minister of state for science and technology. Perhaps the House should also consider setting up a special committee to look into this question in the near future.
Most important of all, this ministry must give cohesion to the spending of government funds on scientific research and technology. At the present time such expenditure appears to be fragmented. Overlapping and duplication where they exist must be eliminated. The efficiency and productivity of research and development must be increased. The Canadian taxpayer is in no mood at the present time for another binge of empire building on the part of the new ministry. The setting up of this ministry should mean that in the future the Canadian taxpayer is going to get more scientific research and development for his tax dollar than he has been getting to date.
We in this party wholeheartedly support the concept of a ministry of state to co-ordinate and to make more efficient expenditure of tax money in the vitally important field of scientific research and development. This is a field that I believe is going to become immeasurably more important at an ever-accelerating rate as time goes hy.
With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying that having given our blessing to this
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry
measure it does not mean that we will approve of what may be done in the future. The new minister, whoever he may be-and we all have a strong suspicion who it is-will have a great responsibility to make good the very high expectations of the Canadian people in regard to the role he is taking upon himself.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, accepted by government, the science community and industry in all countries that the rate of scientific and technological research, investigation and experimentation must increase if we are to meet the needs of the people of the world and are properly to use our human, technical and material resources. We in this country have not been remiss in the expenditure of moneys on scientific research, though many people in this country have felt that we should have done better than we have. Between 1966 and the present day gross expenditure on scientific research and development in Canada has been of the order of $1,000 million a year. Of this, industry has contributed a little over one-third, the federal government about one-third and the universities a little less than one-third.
These figures relate to research done by these institutions, though not necessarily to who provided the funds. The federal government pays for considerably more research than that done in federal government establishments since it largely supports scientific research and development undertaken in Canada in all fields supported by the federal government including, of course, the universities.
Figures published by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which includes most European countries, Canada, the United States and Japan, show that the Canadian government actually performs a bigger proportion of the research and development work than do governments of any of the other OECD countries. The figures suggest that since the Canadian government pays for more than half of the research done in this country and performs nearly half of the work, the fault for inadequate planning, if such inadequate planning exists, lies squarely with the federal government.
I would have expected the minister, in introducing this measure that calls for the creation of a ministry of state for science and technology, to deal, if only briefly, with our past record, to deal in more than a sentence or two with the monumental research that has been done by the Senate committee inquiry into the whole question of science policy. This committee has made the most systematic and detailed study ever undertaken in this country and has held approximately 125 hearings. It has heard from almost every scientist and scientific organization working in the field of scientific research. This committee has made the most scathing comments on what we have accomplished up to date in terms of scientific research, organization, priorities and direction or the lack of it set by the government. Let me just read into the

June 21, 1971
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry record some of the comments made by the Senate committee. I do not necessarily agree with everything it has said and no person could agree with every one of its comments. I do not expect the minister agrees with everything the committee has said but I thought the minister would make some analysis of the major findings of that committee and put forward his own and the government's views on those findings. If the Senate committee findings are basically or in the main correct, then consistently over the past 50 years we have been following wrong directions and policies and a system with virtually no co-ordination or direction by the government of Canada. If the government agrees with the basic findings of the Lamontagne committee, one might have hoped that the minister in introducing this proposal to set up a ministry of state for science and technology would deal with the criticisms of that committee and indicate how we might do better if in fact we have failed in the past.
Keeping in mind what I said a few minutes ago about how we have been spending millions and millions of dollars each year since 1966 for research, let me read a few comments of the Senate committee. The first is:
Not one of the 100 significant technological innovations in the 10 industrially advanced countries since 1945 has been developed in Canada, while Canada is unimportant in terms of patents or exports of high-technology export.
Canada's dismal performance is surprising since it ranks third among industrial countries in the number of qualified scientists and engineers engaged in research and development.
The Senate committee then stated:
A good deal of research effort has been wasted, at least in terms of economic and social benefits for the country, and Canadians have had to depend on the importation of new technology, innovations or new products developed abroad.
Let me deal with some of the projects which have been failures and how money has been wasted. Let me list some over the last few years in which the minister who introduced this bill was involved either as a minister or, I suppose at an earlier stage, as a deputy minister. There was the Avro Arrow which was begun by the Liberal government in the 1950's and was scrapped by the Conservative government in 1957 or 1958. This program cost tens of millions of dollars. There was the Bobcat which is long since gone. And look at the money we have spent on satellite research. Over a period of years the Canadian government has spent heavily on research and development in this field, particularly in the course of design and construction of the ISIS and the Alouette experimental satellites. In due course RCA Victor was drawn into expenditures, and the common estimate of the total is about $80 million.
The former Minister of Communications when first announcing his project for a communications satellite made a speech in the House of Commons extolling the benefits that its design and development would bring to Canada. Later he dismissed this as unimportant and the satellite is now being bought from the Hughes Company in the United States. No one, certainly not this minister, has attempted to explain the important question. Why spend many millions of dollars on satellite research and
[Mr. Orlikow.l
development if the end result is to be an off the shelf purchase from the United States? This is an irrational use of money. Why now approve expenditures of more millions on a huge space laboratory for the Department of Communications? Are we going to do any better with this new minister? I certainly hope we will, but we certainly do not know that from anything the minister said in introducing this subject.
Let us look at the proposal to build an intense neutron generator. This is a project which would have cost tens of millions of dollars. Some millions were spent and then suddenly in 1969 the project was cancelled. Was it cancelled for budgetary reasons, because it was decided it was not a worthwhile scientific project, or was it cancelled because it was decided that the value it would bring in increased knowledge in the field of science would not be commensurate with the amount of money to be spent?
The then Secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Simon Reisman, conceded that the decision to kill the ING was made at the cabinet level. He told the committee which held hearings on the matter:
-Canada's science policy is an accidental by-product of separate cabinet decisions on individual government programs.
What a commentary on government policy! If that was the case when the ING program was cancelled, what has changed or what will change when we have a minister of state for science and technology? The minister said in introducing this proposal, and I took his words down as accurately as I could and I think I got what he said correctly, that it is not intended to fragment the responsibilities of other ministers. In other words, the scientific research now done in the departments and by the National Research Council will continue to be done and the budgetary proposals covering those programs will continue to come through these departments. It will continue to be filtered through these ministers. Is this minister then to be just another piece of windowdressing, at which this government is so good?
Let me spend another minute or two on this matter because I think the amount of money spent and the effort made by the Senate science committee headed by Senator Lamontagne were worth while to the people of this country. I think the scientists and other people interested in scientific research in this country learned a great deal from that committee. One would not have understood that from the comments of the minister when introducing this motion.
Let me read another comment of this Senate committee as follows:
In most advanced countries in western Europe, which are still strongly motivated by the desire for economic growth and affluence, prosperous export industries with a high technology content are viewed as a matter of life and death.
Heaven knows, we need more economic growth in this country, and the 6.3 per cent of the labour force, seasonally adjusted, which was unemployed last month could
June 21, 1971

use more affluence even though the minister is not very concerned about them. The statement continues:
And in these countries the emphasis in research and development has been on industrial projects leading to successful innovations, while in the United States the government has worked on the principle since the end of the second world war that the work done to meet the needs of military, atomic energy and space programs will be done by industries-
This statement then follows:
But the senior government officials who have formulated Canada's post-war science policy expected the government and universities to do all the basic research and industry to take up the work done in government or university laboratories. But this scheme did not work. It could not work. Industry in Canada has not used the results of scientific research done in government and universities, because on the whole, discoveries made in isolation from industry cannot be transformed easily into successful market-oriented innovations.
The committee further states:
The only satisfactory alternative for Canada is to foster indigenous inventions and innovations. Viewed in this perspective, Canada's present participation in the international scientific and technological race seems weak and misdirected.
I could go on quoting from the report of the Senate science committee, but I do not have the time to place on the record all the valuable suggestions made by that committee. I want to deal with what is proposed by the government today in its motion to establish a ministry of state for science and technology. It is a popular assumption that scientific research is the key to an ever-expanding gross national product and thus to a nation's prosperity. It would be very foolish to fall into the trap of believing this and therefore saying that we in Canada must spend money on research and development on the same scale as the United States. Information published in Canada by the Science Council and elsewhere shows that the United States spends three times as much on research and development as does Canada when considered in proportion to the gross domestic products of the two countries and 50 per cent more than is spent by the United Kingdom. Yet the rate of expansion of the United States economy is no greater than that of Canada or the United Kingdom. On the other hand, Canada and Sweden spend comparable amounts but the Swedish economy is expanding considerably faster than that of Canada. Japan spends about the same proportion of its gross national product on research and development as does Canada but its economy is expanding at three times the Canadian rate.
While it would be a mistake to attach too much importance to figures of this kind, we might well ask whether they do not indicate that the expenditures made by Canada on research and development are of a kind that have comparatively little to do with the development of our economy, while those made by Sweden and Japan are closely geared to meet the requirements of the industrial output of those countries. If this argument were true, it would also be necessary to infer that the expenditures made by the United States were even less relevant
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry
to the basic economic needs of that country. I believe the United States is beginning to realize that expenditures for military hardware and for putting a man on the moon may be important for prestige reasons but certainly do not help very much in developing the potential of that country or in meeting its economic needs. Indeed, we may be seeing the truth of this situation today when so much of that nation's research effort has been diverted to frills such as those I have talked about while relative stagnation has overtaken its economy. The percentage of unemployment in the United States is about the same as it is in this country. No two countries in the western world have as much unemployment as Canada and the United States.
We see no objection to the federal government being deeply involved in scientific research and development. In fact I think that is very proper. I could say to the minister that we think this is by way of being a bit of socialism, though probably achieved by accident. But we have no objection to socialism whether achieved by accident on the part of the government or by the kind of socialist direction our party would institute. The essence of socialism is that government activity should be properly planned. Indeed, it is because of the need for planning, and the facility that government operations provide for planning, that government ownership is one of the means adopted in socialist countries. In Canada it would appear that we have a form of socialism in scientific research without the structure and without the motivation toward effective planning that the socialist outlook provides.
There are four or five sections of the federal government that are deeply involved in scientific research. These include the National Research Council, set up many years ago to develop scientific and industrial research, the Medical Research Council financing medical research in universities and hospitals, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a Crown corporation established to develop nuclear energy, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which undertakes a major amount of research particularly in matters relevant to mining and mineral production, and the Departments of Agriculture and the Environment. However, many other departments carry on small amounts of research and other Crown corporations are involved such as Canadian National Railways, Air Canada, and so on. In addition, the Department of National Defence undertakes research on a considerable scale that is of military interest, but so far as I can find out has been singularly unsuccessful in its objectives. Then, of course, there are the expenditures in the field of social science which now come under the Canada Council and other organizations. The National Research Council has a double involvement in that it performs scientific research in its extensive laboratories in Ottawa and in many other locations, and at the same time is the agency through which the federal government channels money to the universities for research in the fields of pure and applied science.
Questions have been asked as to the wisdom of combining the function of disbursing funds to universities for

June 21, 1971
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry
research work with the responsibility for performing research in government-owned laboratories. The National Research Council is competing with the universities by directly performing research in the fields which it is also supporting in the universities. That this double role has in fact been carried out without arousing too much criticism does not mean this is the best method because the universities believe there are some functions performed by the National Research Council which could be better performed by the universities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member but it is one o'clock and I must now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, just before the House adjourned at one o'clock, I was pointing out that the National Research Council is responsible for supervising research done in its own laboratories and also for the allocation of funds to Canadian universities for research. The universities have complained that the National Research Council performs pure science research that would be better performed by the universities, while the engineering profession has claimed that the NRC in the past has given far too little attention to research in the applied sciences and to the needs of industry.
At present each department of government prepares a budget which is presented to the House of Commons and, when the estimates are approved, each department is essentially free to proceed with expenditures that it has decided in its wisdom are appropriate. Only the Treasury Board is in a position to assess the relative needs. I mentioned earlier that Mr. Reisman, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, said in reference to the ING project that to a large extent what was decided was the result of accident. There is virtually no cooperation between the various research activities of the federal government and the research which the federal government supports in institutions other than the government itself, such as universities, hospitals, and to a large extent in industry. Particularly, there is no correlation with the independent research of industry or private research institutions.
It is true that there is a cabinet committee on scientific and industrial research which consists of the ministers whose departments are involved in scientific research. But the Senate committee on science has pointed out that, while that committee has been in existence for many years, for most of those years it did not meet at all, and only very recently has been activated to take a belated interest in the scientific research affairs of government. Apart from this one committee, there is no mechanism for co-ordinating, much less for planning,
research activities and expenditures of the country as a whole. The Science Council is a purely advisory body, consisting of scientists and those related to scientific matters in the universities, in industry and particularly in government activities, which offers from time to time advice to the government in particular scientific fields, or as to the over-all trend in scientific research. But it is in no sense a planning body, nor does it have any kind of control as to the allocation of budgets between one area of scientific research and another.
The National Research Council, in considering applications for the support of research in the universities, is mainly concerned with providing support for individual scientists who have demonstrated capability as research workers and who succeed in putting forward a plausible claim for support of the project that is their personal special interest. In almost all cases, the grants are made on the scientific merit of the research with no reference to its relevance or validity for the community, or the economic returns which might be expected were it successful. More recently, the National Research Council has adopted a policy of making direct grants to the universities in support of specific projects advanced by the university or by the university in cooperation with industry. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no over-all look at which of the many projects proposed should be supported because they bring a more immediate benefits than those rejected.
The National Research Council has developed a vague committee structure designed to bring together the scientific workers in each of the various fields in which they are involved. These committees provide for the pooling of information and exchange of ideas, but they do not in any sense plan the scientific work in the field nor do they attempt to assess the value of the work undertaken to the community. They might be considered ivory-tower committees that are relatively effective in co-ordinating ivory towers.
The great fragmentation of federal research and federal government support for scientific research, and the confusion and lack of co-ordination that results from this fragmentation, is due largely to the way in which the parliamentary system of government operates, as well as the low priority given to the role of science activities and science policy. We have a dozen or so cabinet ministers, each of whom has complete authority over his department and is totally independent of any other cabinet minister, being responsible only to the cabinet as a whole. This means in practice that it is extremely difficult to co-ordinate the activity of one government department with that of another. It is difficult, for example, to extract the budget that relates to a given activity from each of several departments, put that budget together and review it as a single item. It is particularly difficult to do this in the case of scientific research, but until it is done, until the mechanism is changed so that a single responsibility can be established for all scientific research, we will continue to have an unplanned and presumably ineffective development activity in this coun-

June 21, 1971

try. What is the government saying to this kind of criticism, which is essentially the same kind of policy criticism as that made by the Senate Committee?
Many countries attempt this co-ordination and planning by establishing a minister of science, a minister of technology, or a minister of science policy. There is no better method of glorifying and continuing the status quo with all its faults, as has been demonstrated so successfully by the Senate Committee on Science, than by superimposing a minister of state for science and technology on everything we have had up to now. By definition he would have nothing whatever to do with the implementation of the policies. He would not be responsible for the departments that in fact carry out the research. He would be just another ivory-tower creation, examining and inventing the policy with respect to science which would hopefully be pursued by the ministers of other departments under whose jurisdiction the real scientific work was carried out.
The formulation of policy is not planning. Planning requires the establishment of a structure that would place the control of the activity, by means of budgets, in the hands of the planning authority which, within very broad limits of policy, establishes the program and the means of measuring the results achieved. A minister who had these functions would have the total responsibility both for the policy and for its implementation. This is a far different thing than is being proposed today. The minister essentially would be formulating policy which would go to the departments, to the people who are now domg the research. They would be in constant contact with their minister telling him of their research requirements. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) announced an oceanography project, circumventing the world-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stop the world; we want to get off!


David Orlikow: *-circumnavigating the world by ship to get information on the oceans and so on and this is a very worth-while project. I raised the question at the time, and we have never had an answer, of the value of that project compared with others which have been turned down. The people in the scientific community have not had an answer either.
The difficulty in establishing the kind of ministry being proposed today is that the areas in which the minister would work are already assigned to half a dozen other cabinet ministers. Thus, to achieve the objective of proper planning of the government's activity in scientific research we must face the problem of remodelling the structure of government itself, to extract from the operating departments the research activities which at present they carry on in isolation. This will be a difficult process in relation to the rigidly maintained departmental jurisdictions and the empires that have been developed within them. But some progress of this kind has already been made in other fields. For example, many of the previous departmental activities that relate to the environment have been extracted from (hose depart-
Proposed Science and Technology Ministry
ments and combined to form a new department of environment. There is no reason at all why the scientific research activities presently undertaken by each department should not be removed from that department and placed in a new department of scientific and industrial research.
It would be necessary to recognize a subresearch kind of activity in the nature of trouble shooting and information services that is necessary to an operating department in its day-to-day operations. This kind of activity is legitimate for the individual departments but all other research units should report to the minister of science and technology. That approach would go a long way toward overcoming the difficulties we have experienced in the past 50 years of so-the kind of criticisms which have come from he scientific community, the requests which one can read in every issue of "Science Forum", the kind of statements made time and time again in virtually every hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Science. There was virtually unanimous agreement that, while disciplines were receiving nearly enough money, up till then-and I suggest nothing has changed-there had been no concerted thinking on the part of the government, no organization and no department where requests from government, universities and industry could be brought together and assessed. We spend about $100 million a year and I hope a large part of this will be used to encourage the people we are training to remain and work in Canada. I hope that the money spent in this way will be used to bring necessary and useful information to the people of Canada so that we can make this a better country. I cannot feel, and I say this regretfully, that the kind of ministry proposed by the government, a ministry which will merely co-ordinate what is now being done, will do the job which I think needs to be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since debate seems to be concluded, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that it would be desirable for the document we have been debating to appear in print. When we debate a resolution, it appears in Hansard, and when we debate a bill, the bill is available. This proclamation is available only to those of us who know the way to the Sessional Papers office. I suggest that the House may agree to making this proclamation, in the form in which it was laid on the table of the House on Friday, an appendix to today's Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House accept unanimously the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to include as an appendix to Hansard the order in council that is related to this motion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion about terminology. This is not a proclamation and not an order in council. It is the draft of an order in council to be passed subsequent to a further resolution of the House.

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, to be more specific, could we have printed as an appendix sessional paper SP-283-1/190B that was tabled on Friday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House has heard the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of Sessional Paper SP-283-1/190B see Appendix "A".'}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: It has been carried unanimously, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CLEAN AIR ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair wishes to make suggestions to hon. members of the House about the procedure it would be best to follow on the study of the different motions and how they may be grouped at this stage of the proceedings. It is suggested, first, that motions 1 and 8 be grouped together for the purpose of debate and that a vote on motion No. 1 will also dispose of motion No. 8. Second, motion No. 2 appears to be beyond the scope of Bill C-224 in that it proposes to amend certain acts not now before the House.

It is suggested that an opportunity be provided for the House to hear argument on Motion No. 2. It is further suggested that motions 3, 4 and 5 be grouped together for purpose of debate and that a vote on motion No. 3 shall also dispose of motions 4 and 5. In the same vein, it is suggested that motions 6 and 11 be grouped together for the purpose of debate and, again, that a decision on motion 6 shall also dispose of motion 11. It is also suggested that motions No. 7 and 9 be combined for the purpose of debate and that a vote on motion No. 7 shall also dispose of motion No. 9. It is suggested that motion No. 10 be considered and disposed of separately. Finally, motion No. 12 seems to outline a financial provision which appears to place a charge upon public funds. The proposed motion is actually a substantive proposal. It is suggested that argument might be heard when the motion is called for debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a few comments about the suggestions you have just made. In the main, my colleagues and I accept your proposals, but I should like to make a couple of suggestions. First, we agree with the combining of motions 1 and 8. We also agree with the combining of motions 3, 4 and 5. Likewise, we agree to the combining of motions 6 and 11.
May I now go back for a moment? Your Honour suggested some doubt about motion No. 2. We recognize the area of doubt respecting this motion. It is an area of procedural doubt and, to save the time of the House on a procedural argument, my colleagues who would be debating this measure are prepared not to proceed with motion No. 2. They feel that the things they want to say on that motion they can say when they debate motions 1 and 8.
Having made that concession, namely, that we are willing not to proceed with motion No. 2 and willing even to forgo a procedural argument, we should like to suggest that motions 7 and 9 be dealt with separately rather than together. Motion 7 has to do with national standards and motion 9 with timetables. We recognize some relationship between the two, but we think there is sufficient difference between motions 7 and 9 to warrant their being deal with separately. Up to this point, Sir, that is really the only request I have made, because with respect to motion No. 2 I have simply indicated that we are willing not to proceed with it.
There is one other point. I hope I am not giving away government secrets if I say that it has been indicated to us that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) might be prepared to accept motion No. 4. If that is so, we shall be in difficulty if we debate motions 3, 4 and 5 together and Your Honour's dictum applies that a vote against 3 would kill 4. We do not object to motions 3, 4 and 5 being debated together, but since we may persuade the Minister of the Environment to accept motion 4, I hope that the vote on those three motions might be separated.
May I sum up? We forgo the moving of motion 2. We ask that motions 7 and 9 be debated and voted on separately and we ask that, although motions 3, 4 and 5 are
June 21, 1971

to be debated together, they be voted on separately in case there is a possibility of motion 4 being accepted by the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair will try to cover all the points made by the hon. member. To deal with the hon. member's first suggestion, the Chair will at this time ask if the House gives permission to the hon. member moving motion No. 2 to withdraw that motion. Does the House agree to allow the hon. member moving motion No. 2 to withdraw it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Barnett) withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: On the second point raised by the hon. member, the Chair has no objection to the separation of motions Nos. 7 and 9 for the purpose of debate and separate votes. On the last point raised with regard to motion No. 4, considering the argument made by the hon. member which is related to a particular point, it might be preferable at this state to debate these three motions together and when it comes to the vote, the Chair might at that time get the feeling of the House, including the hon. member and members of the government, to see whether there has been some agreement. Otherwise, the Chair will follow the same procedure as laid down. Does this meet with the general approval of the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it does. What Your Honour has said meets with our approval. I might point out that I made no mention of motions Nos. 10 and 12 for the obvious reason that they are on the order paper in the name of a member of the Progressive Conservative party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) moves motion No. 1 as follows:
That Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by adding the following paragraph to subclause (1) of Clause 2 immediately after line 36 at page 2:
"(m) 'mobile source' means any source of emission of one or more air contaminants by any motor vehicle, ship, train or aircraft."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, do you not put motion No. 8 at the same time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) moves motion No. 8 as follows:
That Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by (a) adding the words "or mobile" after the word "stationary" in line 2 at page 8; and
(b) deleting the word "stationary" in line 12 at page 8.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a very important piece of legislation, the clean air bill. In principle, the amendment which we are offering would expand the functions of the Depart-
Clean Air Act
ment of the Environment to include a much wider scope than that provided by the legislation presently before the House. When we talk about clean air, our party feels that clean air should deal with all the pollutants of the ambient air, the air which surrounds us.
The legislation which is currently before the House excludes all mobile sources. The automobile, which contributes over 50 per cent of the total air pollution as far as Canada and the United States are concerned, is exempted from this particular piece of legislation. This legislation does not deal with any of the pollution in the atmosphere which is caused by airplanes. This is dealt with under the Aeronautics Act. There is the complete field of shipping, railroads and everything that is mobile. Our party contends that at least two thirds of the air pollution in this country is caused by mobile sources, and is not covered by the clean air bill.
The department has explained to the satisfaction of most members of the committee, although not to my satisfaction, that these other sources of pollution are adequately covered by different pieces of legislation and by other departments. Our party has consistently indicated to the government that we feel the Department of the Environment should be responsible for all air pollution in Canada. This seems to be the logical and sensible way of dealing with air pollution. We would be most happy to have the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), in whom we have a great deal of confidence, take over the various acts and the responsibilities of other departments with regard to this phase of environmental pollution. We think it would be much better to have all these under one umbrella.
We have had a lot of pollution problems in Canada. Every nation in the world has had a host of problems. One of the main reasons for this is that the multiple jurisdic'iions, departments and different pieces of legislation dealing with the particular aspects of pollution have led to difficulties in enforcing the regulations. The best way to eliminate this situation is to bring all acts under one umbrella under the direction of one minister who can coordinate and set up the standards which are needed for every aspect of air pollution in this country as far as the federal government is concerned. That is why in motion No. 1 we have moved to bring mobile sources into the bill. For convenience, we have lumped three of the amendments which are on the order paper.
The amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) will make mandatory the right of the minister to set standards. The way the bill reads now, clause 3 reads "the minister may". We think it should read "the minister shall." It must be mandatory. It should not be left up to the department to decide whether it will or will not do something. The bill should read "the minister shall establish, shall operate and shall maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations throughout Canada". We do not want the department to say they may do something next year or the year after. It should be made crystal clear that we are going to set up a system of monitoring systems

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
throughout this nation. Clause 3(b) should read the minister shall:
collect, both through the operation of air pollution monitoring stations and from other appropriate sources, data on air pollution in Canada and process, correlate and publish such data on a regular basis;
These are simple amendments but they are very important. I trust that the minister, on behalf of the government, will accept them and bring the whole of this air pollution question under one umbrella. We think this is the only way in which to tackle air pollution throughout the nation.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I rise to speak briefly on the amendment which has been presented to the House. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has presented his proposal to the House and I wish to outline the position our party takes on the matter.
We are dealing with a most important bill, an act relating to ambient air quality and the control of air pollution. After it had been read the second time, the measure was referred to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry where it received thorough scrutiny. In that committee on May 13, the hon. member for Kootenay West moved a similar amendment and those of us who represented the Official Opposition took the stand that, though his proposition was a highly desirable one, the object it sought to achieve was not attainable at the present time. When airplanes take off and land, considerable pollution of the air is caused by emissions from their jet engines. Considerable pollution of the air is also caused by automobiles which, under the terms of this proposed amendment, would be among the mobile sources of pollution. This presents a problem to Canadians generally.
However, it is my understanding that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has, by introducing the bill before us, acted somewhat in the manner of a lighthouse-he has projected light forward to the position he would like to see in Canada, namely, one which will enable all of us to enjoy clean air and clean water. But this process must necessarily take time. We in the Official Opposition believe that the airlines and the automobile manufacturers must be given time in which to catch up with events. They have given every indication that this is their intention. If we passed the type of amendment which has been put forward, we would be placing the owners of automobiles made some years ago in an awkward position since their cars are not equipped with systems to reduce the amount of pollutant released into the air. It may be four or five years before it becomes practical to legislate in the way suggested. A similar situation exists in relation to aircraft. The industry is now trying to find ways of reducing the amount of pollutants poured into the air. While the amendment is in our view logical and highly desirable, it is really not a practical one at the present time and for this reason we find we cannot support it.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alfcerni):: I hope my observations will not be unduly long. Perhaps I might begin them at the point where the spokesman for the Official Opposition left off. He raised the important question of practicability. This, of course, is a matter of judgment. My hon. friend from Kootenay West and I put forward this proposal in the committee as being a very practical one. Indeed, it was from a practical point of view we sought to have it embodied in the bill.
All of us realize that if we are ever to achieve a high quality of environment every department of government must become involved directly or indirectly. For example, we have just completed a debate concerning the establishment of a ministry of state for scientific affairs. This new ministry should certainly become very much involved in helping to determine what kind of environment is most satisfactory for our citizens. I hope I am right when I say we all want this legislation to be effective. This is why the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) should have a direct influence when it comes to determining permitted levels of emission of pollutants from both mobile and stationary sources.
This amendment is really part of a package with the amendment which was ruled out, as far as voting is concerned, on procedural grounds, that is, the one which made reference to the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Railway Act and other acts which fall within the administrative purview of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). I wish to make it clear that this proposal is in no way to be considered as amounting to non-confidence in the Minister of Transport or in the performance by the Ministry of Transport of its functions in relation to transportation in this country. That is not at all what we have in mind. General responsibility for transportation matters rests, quite properly in our view, with the Minister of Transport and what we are proposing today would in no way alter his function or responsibility.
However, we feel that the question of the quality of the air is not something that can be compartmentalized. If the minister, as his title suggests, is going to be responsible for the environment and for environmental affairs, then when it comes to the question of prescribing standards of emissions or objectives with regard to quality of the air he, and he alone, should have the responsibility of setting the guidelines under which that quality and those objectives are to be sought.
The matter could be further illustrated by a referral to the Minister of the Environment who, as some of us are happy to note, also carries the title of Minister of Fisheries. Within his ministerial responsibilities there is, in a sense, a dual function. One of these functions has to do with the setting of appropriate standards and the administering of the machinery to police and enforce regulations having to do directly and solely with the quality of the ambient air and waters of this country, and indirectly, at least to some extent, throughout the world.
The minister's other function is an administrative and policy making function regarding what one might rough-

June 21, 1971

ly term our renewable resources, with particular emphasis on fisheries and forests in this country. So that even within his responsibility as an individual member of the government there is, I suggest, essentially the same division of authority, responsibility and function as, in our view, lie in the division that we propose between the existing functions of the Minister of Transport and the ones he would have and retain if the proposals we have advanced were put into effect. We propose that as one of his functions as Minister of the Environment he would have the responsibility for recommending to the Governor in Council the kind of standards of emissions that should be set, regardless of source, whether stationary or mobile, in any part of this country.
This, to us, is a very practical proposal that makes good common sense, one that we feel is worthy of a full assessment by the House even at this stage of the discussion of this bill. We are very anxious that what is being proposed here should be a practical success. We think it is important, not only from the point of view of the wellbeing of the Canadian people but also from the point of view, in the longer term, of the wellbeing of the people of the world. Indeed it is important, as many scientists have been pointing out, from the point of view of the very survival of the human race. All of these things are in the back of our minds, and our conclusion has resulted from listening to the testimony of very many knowledgeable and expert people who appeared before the committee or have spoken in other forums.
I had an opportunity of participating in an informal conference sponsored by the international affairs committee of the University of Toronto at which was gathered together a group of scientists, constitutional lawyers and others to assess and consider the questions that should properly be before the United Nations conference on the environment. The same concern voiced by witnesses before our committee was also voiced by the eminent people at that gathering. In my view, the net result of the discussion has underlined the urgent need for a coordinated attempt to deal with the growing dangers to quality of the environment in the air, in the water and of our soils.
As we see it, and as we made it clear at earlier stages of the discussion, if there is to be point and purpose to the creation of a Minister of the Environment as part and parcel of the total picture of our federal government structure, it is essential from the start that the minister's responsibilities include this co-ordinating role to give him authority to take the initiative in making recommendations to cabinet, and to parliament as a whole, regarding all matters having to do with the maintenance and improvement of the quality, in this particular case, of the ambient air. This is the purpose behind our amendment. We feel it would be a practical proposal to incorporate into this piece of legislation, and that is why we put it forward for the consideration of the House.
Before I sit down, I should like to say that the standing committee that considered this bill did a very good job. It was a hard working committee. Members from both sides
Clean Air Act
of the House indicated a genuine concern that, as far as lay within their power, they would try to assess the measure on its merits and to make proposals for its improvement. The fact that some amendments have been incorporated into the draft sent to the committee by the House is, I think, an indication of this.
I also suggest, for the benefit of members who were not members of the committee as well as for people across the country who may not be aware of what goes on in standing committees of this sort, that there is some very useful information and expert testimony within the pages of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry which considered the clean air bill. I think it would be well worth the time of many Canadians to study the proceedings of and evidence given before that committee.
While I was in my constituency during the period the legislation was being considered by the House, I did get a little reaction of amusement from some quarters when I informed people that the fisheries committee was considering a bill dealing with setting standards for clean air. But the mere fact that I put it in that way provided me with a useful opportunity to draw to people's attention the point that the quality of the environment is becoming more and more indivisible, and that it is not inappropriate for members of the House who traditionally have concerned themselves primarily with fisheries matters to come to grips with the quality of the whole environment and the kind of pollution going into our waters from the air, such as deposits of mercury, and so on, a subject that naturally flows from that kind of discussion.
I mention this to underline once again that, while it may be some time before the Standing Orders of the House are changed to permit a change in the name of the committee, the fact that there is a committee to which will be referred matters connected with the general quality of the environment is an indication of the point I am trying to make. Indeed, I think it underlines the practicality of the proposal that the initiative for submission to the government of proposed regulations for implementing this bill should rest with the Minister of the Environment, including the setting of standards not only for stationary sources but for the mobile sources as well.
Ron. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, members opposite who have already spoken on motions Nos. 1 and 2 stressed the fact that the quality of life is important to us all. They also suggest that this bill C-224 in its present form does divide the government's efforts or, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) said, compartmentalizes our efforts.
I disagree with this. I think first that the organization of the new Department of the Environment and, indeed, the various pieces of legislation including the clean air act, which we will hopefully pass today, will enable full co-ordination to take place at the government level across Canada, and permit us to develop standards which will be in force right across the country. In other words

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
we will be able to deal with the quality of life, and in this case with the quality of air in Canada in an effective and concerted way.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) quite correctly points out that roughly half of all air pollution originates with mobile sources, such as motor vehicles, aircraft, ships, railway locomotives and so on. We do have, however, very effective powers at the federal level to deal with mobile sources, particularly mobile sources that travel across provincial and international boundaries, in the form of several very important pieces of legislation. I refer for example to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act. We have had some of these pieces of legislation ever since Confederation in 1867, and we have had them because they are an expression of the powers that Ottawa has and which are administered by the federal government.
We have recently created a new Department of Environment which must use all the national laws, not simply our new clean air bill or the Canada Water Act which was passed last year. The department will make every piece of legislation a tool with which it can deal more explicitly with different problems. I am thinking for example of aircraft under the Aeronautics Act and ships under the Canada Shipping Act exclusively in the federal field.
We have other areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Mention was made of the Canada Fisheries Act. This is exclusively a federal act and, to the extent fisheries are affected, the laws passed by this Parliament can deal with the source. A number of pollutants enter the water from the air and it is conceivable that prosecution can be taken under the Fisheries Act to deal with these kinds of pollutants. Mercury gets into the water not only by the passage of metallic mercury into the water in the form of liquid effluent, but also from the air. We already have evidence in the form of samples taken close to chloralkali plants which use mercury in large quantities which show that mercury pollution in the water and sourrounding soil has been caused by their operations and that mercury is transported through the air. It is not stretching the imagination to suggest that we can prosecute under the Fisheries Act thereby cutting off a pollutant transported through the air.
We have before the House today a clean air bill which will enable us to deal more forthrightly with some but not all of these problems. We need these other pieces of legislation, including the Fisheries Act, although that is perhaps stretching a point,	and the Aeronautics	Act	todeal with	exhaust from jet	aircraft, the Railway	Act	todeal with	locomotives, and	the Canada Shipping	Act	todeal with	all vessels, large	and small and above	all we
need the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
These two amendments suggest we should amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act by extracting clauses that were put into it 18 months ago, and inserting these clauses in the new clean air bill. As far as I see it, it does not make
much difference which piece of legislation this is in, so long as it gets on the statute books. If anything, I would prefer it to be in a piece of legislation which was clearly federal. Where long distance transport is concerned, I do not think there can be any argument that it is a federal matter and subject to federal law.
In any case the new Department of the Environment will be concerned with the environmental aspects of many pieces of legislation and will use many different powers. I have referred principally to those coming under the Department of Transport. There are a number of other federal departments exercising powers under federal legislation, including the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I think hon. members could also have said that most of these pollutants are caused by the burning of different forms of sources of energy. The National Energy Board, when it holds hearings in the future in respect of pipelines or power plants, will certainly be using legislation other than the clean air act, but the expertise of the new Department of the Environment will be involved and will, we hope, influence a number of its decisions.
The Department of National Health and Welfare will be involved. I gather much of the power under the clean air act really falls under the federal power in respect of health. Anything that comes out of the air and affects human health can be stated to be a pollutant, and the clean air act is phrased, in part along these lines. The federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with its powers over export and import trade, can have an input as well.
I am suggesting it is not really necessary to have everything to do with air pollution included in a clean air bill. It is not necessary to have all the powers embraced in one act. We have a number of these powers already. It is, however, the task, and the responsibility, of the Minister of the Environment to make sure all these powers are exercised in a co-ordinated and effective way.
In respect of standards, I repeat that we have every intention of pressing ahead with national standards within a framework of national guidelines and objectives. I would urge, therefore, that the House reject these amendments because we have already all the legislation necessary to carry out the purpose for which these amendments were designed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on motion No. 1 proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour will please say yea.

June 21, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Laniel): All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order, the recorded division is deferred.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Hon. members will recall the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning motion No. 4. The Chair will put the three motions and, if at the time of division the Chair is made aware of an agreement in respect of mot on No. 4, a decision can be rendered then as to whether we should deal with it separately. At this stage I think the three motions should be put, unless the minister wishes to speak.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to accept motion No. 4 as set out in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. The government, however, does oppose motions 3 and 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed then that debate be on the three motions at the same time, that the vote on motion No. 3 automatically dispose of motion No. 5 and that there be a separate division on motion No. 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) moves motion No. 3 as follows:
That Bill C-2'24, An Act relating to ambient air quality and to to the control of air pollution, be amended by substituting the word "shall" for the word "may" in subclause (1) of Clause 3 in line 22, page 3.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) moves motion No. 4 as follows:
That Bill C-224, An Act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 19 inclusive at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) publish or otherwise distribute or arrange for the publication or distribution of all pertinent information which would serve to inform the public in respect to all aspects of the quality of the ambient air and of the control and abatement of air pollution."
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) moves motion No. 5 as follows:
That Bill C-224, An Act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by deleting lines 1 and 2 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"4. (1) The Minister shall formulate, with respect to all air contaminants, ambient air."


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I may say at once that I am pleased the minister has
Clean Air Act
agreed to go at least part way with the proposals submitted by the hon. member for Kootenay West and myself in these three motions. I think the meat of the point which is to be dealt with in motion No. 4 is an important change of substance in the clause as it exists in the bill at the present time. Subclause (1) (e), as found at page 4 of the bill as reported from the committee, reads:
The Minister may, publish or otherwise distribute or arrange for the publication or distribution of such information as he considers desirable to inform the public with respect to all aspects of the quality of the ambient air and of the control and abatement of air pollution.
If that subclause is considered in relation to motion No. 4 as proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West, the change in substance so far as I understand it, and I hope the minister agrees with me in this, is that the minister is to publish all pertinent information which would serve to inform the public. In other words, the purpose of our amendment is that all the relevant information should be available so that the people of Canada would have an opportunity to assess any action that might flow from the provisions of this act or to assess whether various individuals and corporate industries across the country were in fact following the spirit and the letter of the clean air act. So, the acceptance by the minister of the principle that all pertinent information is to be made public, rather than such information as he or his successors may in their discretion consider advisable, I think is important. We certainly appreciate the fact that the minister has given full recognition to the need for full disclosure of information on matters affecting the quality of the environment and information concerning what is available scientifically to cope with the problem. This is the only way we can have an informed opinion concerning what action should be taken to deal with emissions from industrial plants.
The other question involved in the two amendments has to do to a certain extent with the question of discretion. Unfortunately the minister appears to have balked at this point, because the opening words of clause 3 are "the minister may". The clause then goes on to delineate a number of activities in which the minister may engage, including the establishment, operation and maintenance of a system of monitoring stations, the collection of information, the formulation of comprehensive plans and designs for the control and abatement of air pollution, the establishment of demonstration projects and so on finally down to subclause (e) which is subject to amendment No. 4 and the matter to which I have referred, the distribution of information. So, we have this whole question about whether the minister merely may do something or whether Parliament is giving him a direct command, so to speak, that he shall do certain things. I have listened to a number of discussions concerning the difference in meaning of the words "shall" and "may". I have heard some legal people say it really does not make too much difference whether one word or the other is used. But certainly in the ordinary language of the people of the country there is a significant difference between the word "may" and the word "shall".

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
In proposing these amendments, my colleague and I wished to make as clear as we could that the minister has a responsibility to perform certain duties and that the performance of these duties is so vital Parliament should say the job should be done. We say the job should be done and the government should get on with it. The word "may" implies, you know, a now you you see it and now you don't type of attitude which conceivably could develop within the administration of this department. The present incumbent in the office of minister has been making a lot of strong sounding speeches across the country which indicate he intends to do things. We hope he does. We hope to see some immediate results flow from his activities in this new department when this bill becomes law. We do not expect the minister to achieve any miracles overnight.
Through our amendments we are emphasizing that we want the minister to get right on with the job, to know he has that clear direction from Parliament. We want people working under him in the department to know this is a job they have to do, and that we want them to get on with it. That really sums up the difference between the present wording in the bill and the amendments proposed in motions Nos. 3 and 5, which in effect simply substitute the word "shall" for the word "may" at two different points in the bill. We do not think this is a question that needs to be argued ad nauseam, but we do believe the House should have an opportunity of declaring itself on it. Therefore we put it forward in conjunction with a proposal in motion No. 4 which seeks to clarify this matter of the dissemination of information.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That Bill C-224, An Act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by substituting the word "shall" for the word "may" in subclause (1) of Clause 3 in line 22, page 3.
I do so because this amendment is identical to one I moved in committee on May 11 when this bill was under study. In the opinion of the Official Opposition, the word "may" in this context makes the wording of the bill incomplete, since we are talking about national ambient air quality objectives. In our view, if our objectives are to be national, we should have monitoring stations throughout all of Canada. As I understand it, at present we are ignoring two provinces, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, where we do not have monitoring stations. If this motion is accepted it would be mandatory that monitoring stations be set up in all provinces.
When we moved this amendment in committee we were told by legal counsel that the word "may", when used in the context of direction or authorization to a minister, is generally interpreted as creating a public duty, which is a duty for which he is responsible to Parliament rather than to the courts. Legal counsel also stated that the word "shall", which is mandatory in its nature, has the effect of creating, in addition to a duty to
Parliament, a duty that is enforceable before the courts. For these reasons, we were told that the wording could not be changed. But of course that was really the opinion of only one legal counsel. It has not changed my view on this matter. I believe that the amendment has much to commend itself to the House, and therefore we in the Official Opposition intend to support it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to be a member of the committee which studied this bill, but I was a member of another committee that recently considered Bill S-ll, an act respecting weather modification, which also has a lot to do with the environment. My remarks will be very similar to those of the preceding speaker. In our committee we decided that information should be made available to the public on the widest possible basis. This was as the result of a request from the Toronto University, whose experts believed they had something to offer in this field. They were willing to take the information that was assembled, do research on it, and make their findings public. They indicated that there was a considerable body of expertise in the Canadian Meteorological Society which would be greatly restricted in its operations if this information were not made available.
After listening to the experts the committee agreed that information should be made available to the general public, that any one modifying weather had an obligation to make this known, and that the information should be made available not only to the government but to the general public at large so that those interested could correlate the figures given in various reports, and assess the materials that were being used. In this way the information originally obtained would not rest in a file. As a result, the committee agreed to amend the bill by making one feature mandatory rather than permissive, as originally intended by the government.
I support the stand taken by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). The lawyers who are working for this department are of the opinion that only they and God are able to decide what should be and should not be done. They want the permissive type of legislation. It is about time we stood on our feet and decided whether or not we want to accept their advice, whether or not we always want to allow the civil servants, and particularly the legal advisers, to have their way. As I have said previously, most of the legal advisers are incompetent. One of my colleagues asks me how I know that. I have been here a long time, Mr. Speaker, and have seen a lot of legislation prepared by these people, legislation that was incompetent. On many occasions we had to improve it in this House. All this experience has indicated to me that they are not infallible.
In this instance, I think we ought to make the provision mandatory that the minister establish, operate and maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations throughout Canada. The machinery to do this is available. All he requires is the money to put it in operation. When the minister collects this information, then under certain circumstances he wants to be able to take action backed by legislation. That is the purpose of the bill. If
[Mr. Barnett.)
June 21, 1971

we are interested in the minister setting up this machinery, we had better decide whether we want him to have the right to do it or whether we want him to do it at all. If we decide that this should be done now, then the qualifying word must make it mandatory. I think the minister is agreeable.
We can play all we like with the words "may", "shall", "will" or "if", but if it is our desire to enforce the decision to establish, operate and maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations throughout Canada, then that should be the deciding factor. I think the minister will agree that, to some extent, we are doing this now. The Department of Agriculture, as well as the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, have been doing some monitoring. I am aware that the courts of the province of Ontario have been applying the anti-pollution laws for a long time. For example, I am thinking of the case of smoke emissions from International Nickel. Quite a lot has been done about this but if the minister is interested in making regulations of that type under the act, then the provision in the bill must be mandatory. I should like the minister to explain the other side of the coin, the occasions when such monitoring should not be done. If there are such occasions, he should tell us and perhaps we should write in the exemptions, rather than leaving the decision up to him. Obviously, when he comes before us, he must be desirous of accomplishing that objective.
A clerk of the committee telephoned me to say that we could not insert such mandatory wording into the bill. The regulations establish that the legal counsel for this House is the person who decides whether or not these words are within the bounds of our responsibility and I consulted him. I suggest that if the House accepts this wording, then it is acceptable. We should not be playing around with the argument of whether or not Parliament has the right to impose a mandatory duty upon the minister to do something by use of the word "shall" as a replacement for the word "may".
I should like to hear the minister's argument on why, in some cases, he wants this permissive word rather than the mandatory word when he is going to establish these monitoring stations throughout Canada. Would it be because he does not want one in his riding or in my riding or in Toronto or that he does not want to interfere with the clean air in Montreal? Is there some distinct reason why some places should not have this service? If so, the minister should tell us.
We got into a lot of difficulty with a bill to control water pollution which left the standards to be set by arrangement between the provinces. I am sure the minister, having given some attention to this matter, would feel that it might have been advisable to have had a mandatory provision that standards be established all across Canada and then have decided who was to enforce it. Most people will agree that it was a mistake not to establish the standards, so that this act will have to be amended in the near future. I hope the minister can indicate the cases where it is necessary that the estab-
Clean Air Act
lishment of these monitoring stations across Canada be permissive.
The same argument applies to clause 4 of the bill which reads:
The minister may formulate, with respect to any air contaminant, ambient air quality objectives reflecting three ranges of quality of the ambient air in relation to that contaminant and in relation to that contaminant in combination with any one or more other air contaminants that, for either short term conditions or long term conditions-
It seems to me that we will have to establish a plan with respect to a contaminant or all contaminants, and we will have to establish it universally as the need arises. The minister will realize that there will be contaminants which will be rather isolated and contaminants which will be very general. This is borne out by the finding of mercury in fish which does not seem to come from any particular place but seems to come from a large number of sources, not just alone but in combination with a number of other things. I think the minister believes that he had better go into this in a limited way and by degrees. However, if he believes that the department, under this bill, is going to get cracking on all contaminants and that he is going to set up the machinery to do it, then I think he should gratefully accept a positive provision rather than a permissive one in this very important field.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I should like to say a few words about this amendment because I feel it is basic to the legislation. I think whether this amendment carries or not will indicate to the people of the country whether we are serious about this bill or halfhearted. While traditionally we are giving power to the government to do something, I think in this particular case we ought to do more than that. We ought to say "Parliament has decided that these things shall be done, so go ahead and do them". Anything short of that leaves the minister and his department hamstrung, without a clear direction from Parliament on what they are supposed to do about ambient air quality. I do not think that is the spirit of this bill, after all the preparation that has gone into it and all the public concern about air quality in Canada. The purpose should be to leave with the people the clear intention of Parliament in this matter.
Part of the Canada Water Act was worded this way. There was good reason for it because the act was vague in its directions and because the government had no real idea of how they were going to carry it out. In the year since it was passed, nothing has been done under it to control water pollution in Canada. Two or three projects of a research nature were initiated, but no action projects, and this was largely because of the nature of the bill and the way we dealt with it. Then, as now, the opposition tried to get some more forceful statement in the act that would require the government to do something about our pollution problems. As I say, in view of this permissive wording, the government can take their time about it, do something if they so decide or nothing if they so decide. If nothing is done, we shall have wasted our time. The Canada Water Act is permissive legislation

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
and so is this. I hope the amendment is accepted and I hope that this bill will provide more definite results than the Canada Water Act has provided.
It is strange that I should be standing here and arguing whether a bill should contain the word "shall" or "may". It sounds as if we were splitting hairs, but there is more to it than that; this is fundamental. It is fundamentally important for us to say that we "shall" do this to improve air quality in Canada, as opposed to "we may do this". We are more concerned about the approach than the words. If there is not a more positive definition of the government's duties to carry out the will of Parliament than is presently contained in the bill, there will be insufficient pressure on the federal government to carry out its responsibilities. I know why "may" has been put into the clause. I know why "may" was used in the Canada Water Act. We are concerned about how far we can go without treading on the toes of the provinces. The government must still decide how it will proceed with the establishment of a system of air pollution monitoring stations, as required in this clause. I think the decision has to be made here. If we say, "may", that is, that they may do it, that decision will not be made. My argument applies not only to this clause but to other clauses. I am thinking of clause 5. I have seen the word "may" appear in half a dozen places in the legislation. I have tried to consolidate my argument into a few words. If the will of the people of Canada is to make itself felt, I think it is most fundamental for the amendment to be carried.
It has been pointed out that clause 5 permits the minister to consult with industry, labour and provincial and municipal authorities. It says that he "may" consult. I think it is essential for the wording to be "the minister shall". Even though other clauses give the minister the responsibility for taking action, it is strange to find "may" in clause five with respect to consultation. If we are in doubt about our jurisdiction we should require that he do consult. I hope the minister will consider accepting this amendment. I hope that problems of verbiage and legal technicalities will not prevent him from telling the House, and in particular his supporters on his side of the House, that the government intends to shoulder its responsibilities and that it is not afraid to accept this amendment.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I spoke briefly on the first amendment to be considered when we began the debate. Although I was dealing with motions 1 and 8, I will not repeat the points I made. I understand motion No. 4 is to be accepted by the government. I should like to deal rather briefly, if I may, with motion No. 5 dealing with the formulation of air quality objectives. This is a very important clause of the bill. In setting up air quality objectives, as outlined under clause 4, we shall stipulate several different ranges of air quality throughout Canada. We find that there is to be the tolerable range, the acceptable range and the desirable range. Everybody knows that industry will aim for the tolerable range. That does not make me happy, because I
think we should set high standards, and force industry and those polluting our environment to meet those high standards. This is our objective in trying to get polluting industries to clean up. We want to live in a decent environment and breathe clean air. That is why I endorse what other speakers have said and that is why the provision must be mandatory.
The legislation provides that the minister "may" formulate certain standards with respect to air contaminants. The motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) says that the minister "shall formulate with respect to all air contaminants...". It would be mandatory in effect. We do not want to leave this matter to the discretion of some departmental official or to the discretion of the minister. We do not want them to say "we will set certain standards for certain areas," because later we will find that we do not have national standards for air contaminants. The operation of this provision will be extremely limited indeed. That is why there must be this change in wording. I urge the minister to accept this amendment because it would be a step forward and would tighten the legislation. Accepting it would convince the Canadian people that we are out to do a good job in cleaning up the environment. I think that this mandatory provision must be in the legislation. If it is not, there will be a lot of manoeuvring around. If you do not accept the amendment, some lawyer wil be turned loose in the courts and he will find all the excuses in the world as to why action should not be taken. I suggest that the minister accept this amendment.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we, on the government side, are prepared to accept motion No. 4. We contest motions 3 and 5. However, we would not like you or members of the House to think that we oppose motions 3 and 5 for lack of concern about the problem of air pollution. I must rely on the advice I have been given by law officers of the Crown who were seconded to my department from the Department of Justice. They have been consistent in recent years in interpreting Canadian legislation and, as a nonlawyer, I do not wish to question their advice in this connection. They use the word "may" rather differently than most of us do in everyday conversation. They use it, implying an obligation, a very serious obligation. The obligation is on the minister. The minister has a public duty, which I am certainly prepared to accept and which I am sure all future ministers of the environment will be prepared to accept, to act in certain ways which are outlined in the bill. This is a duty which will be enforced by Parliament.
The word "shall" differs, implying mandatory action enforceable through the courts. It is a question of whom the minister must regard as his master or, to put it another way, who the real master of the minister is. Is it to be Parliament or the courts? If, in the last analysis, his master is the courts, then our draftsmen use "shall". But if it is Parliament, then "may" has real significance and is binding on the minister.

June 21, 1971

We are dealing with a major part of the bill which is headed "Research, Information, Data Collection and Establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Objectives". The present wording of Bill C-224 reads:
The Minister may,
(a)	establish, operate and maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations throughout Canada;
(b)	collect... data . ..
(c)	conduct research . . .
(d)	formulate comprehensive plans...
(e)	publish or otherwise distribute ... information-
As I understand it, the minister is required by Parliament to do all these things, even though the text says "may". The legal interpretation is that he must do these things, his master being Parliament, not the courts. That is my layman's interpretation of the legal advice which I have received. As a non-lawyer this particular interpretation should not be taken too literally.
Dealing specifically with amendment No. 3, the word "shall' is offered as a substitute for the word "may". If the amendment is accepted, the minister shall do all these things. In other words, the minister is required by the courts to do all these things. As the bill presently reads, the minister is required by Parliament to do them. Personally, I would settle for Parliament rather than the courts. I urge the House to reject amendment No. 3.
The government is prepared to accept motion No. 4. It is prepared to accept the amendment which states that all the pertinent information, that is all information gathered by research monitoring stations, which would serve to inform the public in respect to all aspects of the quality of the ambient air, be made available to the public. As such it is an acceptable amendment.
Amendment No. 5 not only involves substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may", but gets us a little further into the nature of the bill. This is a technical matter. It is our intention to promulgate air quality objectives for a wide range of air contaminants. Objectives are not standards. Objectives are described in ranges.
Another part of the bill deals with precise standards, for example standards of emission and, more specifically, standards at the chimney top. I do not believe that the Canadian government should be promulgating air quality objectives for certain air contaminants. In other words, there are certain air contaminants which are so lethal that we should not be talking about ranges at all. We should not talk about any degree of uncertainty. We should talk about concentrations of the precise order of zero-or very close to zero. Therefore, I would not want to see the word "all" or the phrase "all air contaminants" in respect of this technical matter of air quality objectives. To put it another way, we can promulgate air quality objectives for the not so lethal and not so serious air contaminants. But we cannot play around with certain very hazardous substances. We should not talk about ranges in their case. Instead of the word "all", we should retain the word "any" which implies most contaminants
which are not as serious as others and not rule out the possibility of our declaring specific standards for certain lethal substances.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in the debate, but when the minister was speaking I received the impression that he was waiting for a more convincing argument. He did not appear to be reassured by the advice that he accepted from the legal people. I do not think he liked that advice. I think he would prefer to use the word "shall". I see a slight smile on his face which indicates he probably agrees with me. I am going to give him some moral support and legal advice.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No charge.


Gerald William Baldwin: I cannot charge for that. Of course, Crown counsel cannot charge, either. Before I give any legal advice, I wish to say that I am disturbed by what the minister said with regard to Parliament being the master. A very distinguished member, an ornament of the treasury benches who does not sit too far from the minister, does not share that point of view. When Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made some very different comments about who is the master. When making a speech at that time, I think he looked at us. The then Minister of Justice was making a speech on a very famous incident. The government of rhe day had lost a vote on a tax bill. Instead of following the constitutional practice, it quite improperly stayed in office to the damage and detriment of the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have suffered ever since.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, looked us straight in the eye and said that the government was the master of Parliament. I have not forgotten that, nor have some of my colleagues forgotten. The minister seeks to avoid accepting the amendment on the basis that the government is accountable to Parliament and, theoretically, Parliament is the master of the government. That is the way it is in the textbooks and that is the way we in this party feel. However, the Right Hon. gentleman does not hold that view. For that reason, I must discount the argument. The minister probably feels that to be the case. He should feel that way, at least that is the advice given to him.
If that advice is entirely correct, which I doubt, it is not the kind of advice which is binding on this government. I have yet to see an indication that this government considers itself to be subservient to Parliament and that Parliament is the master of the government. Having cleared up that point to my satisfaction, if not to the satisfaction of the minister, I want to go on to the question of legal interpretation.
This bill is replete with the words "may" and "shall". The only time the word "shall" is used in relation to the government is when the minister is charged with the responsibility of making certain recommendations to the Governor in Council, at which time he is directed in a mandatory way to keep certain things in mind. In other words, dealing with higher authority, the minister is

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
compelled to make a recommendation. He shall take certain things into consideration.
I did not have time to make an exhaustive study, but I believe that is the only place the word "shall" is used. The rest of the bill is permissive. It says the minister may do this, may do that and may do something else. On practically every other page of the bill, there is a suggestion that the minister may do something, but when it comes to a direction to the citizen, the word "shall" is used. Page 6 has been called to my attention. I quote:
The operator of any work, undertaking or business the operation of which the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe results in the emission into the ambient air of an air contaminant, shall,-
There is no question about it; "shall" is mandatory. He has to do it. Clause 9, subclause (2) reads:
No operator of a work, undertaking or business in respect of which a specific emission standard has been prescribed
There is a reference then to the sections under which it is prescribed.
-shall operate such work, undertaking or business-
When we come to deal with poor Joe Citizen, there is no question of "may". He shall do it. He has to do it. He is going to do it. That is the way it should be. When dealing with what is an exceptionally important aspect of our future life in this country, on this continent and, in fact in this world, we do not have time to play around with permissive arrangements. This amendment seeks to say to the minister, the minister shall establish, operate and maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations. I do not think that is too formidable an undertaking. If this House sought to impose upon the minister in a mandatory way a specific and possibly onerous responsibility which it might be impossible to carry out I would be reluctant to agree, but what is wrong with Parl:ament saying to the minister: you shall establish, operate and maintain a system of air pollution monitoring stations?


John (Jack) Davis: The fact that we are doing it already.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is fine. We want to make sure you keep on doing it. In our opinion the minister is likely to do a good job but he may go on to higher things or fall in an election to lower things. If our party were responsible there would be no question about it. I do not think there is any hope for hon. members on my left.


William Arnold Peters: You will be surprised.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think it has already been written: they shall not win the next election. But who would take the minister's place? Would it be someone who will look upon the word "may" and say "I am not bound to do it; I will do it if I feel like doing it."? This minister may interpret "may" as "shall" but there are many of his colleagues who would consider the word "may" more literally. The word "may" is used in subclauses 2 and 3 in connection with co-operation with any province. We are not seeking to change it. That is a proper place in
which to use the word "may". The subclause says that
the minister may, alone, or in co-operation with any province, do certain things. We are not trying to change the wording there. That is the kind of place where "may" is properly used. In these circumstances, I think the legal argument with which the minister timidly sought to fortify his statement is not really sound. If he were given this advice, not as a minister of the Crown but as an individual, I think he would pay off his solicitor and get another. I believe he prefers the word "shall".
The minister is drawing from the statement made by Mr. Gibson before the committee. Mr. Gibson, quoting from a book by Mr. Driedger a former deputy minister of justice-I read the book and I do not think he made this distinction between "may" and "shall" as Mr. Gibson does-said that in using the word "shall" there might be a situation in which the public might say to the minister or to the person upon whom responsibility had been laid: "You have failed to do these things, and we are calling you to account."
God bless us, that is what we want. We have had in this Parliament a situation where a subservient group of backbenchers supporting the government does not call the government to account. We try to do it. We move enough motions from this side of the House. We are even driven to resorting to Standing Order 43 to press our point. The backbenchers on the government side are very fine people; I think highly of them, except when it comes to enforcing some discipline on the government. I do not think it is reasonable to accept the proposal, of this legal adviser, as the minister has done, that you don't want to use the word "shall" because that might give the public some opportunity to say to members of the government: you have been told by Parliament to do certain things and you have not done them, therefore we shall call you to account.
How many opportunities are there, really, to do so? How many members opposite can stand up and honestly look me in the eye and say there are opportunities for Parliament to challenge and compel governments to do these things, to show that Parliament is the master, in view of the way we have been operating in the last three years? I doubt it very much. If the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) or some other minister refuses to establish what in the opinion of members of the opposition is an adequate system of air monitoring stations, we can move a motion on an opposition day. On six of those days we can compel a vote Everybody knows what the government backbenchers will do. That is not the way to show that Parliament is the master of the government. We can ask questions, to which we do not often get direct and completely factual answers. To suggest we wish to use the word "shall" because that is all that is needed to establish the fact that the government is answerable to Parliament and Parliament can compel the government to do this, is utter nonsense; I don't buy it at all. So for these reasons, and I could continue them ad infinitum but I have made my point quite clear, I do not accept the fine distinction which the minister has made in distinguishing between the words "may" and "shall".

June 21, 1971

I would only point out that there is a manner in which "may" is used which may be found at page 13, clause 15-
An inspector may require any person who proposes to construct, alter or extend any work or works that, upon completion thereof, will form all or part of a federal work,...
That is a case where the word "may" is used in a mandatory sense. There is a duty placed upon the inspector in the exercise of his official responsibility under this legislation, if these conditions are met, to compel the person in question to carry out instructions. In that sense, the word "may" is used as the minister sought to have it used and worked into this particular clause, but I think there is a very plain distinction. There is absolutely no obligation upon the government or upon the minister, other than his own conscience or the conscience of the government, to carry out the suggestions in clause 3 to establish, operate and maintain monitoring stations.
The minister could establish air pollution monitoring stations this year, and three years from now he could discontinue them. There would be no legal liability on him for doing so. I point that out as being a distinction here. If the minister wanted to discontinue some of the stations or all of them, he would be perfectly within his legal rights in doing so and so would the government. I am sure that the danger of pollution being what it is, the public expects nothing unless that a firm obligation laid upon the government to comply with at least this minimum requirement and, in that sense, I am glad to support the amendment which has been moved.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75 a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Randolph Harding: That Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 19 inclusive at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) publish or otherwise distribute or arrange for the publication or distribution of all pertinent information which would serve to inform the public in respect to all aspects of the quality of the ambient air and of the control and abatement of air pollution."
Motion No. 4 agreed to.
Clean Air Act


Mr. Speaker:: I believe motion No. 5 is deferred on the same basis as motion No. 3. The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 6.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, the House having accepted No. 4, have we dealt with motion No. 5 in a difficult fashion?


Mr. Speaker:: I have just said that motion No. 5 will be dealt with in the same fashion as motion No. 3, the vote being deferred in accordance with the agreement of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless the minister wants to accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it my understanding that the minister wants to accept motion No. 5?


John (Jack) Davis: We should deal with it in the same fashion as No. 3, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) moves motion No. 6 as follows:
That Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by adding the following subclause to clause 5 immediately after line 4 at page 6:
" (3) If any six persons lodge a complaint with the Minister concerning any aspect of the quality of the ambient air or of the quantity and concentration of air contaminants, the Minister shall establish a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of conducting a public hearing at which the ambient air quality objectives and the national emission standards shall be reviewed."


Stanley Howard Knowles: And motion 11 as well, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe motion No. 6 is to be grouped with motion No. 11 and that a decision on motion No. 6 will also dispose of motion No. 11. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) moves motion No. 11 as follows:
That Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by adding the following clause immediately after line 12 at page 27:
"34. (1) If any six persons lodge a complaint with the Minister of Justice alleging a violation under this act, the Minister shall take appropriate steps to investigate the complaint and shall make public the results of the investigation.
(2) If after such an investigation, it appears on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed under this Act, the Minister shall take appropriate legal action."


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, the two motions which we are now discussing, Nos. 6 and 11, deal with what we think is a very important aspect of pollution in Canada, namely allowing the general public to lodge complaints and to be more effective in bringing serious cases of pollution to the attention of the minister in the hope that some action will be taken to clean them up.
I should like to deal with motion No. 6 first. The motion seeks to add a subclause to clause 5 in these terms:
If any six persons lodge a complaint with the Minister concerning any aspect of the quality of the ambient air or of the quantity and concentration of air contaminants, the Minister shall establish a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of con-

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
ducting a public hearing at which the ambient air quality objectives and the national emission standards shall be reviewed.
Even today, a large number of complaints from all parts of Canada are being made about air pollution. As the bill is presently constituted, there is no effective means whereby groups of interested citizens or organizations can get action taken, or can force the government to take action, to deal with serious cases of air pollution. In framing the legislation, all aspects of bringing such problems to the attention of the government should be examined. Under the bill there is going to be co-operation between the various provinces on pollution matters, and there is no doubt that a host of problems will be encountered that are going to be overlooked by the department in charge. For example, there might be a serious air pollution problem in a particular area but the municipality or the people in the area may be reluctant to make representations to the industry causing the pollution for fear the industry might close down, leave the district and lay off its workers. In my view, no industry in Canada has the right to pollute the air to the point where a great deal of discomfort is caused to the people of the area, the aesthetic values of life are detrimentally affected, and the people become fed up and look for some kind of redress.
I expect the minister will tell me that there are clauses in the bill that will enable us to go after such companies. However, these provisions are very vague, whereas my amendment is clear and concise. If six individuals lodge a complaint, a sensible complaint backed with facts and figures, then the minister must look into the complaint. I can give you an excellent example. Just across the river from us there is a pulp mill. If the odours from that mill are inconveniencing a large number of people in this area, possibly causing health problems, while they might not be classed as a significant danger, we should be in a position to tackle that problem. People should be able to bring to the attention of the minister such situations and ask that a check be made to find out the percentage of hydrogen-sulphide emitted from those stacks. In this way they could find whether it was too high, and could get action from industries currently contaminating our environment.
I do not think there is much more I can add. A number of hon. members would like to say a few words about these amendments. I feel these amendments would materially strengthen the bill, and I urge the minister to accept them.


Mr. Deachman:: Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Randolph Harding: Certainly.


Grant Deachman: Do I understand that what the hon. member envisages is a commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act? For instance, organizations composed of six people or more would then be in a position to institute hundreds of inquiries simply by making an application? The government could then be deluged by official inquiries. Is this the nature of the amendment?


Randolph Harding: If you will read the amendment accurately, you will see that if a complaint comes in from a group of six persons it will be studied by the minister. This fits in with other clauses. You have to read the amendment in context with the whole bill in order to understand how it fits the over-all structure. These complaints will not then be thrown aside. We will not have an official inquiry into every complaint that comes to the department. You have to evaluate the evidence produced.
The object is to ensure that complaints do not just go by the board, but people will have some chance of having these complaints heard by the minister. If a complaint is warranted, action could then be taken.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks in favour of this amendment. There should be a means whereby people in any locality can be heard if they find circumstances objectionable and have cause to believe they have a complaint. This provision would prove much more effective than the regulations that have been in effect, in recent years. A good example of how this provision would work was recently seen in southern Ontario. There was a complaint that a certain plant was poisoning the atmosphere, making the people sick and affecting their farm operations. As a result, a television crew went to the area and produced an expose. Eventually, there was an investigation by the provincial government. The question immediately arises as to whether the CBC or the CTV was seeking publicity or whether the people concerned had a valid complaint. At the present time, people have no way of instigating an investigation.
The previous speaker was asked whether this amendment would have the effect of creating a multitude of investigations. Surely, it is generally known that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission operates under a provision which allows six people to request an investigation when they believe there is a combine causing excessive price fixing, or in some way adversely affecting the people concerned. Such a practice is not as serious as a situation which pollutes the atmosphere these people must breathe. People can survive adverse economic conditions, but they may not survive pollution.
This government has decided to introduce legislation prohibiting the advertising of cigarettes. I can decide whether I smoke cigarettes. The government, in its wisdom, believes cigarette-smoking is injurious and is taking upon itself the obligation to introduce legislation to prohibit such advertisements in certain publications, on television and on radio. If a plant is polluting the air, the individual in the local area cannot decide to stop breathing. If you walk in the halls of this building and smell an odour of rotten eggs, you know that it comes from the plant across the river. However, you do not have a choice as to whether or not you should breathe the air. There is no other air to breathe.
This amendment suggests that when six people consider the air they breathe to be polluted and unfit, or that it

June 21, 1971

may cause damage to their animals or their environment, indeed even the vegetation around them, they can lodge a complaint. I do not think ordinary people would undertake such action lightly, but would only do so when they considered there was a danger to their lives and their environment. I cannot see why the government should not accept such an amendment. In this way they could show their willingness to give any six people the opportunity of requesting an investigation. The terms and conditions could be set out as they are for the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
This is a government which advocates participatory democracy. Such an avenue through which individuals could participate would be welcome. Imagine all the people who could participate. Any six people anywhere could be a participating part of the total. That is a very intriguing idea, and this is what this amendment offers. I seriously feel it should be adopted. We could very well find instances in which a situation could be checked in its early stages by reason of complaints from the people who live in the area. A very considerable amount of damage may be done before some group of people is forced to bring a lawsuit or forced to try to get some publicity in respect of a situation which has become intolerable.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I was very anxious to become involved in this discussion because this is a matter which very seriously affects my own constituency, and indeed the whole of the city of Toronto. A very serious air pollution problem exists there. This particular amendment is designed to secure active participation. Indeed the whole of clause 5 is designed to secure the active participation of the people themselves in the enforcement of this legislation. I say that nothing is more important to the minister in carrying out the duties he has embarked upon than to arouse the interest and concern of the local people in order to have them participate in reviewing the conditions which exist and then participate in the enforcement of the law when it has been determined there has been some breach of the law. The problem of enforcement is of importance. One reason is that the people who are doing the polluting often are the most powerful organization in the whole community.
A local organization in my constituency of active and interested citizens, for WARD-9, has a pollution task force. I shall ask the minister to later confer with these people because they have done a tremendous job in investigating the sources of air pollution and other forms of pollution in the Toronto area. Their preliminary findings are the following: The three main plants in the area are the Richard L. Hearn generating station of Ontario Hydro, the municipal incinerator on Commissioners street, operated by the Metro Works Department, and the main sewage treatment plant on Ashbridge's Bay, also operated by the Metro Works Department. What have these three public bodies been doing? They have polluted the air of the residents of that area. The Hearn Plant is a big source of pollution and a highly visible one. Changes are being made in that plant but the problem remains. The
Clean Air Act
Commissioners Street incinerator is the largest in the city. Although it gets less attention than the Hearn plant, it causes serious local problems. Odours, fly ash and black smoke are regularly emitted from its three stacks. The plant is frequently used to bum many more tons of garbage a day than it was designed to handle. This is illegal but nobody has done anything about it. The average person does not feel in a position to proceed against a large municipal institution of that sort. The main sewage treatment plan on Ashbridge's Bay, operated by the Metro Works Department, is the source of at least three different kinds of pollution. Smoke is regularly emitted in large amounts from some or all of the four stacks. Foul and highly offensive smells blow from the aeration tanks and sludge lagoons at the plant to residential areas to the north and east. Raw sewage goes through the plant into the lake. All three kinds of pollution call for immediate attention and control.
These are the view of a responsible body of citizens in this particular area. They point out the need for the type of enforcement this amendment envisages. Amendment No. 6 proposes that if any six persons lodge a complaint then an inquiry must be made. This is modelled, as I believe most members will know, on the Combines Investigation Act which provides that the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act can be set in operation when enough people make a complaint. I suggest that this is very essential in this case. It is true that under clause 5 as proposed the minister is, in my view, required to consult with-and I am sure he intends to do so-and organize conferences of, representatives of industry and labour, provincial and municipal authorities and other persons interested in any aspect of the quality of the ambient air or of the control or abatement of air pollution. So, the minister is to consult. Well, and good. I hope he will do so and I promise him the co-operation of the people in my constituency.
The next point has to do with the setting up of committees. That is an excellent idea. But now my friend has submitted an amendment which adds a necessary ingredient. Suppose the minister should be politically embarrassed to take action against the Metro Works Department of the city of Toronto or should be embarrassed to pursue an action against Ontario Hydro? If this amendment were incorporated in the legislation a public inquiry instituted by this government would be part of the proceedings and this would enable the matter to be aired and the complaints sifted in order to determine whether or not the law had been broken. If it had been broken, one would assume that merely because of the embarrassment involved the public body would make plans to cease and desist polluting the air of the area in question.
I think I have made the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, on this. I say again to the minister that we wish him every possible success in his endeavours to make this legislation effective and to genuinely take action to enable the people who may be involved to institute an inquiry if they should find that no adequate action is being taken. Therefore, I support the amendment and urge the House to accept it.

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting amendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). It is somewhat similar to discussions which took place when the bill was before the committee. The amendment reads as follows:
If any six persons lodge a complaint with the Minister concerning any aspect of the quality of the ambient air or of the quantity and concentration of air contaminants, the Minister shall establish a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of conducting a public hearing at which the ambient air quality objectives and the national emission standards shall be reviewed.
It is suggested that this paragraph be added to clause 5 immediately after line 4 at page 6. So, for the benefit of members and Hansard, I believe it would be advisable to place on record the wording of clause 5, which deals with consultation. We find these words:
(1)	In carrying out his responsibilities under this Act the Minister may consult with, and organize conferences of, representatives of industry and labour, provincial and municipal authorities and other persons interested in any aspect of the quality of the ambient air or of the control or abatement of air pollution.
(2)	The Governor in Council may establish advisory and other committees to advise or assist the Minister or to perforin such duties in relation to the control and abatement of air pollution and the coordination of the activities of governments, institutions and persons in relation thereto as the Governor in Council may specify, and may fix or determine the remuneration and expenses, if any, to be paid to the members of any committees so established.
In view of the wording in the bill and in the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I personally feel there is some conflict here. There may well be some redundacy in the amendment as moved. It is quite evident that pollution is a national problem. In a few generations Canada's national heritage of rich soil, clear skies, crystal lakes and inviting rivers will come under the threat of deterioration from our present municipal sewage systems. I will give full credit to the minister for his efforts to bring the problem into focus. It is a problem that has become acute in many geographic areas.
We have seen an example of this in the province of New Brunswick, where it became an international problem. One of our rivers became polluted because of activities in the United States, so the citizens of New Brunswick found it necessary to build a dam to keep pollution from the American side from coming into that river. A plant in Newfoundland which discharged phosphorus into the ocean destroyed large quantities of fish. As I say, I give the minister credit for highlighting the pollution problems in Canada.
There is a growing demand today for clean air, clean soil and pure water, all of them vital to our health and wealth, and to the enjoyment of our national environment. It is evident from the amendments that have been moved to Bill C-224 that this problem has become complex. It is a very difficult one. It will not be solved easily and quickly. It will not be solved without the expenditure of vast sums of money. This leads me to question the amendment, and I hope there will be further debate on it, because I question whether it would be desirable to
have a provision permitting any six persons to lodge a complaint with the minister concerning the quality of ambient air, which would require him to establish a commission of inquiry.
The words used are that the minister "shall establish a commission of inquiry." This afternoon we have had quite a debate on the usage of the words "may" and "shall." If the word may had been included in this amendment I would have its meaning clearer in my mind, but I feel that to tie the minister down to setting up a commission of inquiry if six people lodge a complaint about a certain quality of air is a little bit too constrictive. In my view we must do something about controlling pollution, but controlling pollution is something that must be done under a system of priorities. We must establish certain priorities and certain goals that are desirable for society. Technology exists to enable us to establish acceptable levels of pollution, but a value judgment has to be made, and then society has to decide whether or not it is worthwhile to spend the money that is required to achieve a desired end.
I make these few comments on this amendment hoping that others will be able to give a little better interpretation of what the amendment really means. Six people may well lodge a complaint, but it may be an irresponsible complaint which would create a vast expenditure of public funds that in the end would not lead to any desirable change in the situation. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have some doubts about the amendment, but I am willing to listen to further argument.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the proposal in question is drawn from what used to be a section in the old Combines Investigations Act, and which I find is no longer there. It has been taken out of that act. The people who love participatory democracy only want this participation to go to a certain level. When it gets below that level, they don't want participation. However, let us look at what was in the Combines Investigations Act for the purpose of determining whether or not we can accept this proposal. There are quite a number of points of similarity.
Section 7 of the old Combines Act provided that:
Any six persons, Canadian citizens, resident in Canada, of the full age of twenty-one years, who are of the opinion that an offence has been or is being committed-
You could put that side by side with what is being proposed here in the amendment now under consideration:
If any six persons lodge a complaint with the Minister concerning any aspect of the quality of the ambient air ...
Obviously, the complaint under the Combines Act had to do with the quality of the competition with regard to certain phases of economic activity. Here, the complaint is with respect to an aspect of the quality of the ambient air. The Combines Investigations Act went on to say:
-an offence has been or is being committed-

June 21, 1971

Then, under certain sections of that act or of the Criminal Code,
-may apply to the Director for an inquiry into such matter, and shall place before the Director the evidence on which such opinion is based.
To that extent, there seems to be quite a similarity, but the Combines Act then went on to say:
The application shall be accompanied by a statement in the form of a solemn or statutory declaration showing
(a) the names and addresses of the applicants-
The names and addresses of those applicants and so on, and also
-the nature of the alleged offence and the names of the persons believed to be concerned therein and privy thereto; and, if the application relates to an offence against section 32, the manner in which, and where possible the extent to which, the alleged combine is believed to operate-
Up to this point, there is an almost identical view with respect to this proposal and the section in the old Combines Act which apparently has been repealed. But the Combines Act then went on to say:
The Director shall
(a) on application made under section 7-
And section 7 is the section I just read. So, obviously there is an injunction laid on the director to make an inquiry, from which inquiry may or may not stem prosecutions, or at least further proceedings. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the principle here, although I would be much happier if the minister thought there was any merit to it, to include the same provision establishing the bona tides of the people making complaint, that they should file with it a statutory declaration giving some details of the nature of the complaint. If that were added, then this provision, to all intents and purposes, would be on all fours with the section in the old Combines Act. I like the principle. All of us talk too much about people becoming involved in the public life of the country. If the people have anything to be concerned about it is certainly the question of pollution, the effect it has on the air they breathe, and the establishment of standards to make it a better environment. I am not decrying the possibility that the government may take action. It may well take action.
However, it would be an admirable thing to establish a sort of court of last resort to which people could lodge complaints, properly verified, and say to the government, "Here is our statutory declaration which says that a certain industry or device is emitting noxious vapours which are having a serious effect on our health and livelihood." Your Honour will remember a situation which arose near Toronto and which was the subject of a television program. A number of people had reason to believe that a factory in the area was poisoning the atmosphere. All they could do was complain to the federal and provincial authorities; they had no right to do anything on their own.
Assuming there would be some instance when this or some other government would not want to take action, I 24171-35
Clean Air Act
think it would be a good idea if these six people, lodging a complaint properly verified, could compel the minister to launch an inquiry. To that extent, I see no difference between this proposal and the one in the Combines Investigation Act which this government took away from the people. Like the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), I am not too happy with the clause in its present form. I should like to see it changed to have additional safeguards, but the principle is one which I can support. If the minister is inclined to look upon it with favour, he might consider accepting some form of amendment which would write in the same safeguards as were present in the Combines Investigation Act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to remind the House that we are considering two amendments which, almost identical in form, nevertheless deal with different parts of the bill. Generally speaking, they focus attention on the right of citizens to take action as a group under the act. I think I can say that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is not completely wedded to the text of his amendment. There is no particular magic in the use of the number six; it could as easily be five but six happens to be the number of persons required to lodge complaints under the Combines Investigation Act.
Motion No. 11 deals with that part of the bill which refers to offences under the act and clause 33 of the bill is headed "Offences". I refer hon. members to that second amendment to emphasize that, whether its form is correct or not, and whether it is required in each of the places in the bill which the two amendments together suggest, nevertheless it points up a real deficiency in the bill. If I read it correctly, as the bill now stands the only recourse of citizens who may consider themselves aggrieved is to the courts. In other words, if somebody writes to the minister with a complaint he could be told to take it to the courts. This may be very well with some legislation, but in this kind of legislation it is not fair that citizens should be told to lay a charge in court. We are dealing with something very complex here, and it is difficult for the ordinary citizen to determine whether the act is being violated. I think clause 5 of the bill is very appropriate.
As the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) pointed out, this clause provides machinery for the minister to consult with organizations or citizens interested in any aspect of the quality of the ambient air or the control or abatement of air pollution. When they assess the results of the act, and the results of the situation created by various activities within the country, these consulting groups may be operating to a greater or lesser degree. Clause 5 puts the responsibility for this sort of thing on the minister. The effect of the amendment is to reverse the order of things and to give citizens, as of right, in a group of reasonable size the opportunity to take the initiative with the minister and say, "On' the grounds that we have been able to present, we feel there is an unsatisfactory state of affairs in respect of the quality of the ambient air in our neighbourhood and that contaminants which are harmful are going into the envi-

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
ronment." It would give them a channel for their complaint to be investigated by public hearing. This surely is a much more reasonable approach than simply saying, "If you don't like it, take it to court".
It seems to me that the spirit and intent of this legislation is to get people working in co-operation toward a cleaner environment. This objective is not achieved by creating a state of affairs where the only means of correction is through the courts. My understanding of the proposal is to eliminate the need for legal action, particularly if it has to be taken by the citizen. This, I think, is an important consideration for the success of the effort which the minister I think envisages as flowing from the legislation.
There may well be some better way of dealing with the situation than under the exact wording proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I believe the House should recognize that there is a need for a channel of the kind proposed so that a group of citizens may lay a complaint and know that the matter will be looked into properly. Perhaps there should be some discretionary power in the bill for the minister or a responsible person to assess whether there is a preliminary base for a full-scale investigation. However, there should be this channel through which people can move when they feel that the quality of the surrounding air is such that it constitutes a grievance for them.
They should not move through this channel frivolously, and some basis should be established for making sure that complaints are reasonable, particularly if the law requires that substantial public funds be spent in conducting public inquiries. There should be that basis for an inquiry which is essentially designed to ascertain the facts and to say whether there is or is not a situation in a particular area which warrants correcting. I hope the minister and the House will recognize that there is this need.
In British Columbia a good deal of hostility developed over the question of whether an industrial undertaking should go forward in one area on the coast, which happened to be in my constituency, because people felt that the sort of hearings provided under the pollution control legislation of the province did not give them an opportunity adequately to put forward the points of view and the facts as they saw them before the pollution control board rendered its decision. I am sure the minister will agree that we do not want that kind of "snarly" situation to arise in connection with the administration of this legislation and that it would be much better to provide a fairly accessible vehicle for the hearing of complaints so that people could have an opportunity to present the facts as they see them about a situation.
The matter could be examined by scientific experts and the pros and cons aired at a public hearing. There could be an increase in public knowledge and understanding and a determination, clear enough for all to see, regarding whether a certain industrial activity-shall we say a pulp mill on one side of the Ottawa River or an industri-

al plant in any other part of the country-was meeting the standards laid down. It could be determined whether there was deterioration of the atmosphere and whether corrective action needed to be taken.
One danger, as I see it, of our passing this kind of law and of setting up a ministry of the environment is that citizens may be inclined to say, "This has all been fixed. They passed a law in Ottawa and from now on the air will be beautiful." If things do not happen quickly, a feeling of resentment and frustration will build up and people will say, "Nothing has happened." The law itself may begin to fall into disrepute and disrespect in the eyes of citizens. I think it is important for us to provide some kind of proper channel, which does not now exist in the bill, whereby people can to their reasonable satisfaction lay complaints on the table, as it were, have them dealt with properly by a body, tribunal or hearing officer and thereby feel that the situation has been assessed fairly and a determination has been made on the basis of facts they have laid before the tribunal and of further facts elicited from people properly qualified to determine whether there are proper grounds for complaint and whether the act has been violated.
That is the purpose behind these two amendments. I hope no one in the House will quibble over whether the phrasing of the motion in question is exactly as it should be to meet the situation, because I am certain that if the minister would recognize the need and suggest a modification of the existing provision that would more properly in his view meet the situation, the hon. member for Kootenay West would sympathetically listen to his suggestion. We could then quickly work out something which would obtain the unanimous approval of the House.
The minister has not yet spoken on this matter. He may rise and say that these two motions deal adequately with the situation that has been drawn to the attention of the House. If he does, we will be happy and I am sure we can pass these motions without further debate. On the other hand, if the minister feels they can be improved upon I am certain the hon. member for Kootenay West will be willing to listen to and possibly agree on alternative proposals or modifications so long as the need is met for a channel through which citizens can make their complaints known. Once they have established that there are reasonable grounds for complaint, they ought to know that there will be a hearing where a determination will be made on the facts and reasonable action taken without their going through the difficult process of laying formal charges in court, which otherwise would be their sole recourse for correcting an unsatisfactory situation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the purpose of the motion is to require the government to shoulder its responsibilities under clause 5(2) of the legislation. This is more or less the point we have been hammering at all afternoon. The motion provides that if the government does not shoulder its responsibilities and set up inquiries when inquiries are needed, six citizens can force it to do so. This is a clear indication to the public to take part in the process of
June 21, 1971

government. It is something that is now being seriously discussed in Canadian and American circles, this is, the right of citizens to take action to protect the environment and not have to wait for the government, the courts or anyone else to do so. For that reason I think this is a good amendment and deserves acceptance.
The public is pretty well excluded from putting pressure on the government, particularly since it has been clearly indicated that we will not get acceptance of amendments Nos. 3 and 5 which puts the onus on the government to do certain things. It is a matter of contention whether the citizen's right to move into the environmental field and force the government to take action is effective. There is some feeling that litigation in the courts is expensive for an individual or group of individuals unless there is backing at the national level. There is a feeling that in a number of cases such a provision which is being written into statutes concerning the environment may be ineffective. Under this amendment any six citizens would have the right to initiate an inquiry if they felt their environment was being adversely affected.
I have one hesitation in this respect. It has already been expressed and was implied in the question of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). How many of these so-called inquiries could the government stand? Could a group of 25 citizens get together one evening and decide to hit the government with four inquiries, with each group of six people signing a separate petition?
Protection was provided under the old section of the combines legislation which was referred to by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). If citizens raised a complaint and it was verified by statutory declaration, the director was required to proceed with an investigation provided he had reason to believe that the facts stated were correct and an inquiry was warranted. The protection the government had was that six people could not force an inquiry of their own volition, but they could very easily initiate the procedure. I know that the director of the combines investigation branch considers it his duty to conduct an inquiry into every valid and legitimate complaint that is raised.
Perhaps this amendment could have been worded a little better to give some protection to the government. But if the privilege that is given to citizens is abused, it is not very difficult for us to amend the statute. We have that protection and we can act on it quickly. In fact, by the time these inquiries start we can bring in amendments if there is serious abuse.
The principle of the amendment is one that we should accept. On balance, even if there are not enough safeguards written into it, it ought to be accepted. If Parliament finds that there are abuses, we can very quickly amend the legislation. There is very little evidence of
24171-35J
Clean Air Act
abuse of this kind of provision. I do not know of any abuses which have arisen where the public has rights of this kind. I support the amendement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Youth-Lack of hostels in Montreal; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Suggested pension increases for employees who retired before 1956.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me the government ought to welcome the amendments suggested in motions Nos. 6 and 11. One of the few advantages of the Combines Investigation Act is the extent to which attention is called by experts and others to various offences which take place. Where experts are involved, people who are vitally interested in certain specific areas bring to the attention of the director responsible for the administration of the act information which allows him to proceed with investigations which often result in changes which are of great advantage to the public. In the main, this is done by people who are experts in particular fields.
I was interested in an article which appeared today in the Globe and Mail. It was written by David Spurgeon, under the heading, "Danger to the environment in a nuclear power plant". He writes:
The agenda of the Canadian Nuclear Association's annual international conference, which begins today in Montreal, is curiously devoid of the kind of issue that currently is rocking the foundations of the nuclear power industry in the United States.
Concern for the environment there has recently prompted a group of prominent scientists to sue the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Concern about the safety of nuclear power plants lias prompted two famous opponents of the A EC, Dr. John W. Gofman and Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin, to publish a new book called "Poisoned Power, The Case Against Nuclear Electric Plants"-a hard hitting attack on some of the assumptions underlying the development of nuclear power aimed at citizens' groups.
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska has declared his strong support for the suit announced by the Scientists' Institute for Public Information, an organization of 35 distinguished U.S. scientists whose purpose is to provide ordinary citizens with information about scientific aspects of public policy, headed by anthropologist Margaret Mead.
I am bound to say that in my judgment an agency of this kind would be most helpful to the minister if he is
[Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) .1
really interested in ending pollution. In the past, governments have been content to wait until a problem was obviously on their doorstep. A case in point is the Ottawa River. For years ministers have been saying they intend to clean it up. Finally it was left to the two provinces directly concerned to decide that something should be done. I understand there is now to be a conference. Well, had they wanted to delay any longer I suppose they could have waited until all the municipalities along the river had become involved.
If the minister intends to follow the practices of the past, no doubt the government will from time to time find cases which warrant investigation and occasionally something will be done when it becomes absolutely necessary. But such an approach is far from adequate today and in confirmation we need only consider the concern expressed in the United States as to the effects of nuclear emissions in the air and the danger these may cause.
The average citizen does not know whether or not many of the pollutants now in the air are dangerous. It is said that around some plants the emissions are so strong that they would take the paint off a car. But no one has yet dropped dead walking through a parking lot so I suppose citizens generally will not become much concerned until conditions are so bad that action cannot be avoided. Usually, though, before such a point is reached a private individual, usually a doctor or a scientist, finds some means of calling attention to the danger. I have found such people more than willing to become involved in this type of business; they are willing to provide the scientific background and pinpoint the danger before it becomes apparent to the average citizen. Services of this kind make an excellent contribution to the effectiveness of a bill such as the one before us. This would be especially so if machinery were established along the lines of that contemplated in the amendments, enabling the minister to receive and act upon such information.
If, on the other hand, the government decides to reserve all the decisions in this field to itself, I believe the result will be decisions which are politically motivated. No doubt some investigations will be carried out, but the legislation will get off to a slow start. I think it would be a very foolish government which would ignore suggestions put before it by people who were experts in particular areas.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) asked a question which emphasized the ultra-conservative attitude prevalent among members of the government party when he wondered what would happen should a large number of these people bring cases before a commission of inquiry. It would cost a lot of money, he suggested, a great many people would be occupied on these cases and there would be a formidable backlog of inquiries. I do not think any Member of Parliament who receives a normal amount of mail fails to have called to his attention at least once or twice a week cases concerning the destruction of our environment which would justify inquiry. I continually receive letters from constituents who say that municipal sewage is overflowing, that raw sewage is flowing into the Ottawa River via Lake Timiskaming, and so on. Seldom a week goes by in
June 21, 1971

which people do not write to tell me that one of the lumber companies', one of the pulp companies or a local flakeboard operation is polluting rivers or lakes.
I noticed an editorial in my local paper the other day which indicated that the pollution of Lake Timiskaming was caused mostly by clay. We live in the clay belt and cannot control run-off or clay wash into Lake Timiskaming, which eventually runs down to the Ottawa Eiver, a body of water that the federal government is going to pay millions of dollars to make fresh once again. I am sure each member receives complaints about pollution. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra does not pass them on for the simple reason that too much trouble would be caused the government in investigating them. He asked what would happen if a large number of people reported complaints and said we would have so many courts of inquiry that we could not handle them.
The point I am trying to make is that in my riding about 15 different points of information a month in regard to pollution come to my notice. I am sure there would be inquiries into them if only we had someone to whom to refer them. I would guess that 50 per cent of these complaints would be substantiated and the pollutants concerned found detrimental to the environment and ordered to be eliminated. Not only do I think that is true, but I am sure the minister does too, otherwise he would not introduce this kind of legislation. The House has passed at least two other pieces of legislation dealing with pollution, and I am sure the minister would not have accepted the responsibility of Minister of the Environment had cases of the sort I have cited not been substantiated.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra stated that if six people made a good case, a commission of inquiry would have to be established. That may well be true. But that in itself should in no way be an objection to such a proposal. If that is the case, it means that things are a lot worse than we think they are and if necessary we should have 1,000 or 2,000 such inquiries. Someone should be in a position to say that a given complaint warrants an investigation or full-scale inquiry. Other cases could be referred to a particular department for attention. A commission of inquiry would not necessarily have to be established in assessing what action to take. The department will develop expertise in such matters and will be able to examine complaints itself.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) who administers the Combines Investigation Act would be first to admit that if individuals lost their right to complain it would often be very difficult to bring problems to the attention of the government. In this particular case a complaint would have to be endorsed by six individuals, not one. That is why I feel the amendment is reasonable. The minister can inform us whether his department has sufficient funds to set up such inquiries and he can also say whether he feels it necessary to have a full-scale commission of inquiry in such cases. Perhaps he can suggest a more simplified way of dealing with complaints that are not possible of easy solution.
Clean Air Act
We do not suggest that the six complainants receive a share of any fine that is imposed, as is often the case when offences are committed of a criminal nature. I believe the Customs Act provides for a person who makes a charge which is proved to receive a kickback or portion of the fine imposed. Neither are we suggesting that people be hired to make reports. I suggest the greatest indication of the need of this amendment is the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that the only reason the government will oppose the amendment is that there will be so many inquiries.
At the present time Ontario is rapidly developing sources of nuclear power, yet even the experts who attended the recent international conference on nuclear power are not considering pollution of the environment, even though they are discussing breeder plants which produce plutonium which itself presents a great danger to the environment. The reason this subject is not being discussed is that all the government experts in this field are members of the nuclear colony. Their employment at universities or in the nuclear field in Canada gives them a living. I suggest that some of the research done by United States universities in this field should be brought to the attention of the minister. If the minister does not see any merit in a well-documented complaint that is made by six citizens of the calibre I expect to be involved in making such complaint, then I would suggest he is not really interested in ambient air quality or in doing anything about controlling air pollution.


John (Jack) Davis: should like to speak briefly to both these amendments, Mr. Speaker. I urge the House to reject them, not because I find the principles underlying them unacceptable but because at this stage at least they are impractical. What is reflected here is the desire of the Canadian public to be involved in matters of this kind, to help monitor the environment and to help in their own way to police national standards. These are all laudable objectives which I think we must pursue as effectively as we can.
I am receiving a lot of mail these days. In respect of pollution it averages more than 200 letters a day. I am sure that if I were to include along with this mail protests or expressions of concern in letters that are flowing into the offices of other Members of Parliament, we would be dealing with at least 500 letters of complaint each day. If we endeavoured to deal with even a fraction of these protests through the medium of commissions of inquiry we would solve Canada's unemployment problem very quickly.
I agree it should be possible for private groups to lodge complaints in a formal way. I agree that it should be possible for commissions of inquiry to be struck in order to hear those complaints and, where they are ready, to review our ambient air quality objectives and national air standards. But we have to proclaim these objectives in workable terms and in technical terms. We have to establish these standards not only to our own satisfaction but in many cases, hopefully, to the satisfaction of our provinces as well so that they also will enforce the standards as we are developing at the national level.

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
0	(5:40p.m.)
I am saying that while public involvement to the extent envisaged in amendents proposed may be desirable as long-term objectives, we will find great difficulty making a publicly supported system oi this complexity work in the next year or two. The amendments refer to any six persons lodging a complaint. The same six could, theoretically, lodge an endless number of complaints. There would have to be some limitation as to their residence and some way of determining their competence to lodge complaints or some way of establishing their credibility before the minister sets up a commission of inquiry.
We intend to set up an advisory council at the national level right away. In a few years' time we may have a full-fledged national council concerned with environmental matters. This is a matter of government policy and will be decided upon at an early date. Under it, or related to an advisory council we will have regional inquiries and special industrial inquiries. We must focus on these matters in detail at the local level. We must be concerned with a two-way flow of information and advice in the area of environmental concern. As I said at the outset, I am not opposed to the principle here but we would find it very difficult to work it out in all its detail at the early stages of the implementation of our clean air bill.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising for the purpose of asking a question. Is the minister prepared to receive it?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: You mentioned that most of us had received considerable correspondence concerning the environment. I should like to ask whether in the correspondence you have received you have found a pattern-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address himself to the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: I was wondering whether the minister found any pattern in these letters which would tend to separate individual problems from area problems. Has there been any definite pattern in these letters, as opposed to individual complaints?


John (Jack) Davis: There are bound to be patterns in different parts of the country with specific industries and groups of Canadians who are affected by pollution problems. These patterns are fairly well defined already. The plea I am really making is that we first pass the bill and then round out an effective department and set of standards. Then we will be able to communicate more effectively with a concerned public.


William Marvin Howe: 1	was rather interested in the minister's remarks about the 200 letters received daily about pollution and the difficulty that will be created in having a sufficient number of people look into these complaints. Does the minister not believe in the principle enunciated
by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford)? He has a box in which complaints are placed and they are all investigated. Does the minister not think this is a good principle?
Is it the intention of the minister, following the passage of this measure, to set up an advisory committee and then send out people to investigate the complaints in much the same way as is supposed to be carried out by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Does the minister not intend to do this, and will this not be necessary to make the program effective? If he has a group from a specific area complaining about smoke-sacks, similar to the example given by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), does he not intend to send experts to the area to determine whether there is reason for complaint? Probably it would be desirable for the department to have a similar system and a box for complaints, and have experts sent out to investigate them. I would expect this is part of the reasoning of the amendment now before us. Are you not going to pay attention to the complaints coming in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to the hon.
member that he should address himself to the Chair. There must be something special about this bill which makes it difficult for hon. members to address their inquiries to the Chair but I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member that this is the proper procedure.


William Marvin Howe: I appreciate your admonition, Mr. Speaker. We do get carried away with our individual problems in this regard. I would ask the minister whether it is his intention to have a group of experts go out and examine individual cases. They may find some people they would consider to be in the category of crackpots, but those who complain will not all fall within that category. I should think there is a great deal of merit in this amendment and the minister should take another look at it to determine whether there is a possibility of setting up a program that would be workable.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order
75, the recorded division on the proposed motion is deferred.
The question is now on motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). Is it agreed that the division on motion No. 6 shall apply to motion No. 11?

June 21. 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) moves motion No. 7 as follows:
That Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 35 inclusive at page 6 and lines 1 to 13 inclusive at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. (1) The Governor in Council shall prescribe nation emission standards establishing the quantities, if any, and concentrations in which any air contaminant may not be emitted into the ambient air from sources of any class, whether stationary or mobile, when such emissions shall constitute a danger to the health of persons or cause an appreciable damage to property or to the quality of the environment.
(2) In no instance shall these standards prescribed violate a term or terms of any international obligation entered into by the government of Canada relating to the control or abatement of air pollution in regions adjacent to any international boundary or throughout the world."
and by renumbering subsequent subclauses accordingly.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 7 is a most important amendment which
we are offering to the bill. For a number of months we have been urging the federal government to set up national standards so far as air pollutants are concerned. We fought a similar fight last year in respect of the Canada Water Act; we were interested in having national standards which would apply from one end of Canada to the other.
We are getting down to the same thing in respect of this bill. I should like hon. members to turn to clause 7. I am convinced a large number of members really do not understand what is in this clause. It is headed "National emission standards and guidelines". Canadians generally feel we are about to establish national standards for emissions from industry throughout the country. What are really to be set up under the bill are emission standards for only a handful of pollutants.
These are emissions which constitute a significant danger to the health of persons. Never in my life have I seen a weaker clause than this one. What does it mean? I shall touch on the problem very generally. I do not have very much time now, and I should 1 ke hon. members to study the clause over the supper hour. The phrase used is "a significant danger to the health of persons". This means we cannot do anything about the hydrogen sulphide emissions which come from the Eddy plant across the river in Hull and produce odours which permeate our air. We are not setting up emission standards to control hydrogen sulphide, for the simple reason that medical authorities say hydrogen sulphide has not shown indications of being a pollutant which is injurious to the health of people. So the residents of Ottawa and Hull will have to put up with this type of pollutant because it is not covered by the clause. This is utter nonsense.
This clause does not cover any pollutant which might cause damage to a person's house or motor car. It does not cover any damage which might be done to wildlife or vegetation. During the committee hearings when witnesses were being questioned we learned that only a
Clean Air Act
handful of the standards set will be national in scope, dealing with things such as mercury. This is a step forward. It involves mercury and things of that nature because they are a significant danger to the health of persons. The amendment which we have brought in and which we are asking the minister and the government to consider I again draw to the attention of members of the House. The amendment reads in part:
The Governor in Council shall prescribe national emission standards establishing the quantities, if any, and concentrations in which any air contaminant may not be emitted into the ambient air from sources of any class, whether stationary or mobile, when such emissions shall constitute a danger to the health of persons or cause an appreciable damage to property or to the quality of the environment.
Then the amendment goes on to touch the international field which is very similar to the legislation proposed in the bill.
Air pollution is one of the major problems facing Canadians today. We could have several emissions coming from a smokestack; we could have particles of sawdust and soot. All these things could not be touched under this legislation although they could interfere in a host of ways with the quality of life we are supposed to be able to enjoy while living in areas surrounding industrial plants. If the legislation should go through as it is now offered to the House, we will be faced with all kinds of problems. I suggest to the minister that during the supper hour he and his staff get together and change the wording of the clause in such a way that it will provide some protection in respect of the points I have in mind and on which I should like to expand when we reassemble at eight o'clock.
I return to the point about a significant danger to the health of persons. What does this mean? There is no interpretation clause in the legislation. Does it mean one must be just a little ill from pollutants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) wishes to rise on a point of order before I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Jerome:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There has been consultation about the order of business for this evening. I would ask, with the consent of the House, that an order be made to the effect that in the event we should terminate the report stage of the measure presently under discussion, the House would immediately proceed to third reading state.


Mr. Bell:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would help our plans if we knew that if the report stage should be finished this evening we would proceed to third reading immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to such a procedure. I hope we can reach that stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think this is a hypothetical order, but it will be made on that basis.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned at six o'clock we were discussing the amendment which I had proposed to clause 7. I think I should spnd just a moment or two reviewing it. The amendment we are offering would expand the clause to include pollutants which might affect aesthetic values and which, for example, could effect buildings, wildlife, etc. Before we adjourned I was pointing out that this is the key part of the bill. I cannot emphasize this too much. Here in Canada, in 1971, we are bringing in what we call a clean air act and under it we are going to set standards.
The general feeling of Canadians is that a number of national standards will be set respecting control of air pollution and the point I was making is that this just is not so. This is not what the legislation is all about and that is why we are complaining. We think that considerations other than that of a significant danger to health must be taken into account.
We had a very lengthy debate on this clause in the committee. Various witnesses gave their opinions. The minister gave a fairly plausible reason why we should not change the clause. I shall read the clause because I think hon. members should thoroughly understand what they will be voting on. Clause 7, which will become law unless we change it, reads as follows:
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 these are the key words
(a) constitute a significant danger to the health of persons ... the Governor in Council may prescribe national emission standards establishing the maximum quantities, if any, and concentrations of such air contaminant that may be emitted into the ambient air by stationary sources of such class or classes.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, this provision will not stop any pulp mill in the country fouling the air of a district such as Ottawa or any other part of the country. I drew the attention of hon. members to the odour of hydrogen sulphide which medical people tell us is not a significant danger to health. This means that we can do nothing about it under the clean air act. If it is not a danger to health, I think one of the most offensive things that can happen to a community is to be exposed to this rotten egg odour. This is the sort of thing we should be legislating against but it will not be covered by the act. Presumably, if a company wanted to increase the hydrogen sulphide emission from their stacks nothing could be done about it. I see nothing in this act to deal with the problem. There are many such problems all over the country which will not be touched by the act.
The government intends to set national standards for mercury and fluoride, but the question our party asks is why such standards cannot be set for all the pollutants
emitted by industry. We hope this will come about. One type of emission from a smokestack may cause a skin rash, but in the bill there is no definition in respect of "a significant danger to health". Soot and other particles can be emitted, but are they not a significant danger to health? Where do we draw the line? The people of Canada will get little assistance from this clause; that is why we are urging the minister to make changes along the lines suggested in my amendment. Health, of course, is of primary importance but we think the whole problem should be considered in the following terms:
-when such emissions shall constitute a danger to the health of persons or cause an appreciable damage to property or to the quality of the environment.
Any emissions which damage property, wildlife or vegetation should be legislated against. They cost the taxpayer money and naturally are of concern. Every Canadian, Mr. Speaker, has the right to breathe clean air and live in a decent environment, the right to enjoy some of the aesthetic advantages of his surroundings. We should be able to prevent industry creating smog to the point where it is impossible to see across a valley. Surely this is part of our duty as legislators.
We must not allow these things to happen because of weak legislation. We should be in a position to take a strong line with industry. It would not take place in a week or ten days, but over a period of time we must be able to control industry to the point where we can say, "The air of Canada belongs to Canadians. They have a right to good, clean air from one end of the country to the other, and that is what we are aiming for."
I know that a number of hon. members wish to speak to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, so I shall say no more except to point out that this provision is the key to the bill. It is the weakest clause in the bill. It will not give Canada national standards as far as air contaminants are concerned, and this is what we are after. We put up a fight for national standards under the Canada Water Act, and did not get them. It now looks as though we shall not get them under the clean air act. I suggest that the government has drafted weak legislation and urge it to reconsider the bill before it is too late.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) when he spoke on amendment No. 7 and suggested that clause 7 be amended as follows:
-by deleting lines 27 to 35 inclusive at page 6 and lines 1 to 13 inclusive at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. (1) The Governor in Council shall prescribe national emission standards establishing the quantities, if any, and concentrations in which any air contaminant may not be emitted into the ambient air from sources of any class, whether stationary or mobile, when such emissions shall constitute a danger to the health of persons or cause an appreciable damage to property or to the quality of the environment.
(2) In no instance shall these standards prescribed violate a term or terms of any international obligation entered into by the government of Canada relating to the control or abatement of air pollution in regions adjacent to any international boundary or throughout the world."

June 21, 1971

As the mover of the amendment has stated, this is an important clause. It was thoroughly discussed and debated when the bill was before committee. We in the official opposition expressed our concern about it. We have an amendment which asks for a definition of the expressions:
"endangers the health, safety or welfare of persons", "interferes with normal enjoyment of life", "endangers the health of animal life", "causes damage to plant life", and "constitutes a significant danger to the health of persons"-*
The terminology concerns us. However, Mr. Speaker, like so many of the amendments which come from that section of the House, this one is desirable but in our opinion is not practical at the present time. I say that because in my view the key words in this amendment are ''stationary or mobile". I point out, Sir, that when we debated motions 1 and 2 this afternoon we objected to the inclusion of "mobile" because we felt that the automobile industry and the mode of transportation which has been adopted for the sake of convenience by many Canadians would become prematurely obsolete if that type of amendment were permitted.
We understand that it is now the law in most provinces that emission systems installed in cars in or after 1970 must be such as to control toxic emissions from exhausts. These systems are being installed at the time of manufacture and are to minimize pollution from automobile exhaust systems. There is already co-operation on this question between provincial governments and the automobile industry. The United States is also concerned about the pollution of its air. Many of our automobiles are manufactured in the United States and since companies in Canada are subsidiaries of large United States entreprises we can expect continued co-operation in this area. Within the next five years, I believe, the obsolescence of automobiles will create a difference in the volume of exhaust pollution in our air because cars which have been coming on the market since 1970 are equipped with an emission control system.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition cannot support the amendment as proposed. It would create considerable difficulty for those who use automobiles, and for our airlines. Our airlines are working on the problem of emission but have not yet been able to conquer it completely. Concern over this matter was expressed to the committee in many different ways. May I put on record, as an example, the views of the Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Environment as expressed by J. D. Lovering. Among other things, he said:
The terms "air quality objectives", "national emission guidelines" and "national emission standards" are confusing. Under section 2 only "air quality objectives" are defined. We suggest that "national emission guidelines" and "national emission standards" are also given definitions under section 2.
The provision for "air quality objectives" on a national basis is to be commended. Nevertheless, the intention regarding national emission standards needs to be clarified. If emission standards are to be based on an approach consistent with the "air quality objectives" and on actual measurements of ambient air quality, then this would seem rational. If, however, the intention is to adopt national emission standards without reference 24-171-36
Clean Air Act
to the existing variable air quality for different regions of Canada, then such standards would seem most impractical.
That, in part, expresses the concern of the Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Environment in Canada. The problem will be dealt with if the minister, representing the federal government, in co-operation with industry works out within as brief a period as possible a program for cutting down pollution. As we all know, pollution is injurious to the health of Canadians, and since the air surrounding the globe knows no international boundaries it is also injurious to the health of citizens in all parts of the world.
Before I resume my seat I should like to make one other point dealing with emissions from a mobile source. Automobiles, for example, would be affected if this motion were passed and we therefore question whether we have authority to deal with this matter now inasmuch as the control of automobiles is vested in the provincial governments. They have the right to build highways and to licence automobiles, and it is a licence and not a right. Since this matter, to my knowledge, has not been worked out by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) and the provinces, I doubt whether this type of amendment would be acceptable. For these reasons we in the official opposition cannot support the motion.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with the remarks I want to make on this motion I should like to say a word or two about the observations of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). It seems to me that if we are serious about dealing with the main pollutants of the air, we are being highly illogical in excluding pollution from mobile sources. I am given to understand that mobile rather than stationary sources produce more than 50 per cent of the pollution in our air, and leaving out that source of pollution from file legislation and standards that will be required is leaving such a great gap in the law as to render the rest of the legislation practically useless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I now turn to suggestion that our dealing with this matter would not be constitutional. I have some experience in constitutional matters and have often found that the Constitution is trotted out as an excuse when someone does not want to deal with a subject. I assure the House that as far as I can make out-and I speak on the basis of previous experience- the right of Parliament to enact legislation dealing with pollution of the air by prohibition and by the setting of national standards is abundantly clear. We should not allow this suggestion to deter us from doing that which we believe is necessary.
I mentioned earlier in the debate that the key to this legislation is adequate enforcement. Reams of legislation have been passed on this type of subject. As you know, Mr. Speaker, practically the whole law of public nuisance has been directed to this particular field. Yet the weakness of all efforts in the past has resided in the lack of adequate enforcement. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has put his finger on the

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
major weakness in the bill. Clause 7 is the core of the bill since it deals with the setting of national standards in respect of emission. What do we find in that clause? We find in it a phrase through which a lawyer acting for a pollutant company will be able to win his case without any difficulty. What is the phrase? For the purposes of this debate I will not go into clause 7(l)(b), but clause 7(l)(a) provides:
-constitute a significant danger to the health of persons-
As the hon. member for Kootenay West said, by using such weak, ambiguous phrases as that you rob the bill of its effectiveness. A pollutant company will not have trouble in getting a medical expert to say, "We are not in a position to say that this type of pollution of the air constitutes a significant danger to health. It might or it might not. In any event, we do not know what 'significant' means and we do not know what sort of danger to health you are talking about." I can just imagine the cases in which those who pollute the air will escape the provisions of the bill because of the weakness of those words. Clearly, they need to be strengthened in accordance with the proposal of the hon. member for Kootenay West. All sorts of polluting substances may or may not constitute a substantial or significant danger to health.
I told the House earlier that pollution in my constituency, a very attractive residential area, has been found to be a most serious problem by a private group known as Forward 9 Citizens' Association. It is a non-partisan association which has set up a task force on pollution and has studied the problem in an area that I advisedly call a very attractive residential area. What have they found? I will not go through all their findings; I mentioned them earlier. In part, however, they found that an incinerator operated by the metropolitan Toronto works department is causing local problems. They say:
Odours, fly ash, and black smoke are regularly emitted from its three stacks. Garbage is not separated into different kinds and no attempt is made to remove the specific types of garbage that create troublesome emissions when they are burned. Only one of the three stacks has even a partially effective precipitator. The plant is frequently used to burn many more tons a day than it was designed to handle (even though this practice is illegal!)
Most of the fly ash reaching us here in ward 9-
The area to which they are referring is part of my constituency.
-consists of small particles, which leave a coating of soot on exposed surfaces. Closer to the incinerator, in residential areas of wards 7 and 8, the ash that falls is much denser and larger (with flakes sometimes the size of quarters) and gives rise to serious problems: cars change colour overnight, ash has to be shovelled off porches, windows have to be kept closed, exterior paintwork is ruined (and fresh paint immediately spoiled), and washing hung out to dry can be made dirty within an hour or two.
They invite the people who dump this ash to come and see it for themselves. It is a great problem. A similar problem arises from the sewage plant at Ashbridge's Bay.
They say there are four stacks that regularly emit smoke in large amounts. They further say:
Foul and highly offensive smells blow from the aeration tanks and sludge lagoons at the plant to residential areas to the north
and east.
Raw sewage goes through the plant into the lake.
I suppose that is a matter for the water control legislation.
AH three kinds of pollution call for immediate attention and control.
The least serious problem is probably the smoke coming from the stacks, which is caused by the burning of dried sludge.
The obnoxious odours from the aeration tanks are a far more immediate hazard. At times the smells reach nauseating levels and afflict thousands of people in nearby residential areas. Methods are being tried to counteract the odour by spraying a deodorant into the air, but residents know that this method doesn't work.
When it rains in Toronto, the quality of the effluent from the plant decreases as the rainfall increases. This is because the sewage system consists largely of combined sewers, handling both storm and sanitary sewage, (and is) unable to handle the load and raw sewage flows into the lake. A program of separating the two systems is under way but is not scheduled for completion until 1990. Meanwhile, the lake becomes more and more polluted. Why should we wait 20 years?
The point I want to draw to the attention of the minister is that although these conditions are objectionable and destroy the quality of life of people living in the area-this problem is not unique; I speak from experience in my constituency and am familiar with it-they are duplicated in many parts of Canada. None of this can be shown to be a substantial danger to health. Because it is only a danger to the amenity and the quality of life, it will escape unscathed. People who live in this excellent residential area have to put up with these odours. They should not have to put up with them if we mean what we say about maintaining clean air.
I wish to draw another subject to the attention of the minister although it may be a little off the point. The people in my constituency were extremely encouraged by the statement the minister made on march 16 to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution. The minister promised the following:
The federal government likely will conduct research into ways of disposing of solid wastes without burning them. .. Knowledge from such studies will be of great help to cities such as Toronto which must dispose of tons of garbage every day.
If this bill is not tightened up, much of what we are talking about with regard to disposal of garbage-and there is some concern whether it constitutes a substantial hazard to health-will be found to be impossible. The minister went on to say:
Financial assistance to municipalities to help them deal with their garbage problem also may be provided by the federal government at a later date-
I say to the minister, "More power to you." If he goes ahead with plans of that sort he will contribute a great deal to the future of this country, particularly the future of the area I represent. In conclusion I say that the

June 21, 1971

amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, is essential to the adequate enforcement of this act. Without it, it will be easy for powerful interests which are guilty of polluting the atmosphere of our country to escape under legalistic excuses because the bill is so inadequately drawn that it does not prohibit their continuing to pollute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I hear one of my good friends across the way faintly groaning. I suppose all one can do at this stage of the session is to speak or groan faintly. Nevertheless, I would like to do a little of one or both for a few minutes.
As already pointed out, the subject matter of this amendment is central to whether the bill will be adequate and sound, a piece of legislation that will meet the challenges that the Canadian people feel should be met in this area. Now that the bill is back in this chamber at the report stage, it has gone full circle. I do not know whether we have made any progress, because what we are discussing in this amendment was the central theme in the second reading debate and what intervened in committee did not result in any change in this clause. However, I feel justified in coming back to it again because it is a very crucial question.
I suggest in my speech on second reading that the stuff and substance of this bill, in particular the amendment we are considering, are the building blocks of a new Constitution for Canada. As indicated by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), the matter was pursued in committee. Some of the questioning that took place in committee with regard to clause 7 was closely tied in with the whole question of establishment of national standards, not only as to whether this was desirable but constitutional.
One of the witnesses who appeared before our committee was a representative of the Department of Justice. Questions were directed to him. I wish to refer briefly to page 22 of report No. 2 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, where Mr. Gibson was answering questions. One of the questions asked what had been done by way of research into the constitutional foundation of the bill. Mr. Gibson replied:
I understand the questions related to the degree of constitutional research that was done in the stages of preparation of this bill. In answering that question I can only indicate what was done within the Department of Justice and what was made available to me, as an officer of the Department of Justice, by other departments.
There was very extensive review of the proposals which gave rise to this bill within the Department of Justice from a constitutional viewpoint. I do not know how much further I can go other than to simply say that the matter was considered within the department at all levels up to and including both the level of the deputy minister and the minister himself. There was no outside advice retained by the Department of Justice to my knowledge and I think my knowledge is complete. I am not
Clean Air Act
aware of any outside legal advice which was received by the Department of National Health and Welfare at the early stages or by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
In response to a question concerning federal responsibility for air, Mr. Gibson said:
I have great difficulty in dealing with air in abstract.
A little later he said:
I do not look upon air per se as being a subject of jurisdiction either federal or provincial. Certainly it is not listed in section 91 of the BNA Act nor in section 92. Unless you somehow extrapolate from the listings in those sections-and I have grave difficulty doing that directly in relation to air-no, I would not be prepared to say that air is in essence a subject of jurisdiction either of the federal Parliament or the provincial legislatures.
So there you have it. Mr. Gibson was saying, as an officer of the Department of Justice, that the question of air is one for which the Constitution does not provide. I was interested in the contribution to the debate on the constitutional aspect made by my hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). He stated a side of the case which was largely ignored in committee, namely, the degree of jurisd ction under the criminal law. It is obvious the government has operated within the traditional hidebound framework of the British North America Act. We discussed this question in committee. The Minister of Fisheries, now Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) again emphasized the propriety of federal jurisdiction in matters concerning health and in relation to international dealings, while completely ignoring the broader context in which we should be considering this subject.
The bill with which we are dealing has been before the House for some time. 1 have made a practice, when meeting Canadians in various parts of the country with various degrees of knowledge to ask what they thought we should be doing. In private conversation at a conference in Toronto, where 1 had an opportunity to meet people from many parts of Canada, this was the theme: Do you feel that in light of the facts before us, despite our incomplete knowlege, this situation should be regarded as a national and international question, one which should be dealt with as a subject of national jurisdiction? Is this necessary for the future of our people? Almost invariably the answer I received was: Yes, this is the approach we should be taking; there must be national standards if we are to get anywhere.
Here we are today at the report stage of the bill-just about where we were when we started, as far as practical issues are concerned. Those who are in a position to take the lead seem to be ignoring the issue completely. Recently a conference was held in Victoria, the capital city of my province. Was this question on the agenda? Do not hon. members agree that this is one of the most practical and urgent matters which should have been discussed at that conference? Could we not have said to the Premiers gathered there: In a developing international crisis of which we are part, should we be content with the traditional approaches to the interpretation of the Constitution? Are you not prepared to give the federal Parliament authority to move in and deal with this matter in a way which is adequate to the circumstances?
24171-36j

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
But no, we took the approach of dealing with the Constitution as though it were something abstract, up in the clouds, something which ordinary citizens need not be concerned about. It is only a token gesture under which Members of Parliament are allowed to discuss the Constitution and listen to the views of citizens. As a little sop to the existence of Parliament, the co-chairmen of the constitutional committee were allowed to go to Victoria and sit at the fringe of the conference. Admittedly, some of the issues dealt with there are important, it is well we should spend time discussing the relationship of groups within our society. But unless we in this Parliament and in this country are prepared to come to grips with any constitutional obstruction which may exist to a solution of this question, we might as well forget about worrying which language group will survive and in what circumstances.
I say the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was derelict in his duty in not having placed a topic like this in the forefront of the subjects to be discussed at that conference. This is why an attempt is made now to brush these amendments aside as though they are minor matters which are thrown in for debate at the end of a parliamentary session. This is the challenge which the Minister of the Environment has been refusing to face, despite his fine speeches. I submit in all seriousness that when members opposite vote on the amendment they should consider it in this context and realize its importance to the future well-being of the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, this is another important amendment. We are suggesting to the government that once the clean air bill has passed the House some kind of timetable should be established for industry to bring its plants into line with the standards and objectives that are set. When this matter was debated during the committee stage there was some objection to the amendment. Some hon. members felt it would be unfair to some industry if it did not have, say, more than a five-year period in which to clean up its pollution. As a result, this amendment seeks to add a third subclause giving the minister the right, in cases where the circumstances warrant, to extend the period of five years, subject to an annual review by the minister. This takes care of the objections of those who feel that an industry which had not eliminated its pollution might have to close down after a five-year period.
Let not the Canadian public kid itself, Mr. Speaker: Canada is in trouble as far as its environment is concerned. In fact, the whole world is in trouble as a result of emissions into the air and pollution of the water, whether from DDT, mercury or just plain sewage. The question is: When are we going to start drawing the line and setting timetables to clean up this pollution?
This afternoon the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) told the House that mobile sources did not have to be brought under the act because there are all kinds of regulations on the statute books of Canada to take care of them. I agree with the minister 100 per cent; we have had pollution regulations in dozens and dozens of statutes. But the trouble is that they have never been enforced.
A year ago I had a survey carried out on a number of pieces of legislation in order to ascertain whether pollution regulations in Canada were being enforced. Mention was made this afternoon of mining. In the seven years previous to last year not one case of mining pollution was taken to the courts or reported. Dozens and dozens of infractions occur all over Canada, especially in the north, where we have jurisdiction, but there are no prosecutions. This is why we are worried. In our national parks, in some instances raw sewage is getting into the rivers and streams; yet only one case in the whole of Canada, namely in Banff national park, which warranted a $5 fine, was reported.
Since there are regulations on the books which the government has not been enforcing, we prefer to bring them all under the umbrella of the minister. We think he is the one to handle the problem. He should take pride in the fact that we have confidence both in him and his department to do the job. As I say, this loose enforcement of sxisting regulations gives us cause for concern. We have had enough of the pollution that is taking place. Our

June 21, 1971

rivers and lakes have been turned into sewers. In many sections of the country the air is unfit to breathe. A host of medical problems have arisen due to pollution of the air. The provincial legislatures are afraid to tackle the pollution problem because industry is holding the whip over them and over this Parliament. The government is afraid to move, just as it is afraid to move on some of the taxation measures before the House. This is why we are suggesting a timetable be set in order to let industry know they have so long to clean up the mess. We are giving them all kinds of incentives now, and their antipollution equipment can be written off at our expense in two years.
I recently received an excellent report dealing with pulp mills in Quebec. Hon. members would be frightened if they realized the pollution that is taking place in that province. The minister himself knows it will take years and years to clean up this pollution, especially since there are so many old plants still in operation. Although we have to help industry in some ways to fight pollution, we must at the same time be tough and let industry know that this country belongs to Canadians who have a right to clean air and to clean water.
Although we are not trying to put industry out of business, it has so far avoided dealing with a host of pollution problems. This is why we must set a timetable, publish regulations and insist upon their being carried out. After all, we are here to govern, to tackle problems in Canada and to do this we must make changes to the legislation currently before the House. I appreciate the difficulties industry is facing. We are as much to blame for pollution as industry, because we have let industry continue to pour pollutants into the air and into the water.
But the time has come when the Canadian people must cry halt. The Canadian people cannot go on indefinitely allowing pollutants to be poured into the air and water and to expect this old earth and all the food chain systems in it to survive. In many instances almost irreparable damage has been done. Therefore, I suggest that the minister accept this amendment and include a timetable in the legislation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, we intend to support this amendment. I do not think it would have been possible to support it had the hon. member not included subclause 3. Established industries, with large payrolls, that have been in operation for many years in many cases cannot meet the problem of pollution in an immediate way within a period of five years. They may be capable of reducing but certainly not of totally eliminating pollutants.
However, it does seem desirable that a timetable of some sort be inserted in the bill. Otherwise, in many other operations of this legislation the government may or may not move. It may not take action, depending on how it interprets the act or the situation. I believe a general timetable for meeting emission standards within
Clean Air Act
industry is reasonable. If we do not have such a timetable we may never reach the goal toward which this bill is aimed.
It would have been impossible to say that all emission standards must be met by all industry in Canada within a period of five years. That would be highly desirable but in many cases most difficult. There are cases where there must be a reasonable reduction to a point where the government is satisfied real efforts are being made. While there is legislation in existence in the province of Ontario, prosecutions are not undertaken if an industry can prove it is really moving on the problem, is working toward a goal and that it will eventually conquer its pollution problems.
The hon. member has written into this amendment provision for the minister to consider special cases and extend the period within which an industry must meet air standards. Furthermore, it requires that the decision for extension should receive an annual review. I am in agreement with that. If the matter is brought to the attention of the minister each year, it is then up to him and his department to see that efforts have been made before further extension is granted. Therefore, we support this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on motion No. 9. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on this motion stands deferred. The House will now move to motion No. 10, moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), as follows:
That Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by adding the following paragraph immediately after line 35 at page 25:
"(b) defining, for the purposes of this act, the expressions "endangers the health, safety or welfare of persons", "interferes with normal enjoyment of life", "endangers the health of animal life", "causes damage to plant life", and "constitutes a significant danger to the health of persons";"
and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was placed on the order paper by my

June 21, 1971
Clean Air Act
colleague the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and it is my pleasure to put it forward on his behalf. I will be very brief.
The purpose of the amendment is in line with many of the other amendments brought forward today by opposition parties, that is, to tighten up the administration of the act. We feel that in many cases the definitions and regulations have been too loosely set out in the bill, with too much leeway within which no real decision can be taken. This applies particularly to the definition of what actually constitutes pollution, specifically air pollution.
The interpretation clause does not make any reference to those parts read out by Your Honour, except in general terms. The amendment is intended to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations to define more specifically and precisely fundamental expressions in the interpretation section. This is about all I need say. We feel the act will be better if these definitions are included and the somewhat vague terms expressed in more specific language.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute or two on this amendment to say why our group will support it. It seems to me the act should include these definitions and I am hopeful the minister will agree. In years to come, if a law suit arises in respect of pollution, clarification in the terms cf the amendment would be essential. There is nothing wrong with such clarification. We should know what "a significant danger to the health of a person" means according to the act. Do you have to be moved on your back on a stretcher, do you have to be on crutches, or what does it mean? What kind of test will doctors carry out to determine whether something is a significant danger to heatlh?
As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said earlier, these words can mean almost anything. If the matter gets into a court of law one would have a difficult time making a case against a company which was polluting. For this reason the legislation is weak and there should be included in it clarification of these terms. I urge the minister to accept the amendment.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) let me inform him that the department's legal advisers suggest the practice followed is that the meaning of such words as are referred to in amendment No. 10 are normally left to the courts of law to interpret, and not to the Governor in Council through regulation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 10?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
(Mr. Aiken.]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Comeau) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. We have now reached motion No. 12, in the name of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), which reads as follows:
That Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be amended by adding the following subclause to clause 39 immediately after line 34 at page 29:
"(3) The Governor in Council, forthwith upon the proclamation of this act, shall cause a study to be made with reference to the feasibility of establishing a fund out of which a person, where no civil remedy is available to him, might recover ex gratia compensation for injury by air pollution to his health, safety or welfare or for interference with his normal enjoyment of his life or property; and the Governor in Council shall cause such study to be made public upon receipt thereof."
Hon. members will remember that at the outset of the report stage on this bill the Chair gave advance notice of its reservation concerning the acceptability of motion No. 12 and stated that hon. members would be given an opportunity to present argument in respect of the acceptability of the motion. I would therefore invite hon. members to present their views on this motion and the Chair will reserve its decision until afterward.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I presume the reservation on the part of the Chair relates to the possibility that if this amendment should be carried it would result in a charge on the federal treasury, which is something a private member cannot impose. I have two comments to make. The first is that the amendment does not in fact require a fund out of which a person may recover. The amendment asks that a study be made with reference to the feasibility of establishing a fund. This is the sort of thing I feel is most important in this piece of legislation.
The general intent of the legislation is to improve our air quality and to arrive at a means by which this might be done. I think one of the most important steps that could be taken would be to have an on-going study of a subject that has been completely left out of this legislation; it has been entirely ignored. I refer to the question of setting up a fund for compensation to persons who may be injured as a result of air pollution. The proposal says merely that the Governor in Council can cause a study to be made. I feel this is by no means necessarily a charge on the federal treasury.
The second reason is related to the first. This provision has been allowed under various other clauses. I refer particularly to motion No. 6, which was accepted as an amendment, which would permit the minister to establish a commission of inquiry for the purpose of conducting a public hearing at which the ambient air quality objectives and the national emission standards shall be
June 21, 1971

reviewed. II it is in order under motion No. 6, to set up a commission of inquiry, surely it is in order under motion No. 12 to cause a study to be made. I can see no reason for any differential between the two amendments.
If we were referring to another piece of legislation it would be difficult to refer to other situations and circumstances as precedents. But we have today accepted an almost identical amendment, motion No. 6, and I believe it would be unfair at the very least to the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) who placed this amendment on the order paper to rule it out or order while allowing amendment No. 6 and a couple of others along the same line. I do not think this would necessarily result in a charge to the treasury. It is certainly a desirable and relevant part of the whole bill. For that reason I urge Your Honour to accept the amendment and I think we could dispose of it very quickly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I should like to argue that this motion is not in order, for two reasons. First, it attempts to do indirectly what cannot be done directly by a member of this House. It asks that the Governor in Council cause a study to be made, it says very simply, only for the purpose of determining whether or not there should be a fund. I think there is another, more important reason. While the recommendation in motion No. 6 I understand did include funds for the purpose of studying the quality of air, and so on, no part of that recommendation calls for a study for the purpose of paying compensation, or indeed for establishing a fund for compensating people as called for under the provisions of amendment No. 12.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I am sure you have taken these arguments into account, I am also sure you would agree that this motion does not meet the criteria for an amendment which is, in addition, a substantive amendment in respect of what is provided in the royal recommendation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is very grateful for the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I must say at the outset that I had no doubt concerning the evident financial provision contained in motion No. 12 which in my opinion would place a charge upon public funds. But I believe the point made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is well taken, although the minister questioned it and suggested that the hon. member was trying to do indirectly what he could not do directly.
However, in respect of the other aspect of the motion which is related directly to the last point made by the minister, from the beginning the Chair has been of the opinion and has felt deeply that this motion is a substantive proposal inasmuch as it would go beyond the purport of the bill. If the hon. member wishes to look at May's Seventeenth Edition, page 549, paragraph 1, he will see that it reads:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter (d) or beyond the scope of the bill (e), or if it is
Division
irrelevant to the subject matter (f) or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration (g).
Also, page 551, paragraph 13 reads:
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed-
The Chair is ready to discount that point, but it has to come back to the first citation and feels that if the hon. member is allowed to present this motion it will go beyond the objects of the bill that we have before us. It is the opinion of the Chair that this bill is meant to solve the problems of pollution: it is not to solve the problems of compensation. On this point alone the Chair cannot accept the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred votes on the report stage of Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution. The first question is on motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call in the members.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since all the questions that we are now going to decide are ones on which we want recorded votes, may I suggest that we have just one ringing of the bell to call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. This division also disposes of motion No. 8.
The question is now on motion No. 3.


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion negatived. This	
division also disposes of motion No. 5. The question is		
now on motion No.	6.	
The House divided		on motion No. 6 (Mr. Harding)
which was negatived on the following division:		
		YEAS
		Messrs:
Aiken		Beaudoin
Barnett		BeU
June 21, 1971

Messrs:
Bigg	McCleave
Cadieu	McIntosh
Code	Marshall
Crouse	Mazankowski
Downey	Monteith
Flemming	Murta
Forrestall	Nesbitt
Gilbert	Noble
Gleave	Nowlan
Gundlock	Paproski
Hales	Peddle
Harding	Peters
Homer	Ritchie
Howe	Rodrigue
Knowles (Winnipeg	Rondeau
North Centre)	Saltsman
Knowles (Norfolk-	Schumacher
Haldimand)	Simpson
Laprise	Skoreyko
Lundrigan	Southam
Maclnnis (Cape	Stewart (Marquette)
Breton-East Richmond)	Thomas (Moncton)
Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Thompson (Red Deer)
MacLean Macquarrie	Woolliams-50.
 NAYS Messrs:
Allmand	Lang (Saskatoon -
Anderson	Humboldt)
Andras	Langlois
Bechard	Laniel
Benson	Lessard (LaSalle)
Blair	Lessard
Blouin	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Borrie	Lind
Boulanger	Loiselle
Breau	MacEachen
Caccia	Mackasey
Cafik	McBride
Clermont	Mcllraith
Cobbe	McNulty
Corriveau	Mahoney
Cot6 (Richelieu)	Marceau
Crossman	Marchand
Cullen	(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Cyr	Morison
Danson	Murphy
Davis	Noel
Deachman	O'Connell
Dube	Olson
Dupras	Orange
Duquet	Otto
Forest	Penner
Forget	Pepin
Francis	Perrault
Gendron	Portelance
Gibson	Pringle
Goode	Prud'homme
Gray	Reid
Groos	Rochon
Guay (St. Boniface)	Roy (Timmins)
Guay (Levis)	Roy (Laval)
Guilbault	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Hogarth	Stafford
Hopkins	St. Pierre
Hymmen	Thomas
Jerome	(Maisonneu ve -
Kaplan	Rosemont)
Lachance	Watson
Lajoie	Whelan Whicher-82.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. This division also disposes of motion No. 11. The question is now on Motion No. 7.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated. The question is now on motion No. 9.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third
time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John (Jack) Davis: that the bill be read the third time
and do pass.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and I are prepared to postpone our "late shows" until tomorrow night.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
June 21, 1971



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;

[Stage Direction]
WHEREAS science and technology vitally affects the well-being of Canadians and the future of Canadian society as a whole;
AND WHEREAS many of the policies and programs of the Government of Canada substantially influence directly and indirectly the development of science and technology in Canada;
AND WHEREAS the close cooperation of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is required to ensure that the development and use of science and technology advances in a manner beneficial to all Canadians;
AND WHEREAS the need for policies directed towards the most effective use of science and technology in the achievement of Canada's national goals has become increasingly urgent;
AND WHEREAS it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing such policies warrant the establishment of a special portion of the public service presided over by a minister charged with that responsibility.
NOW THEREFORE His Excellency, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Ministries and Ministers of State Act, is pleased to direct that a proclamation do issue establishing a Ministry of State for the purpose of formulating and developing policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology, to be known as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and to be presided over by a Minister of State to be known as the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
HIS EXCELLENCY IN COUNCIL is further pleased to specify that the Minister of State for Science and Technology shall formulate and develop policies with respect to
(a)	the most appropriate means by which the Government of Canada may, through measures within its fields of jurisdiction, have a beneficial influence on
the application and development of science and technology in Canada,
(b)	the co-ordination of programs and activities regarding science and technology with other policies and programs of the Government of Canada, and
(c)	the fostering of cooperative relationships with respect to science and technology with the provinces, with public and private organizations, and with other nations.
HIS EXCELLENCY IN COUNCIL is further pleased to specify that the Minister of State for Science and Technology shall, in relation to the formulation and development of the aforementioned policies, have such duties as may be assigned to him by law, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall assist departments and agencies of the Government of Canada in the formulation and development of advice to the Governor in Council with regard to
(a)	the optimum investment in, and application of, science and technology in pursuit of national objectives,
(b)	the organization of the scientific establishment in the public service of Canada,
(c)	the allocation of financial, personnel and other resources to Canadian scientific endeavours, and
(d)	the extent and nature of Canada's participation in international scientific activities and the co-ordination of related domestic activites.
HIS EXCELLENCY IN COUNCIL is further pleased to specify that the Minister of State for Science and Technology may
(a)	initiate and undertake such research, analysis and policy studies as may be required to further knowledge and understanding of the impact of science and technology on society, and
(b)	determine and promote the use of methods for assessing the effectiveness of scientific policies and programs.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 22, 1971