1957-11-28

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. Rea (Spadina) presented the first, second and third reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In yesterday's copy of the Ottawa Citizen there is a report which is quite erroneous. I will read the paragraph which refers specifically to my point; it is criticizing the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) with regard to the matter of the flag, and it says:
Moreover, he could have withdrawn his motion, thereby saving many Liberals and C.C.F. members from voting against their own actual wish for a national flag.
I sent out for copies of Le Droit and I found this paragraph in the edition of Tuesday, November 12, in an editorial by Mr. Pierre Chaloult, which reads as follows:
(Translation):
. .	. thereby saving many Liberals and Social
Crediters from voting against their own actual wish.
(Text):
My point is this, and maybe it has to do with simultaneous translation between the newspapers; that my interpretation of this article is that it referred to the Liberals and the Social Credit party, and I should like to correct the matter because all the members of the C.C.F. party voted in favour of the flag.



MR. ROBICHAUD    REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN MONTREAL &quot;GAZETTE&quot;

Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on an editorial which appears this day, November 28, 1957, in a daily newspaper and which concerns all members of this parliament as well as members of previous parliaments. In the Montreal Gazette of this date the following editorial appears: Christmas Cards And All That
Thousands of Canadians this year will not be receiving the Christmas cards they had from Ottawa in other years. The reason they may not be receiving them is quite simple: they will no longer be paying for them.
It seemed, for the time being, rather pleasant to have Yule greetings from your member of parliament. It showed that he had not forgotten you. He had even gone so far as to send you his greetings and his best wishes-for Christmas and the New Year, and all that.
But the unpleasant thing about these pleasant greetings is that you had to pay to be greeted. And you paid nonetheless because you never actually saw the bill. It was still charged to your account, in the taxation you paid.
This year there will be no Christmas cards for members of parliament, provided by the courtesy of those to whom they were to be sent. The estimated saving is $50,000.
Perhaps there may be some elector somewhere anxiously waiting for his member's card. But it may be doubted. That $50,000 saving will be quite a compensation for not being greeted with your own money.
But perhaps the happiest electors of all may be those who helped pay for these cards but never even got one. They are now being forgotten at less cost to themselves.
The point of my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that this editorial leaves the impression the members of parliament were in the past supplied with free Christmas cards which they were sending out to their respective constituents. This is absolutely false, and the newspaper responsible for such an irresponsible and untrue statement should apologize to this parliament and to the people of this country for misinforming them. Furthermore, most members of this house present and past paid for the postage used on their Christmas cards and did not take advantage of the privilege of the frank to which they were entitled.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will be interested to receive the announcement that
1610	HOUSE OF
Finance-Bond Issues
I am happy to be able to make. At nine o'clock this morning the books were opened on two offerings of government of Canada bonds, the first an issue of $250 million of 3 per cent bonds, due October 1, 1959, issued at a price to yield a return of 3.81 per cent, and another issue of $400 million of three-year 3 per cent bonds maturing December 15, 1960, for conversion applications only, issued at a price to yield a rate of 3.85 per cent to maturity.
The books on these two offerings opened at nine o'clock this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the house will be glad to know that both issues were immediately and substantially oversubscribed and the books were immediately closed.
Since these offerings come on top of the twelfth Canada savings bonds campaign which has raised now the record sum of a billion dollars by this method, I think it right to say that the response of the Canadian public is deeply gratifying, and I am sure in the eyes of all members it reflects not only the strength of the Canadian economy but the confidence of our people in the economy of their country.


Hon. James Sinclair (Coasi-Capilano):: May
I be permitted to ask one brief question. Instead of quoting the effectual interest rate, will the minister give the actual sale price of the $100 bond?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. In the first issue the bond was issued with a coupon rate of 3 per cent. The issue price was 98.6, to yield a return of 3.81 per cent to maturity. On the second issue, that for conversion applications only, the coupon rate is 3 per cent. The issue price was 97.6, to yield a return of 3.85 per cent to maturity.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the first rate is on a maturity exactly the same as the issue we put out two months ago, precisely the same maturity, namely October 1, 1959. I think it may be observed that the effective interest return on this same bond now is 1.18 per cent lower than the effective return on the bond of the same maturity issued just two months ago, which is an indication of-


James Sinclair: A sagging economy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the growing strength of the Canadian economy and the confidence of the Canadian people in their economy; and also of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that interest rates have come down substantially and that money, credit and interest in this country are easing substantially.
[Later:I
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question


to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether any farmers in the west who were fortunate enough to obtain cash advances on farm-stored grain have sought to put it into any of the bonds the minister said were so advantageous.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure no hon. member of the house is going to ask the Minister of Finance to disclose the private affairs of any citizen.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: 

REPORTED REDUCTION IN EXCISE TAX ON AUTOMOBILES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he say whether there is any substance in the story that came over the radio at noon today to the effect that there is to be a 50 per cent reduction in the excise tax on cars this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, no such statement has been authorized by the Minister of Finance or by any government source that I am aware of.


James Sinclair: What did you promise during the last election? Total removal.
[Later:!


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I am sure the Minister of Finance will appreciate the importance of this question. In view of the reply he gave to the hon. member for Acadia with regard to the excise tax, and in view of the request by the representatives of the automobile industry to see the Minister of Finance, whose preoccupations we all understand, I wonder if I might ask him whether, in the interests of promoting sales, which are now somewhat stagnant, he could not give further consideration to the reply he gave a few moments ago, and if he could not expedite his meeting with the representatives of the automobile industry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the representatives of the automobile industry on the subject several times since the new government took office, and I have also met the associations of dealers and others interested in the subject. I think they realize that the door is always open when there is any point in our meeting to discuss the subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. Is the Minister of Finance in a position to say whether or not he can see them tomorrow? My information is that the minister has not found it possible to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, whether a meeting can be arranged tomorrow I cannot say at the moment, in view of a heavy program of commitments, including the sittings of the house. The question remains whether anything further can be added to the rather complete knowledge which the government has on this subject. I do not need to assure the house of the government's concern with regard to the matter.
1611
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the questions raised by the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Essex East. Is the house to assume that by the swinging-door policy enunciated today by the Minister of Finance, the question of excise taxes is being given due consideration in relation to the budget the minister is likely to bring in, in due course, at this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend could have asked that simple question without labouring it quite so hard.


James Sinclair: It is the example he gets from you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon. member that the policy which he described as a swinging-door policy is by no means new. It has been the policy of government to hear all citizens and all groups of citizens who have any case they wish to submit to the government, and the government tries to give proper consideration to whatever representations are made to it from responsible sources.



REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF LOAN FUND FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it true that the government has decided to propose legislation at the present session to establish a loan fund which will be available at low interest so that small businesses will not be driven out by larger groups? This was a promise made by the Prime Minister at Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 4, 1957. If so, when?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, a somewhat similar question was asked a few days ago in the house and answered by me. I pointed out that representations have been received by the government from associations and organizations representing small business. They have submitted various proposals, and those proposals are under study at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Lauren! (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry inform the house now, or at the earliest convenient date, what legislation in addition to that already on the order paper it is intended to introduce during this session. I ask the question now because we have already commenced to consider the extension of the sitting hours. The hon. gentleman will remember that when his party was on this side of the house I used to have the experience of being asked similar questions.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: And it is a very laudable attitude, because it shows a desire to co-operate to bring about at the earliest possible date the closing of the house after the business has been expedited. I wish to say to my right hon. friend that I shall endeavour very shortly, within the next day or so, to bring before the house in general something of the alignment of future legislation in addition to that already on the order paper. I hope to do that on Monday.



RETURNS OP CANDIDATES' ELECTION EXPENDITURES NOT FILED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State arising out of information contained in a return tabled yesterday with respect to a motion of mine passed by the house on October 25. Can she say whether any of the members of the House of Commons referred to in sessional paper 3-B as not having filed their expense returns for the recent general election received judges' orders permitting them to delay the filing of these returns?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am assured that the three members who had not filed obtained orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can
the hon. lady give us the information as to the dates on which these orders were obtained?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not have that information. If the hon. member would like to put a question on the order paper, it can be procured.


Stanley Howard Knowles: should be glad to do that, but would it not be just as easy for the hon. lady to give that information at the next sitting of the house?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will be very glad to procure it.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-PASSES FOR MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that this present session may run close to Christmas, or even go over that time, can the minister speed up his negotiations with T.C.A. relative to an occasional pass being issued to members of parliament who, like myself, live around 3,000 miles from Ottawa and would like to become reacquainted with their families and constituents?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I will be very glad to speak to the management of Trans-Canada Air Lines about that matter.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to report to the house on the progress being made in the discussions with the Saskatchewan government respecting the construction of the South Saskatchewan river project and, if so, will he make a report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not, because consideration and negotiation are still continuing, and this afternoon I will be meeting the premier of the province of Saskatchewan again.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the reply given yesterday by the Minister of Justice to the hon. member for Laurier regarding the establishment of a court of review in the province of Quebec. In view of the Canadian Press dispatch of last night, of which I sent a copy to my hon. friend, may I ask him if he is in a position to say now if the government intends to propose legislation at the present session for the purpose of the establishment of such a court of review in Quebec?


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: thank the hon. gentleman for having sent me a copy of the press dispatch referred to, which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette, as I recall. I can only tell him that

we have not yet received a copy of the bill introduced or to be introduced in the Quebec legislature. Therefore I am not in a position where I have official knowledge of what is intended, and until I do receive official notification, which will be by getting a copy of the bill, it will not be possible to arrive at a decision.


Mr, Lesage:: May I ask the Prime Minister if the premier of Quebec discussed the matter with him in the last few days?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he seen the report in the press that the United States public health service has recommended the abandonment of the mass chest X-ray program on account of the possible radiation danger, and has his department any similar action in mind?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have seen the press report, and I would say that my department has no similar action in mind.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he can assure the house that notwithstanding the illness of President Eisenhower, which we all so deeply regret, the very important meeting of the NATO council for next December in Paris will take place as arranged.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no definite information in this regard, although I think it can be taken as certain that the meeting in question will take place. I have heard of nothing that would indicate a postponement will take place. At the same time I realize that the meeting will naturally feel the effect of the absence of the President of the United States, who means so much in the world today.



TERRITORIAL WATERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Yesterday the hon.
06698-103J
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Vancouver East addressed this question to me, and I took it as notice:
Has the interdepartmental committee which we were informed last session was being set up reported to the government the position Canada should take on the legal position of the continental shelf and territorial waters in its representations to the international conference which the general assembly of the United Nations recommended should be held in March, 1958? If so, is it the minister's intention to make the government's views known to the House of Commons, and will provision be made for a discussion on this allimportant subject?
The answer is that the interdepartmental committee, which is making preparations for Canada's participation in the international conference on the law of the sea, which is to be held in Geneva commencing February 24, 1958, has not yet completed drafting its recommendations to the government on all the matters which will be discussed at the conference. The basis of the discussion at the conference will be a report of the international law commission of the general assembly incorporating some 73 recommendations on the various aspects of the law of the sea: territorial waters, continental shelf, navigation, fishing and so on.
The interdepartmental committee has, however, made recommendations to the government on some of the more important aspects of the international law commission's report, among these the questions of the territorial sea and the continental shelf, as a result of an invitation addressed to governments by the Secretary General of the United Nations for comments on the international law commission's report.
It is the secretary general's intention to include the comments he receives from member governments in documentation being prepared by the secretariat of the United Nations for the conference.
Provisional comments of the government were forwarded to the secretary general on September 10 last. I would draw attention to the fact that they are provisional comments, Mr. Speaker. These may be modified in view of the discussions to be held at the conference, and having regard to the negotiations that might take place at that time among the nations.
Since these comments will be of general interest I would ask leave of the house to have the note which was sent to the secretary general printed as an appendix to Hansard. This note is six pages long and it is single spaced. To discuss at this time the whole range of matters which will be taken up at the international conference would, I think, be premature. However, the house will now be acquainted with the views which

Inquiries of the Ministry have been put forward by the government on some of the more important aspects of these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister if what he is going to file includes the recommendations of the government on the continental shelf?


Sidney Earle Smith: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has leave to have printed in Hansard the document to which he has made reference?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of document referred to, see appendix, pages 1653-56.1



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister advise the house if he has received a report on the surveys carried on by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific concerning the advisability or otherwise of extending Northern Alberta Railways to the south shore of Great Slave lake?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: My department has not as yet received any report in an official way, though we have had informal comments from the railways concerned.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a supplementary question. If the minister has received some information unofficially, as he mentioned, is he ready to make a statement to the house on the subject in the near future?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not believe the situation at this stage would warrant a statement. The only information we have received concerns the relative cost of building such a railway, some information on the various routes examined, and so on. There was nothing decided, so I do not believe the situation warrants a statement at this time.


Jean Lesage: Would the minister table that information?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am a little dubious about how to table a telephone conversation, but I would be glad-


Jean Lesage: There is only one way to know what is going on; it is to ask questions.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: About all we know is a rough estimate of the cost of one of the routes, and I do not mind mentioning it. The estimate is between $60 million and $70 million, and that is the extent of my knowledge.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Can the minister give any indication whether or not there will be a report, and whether he will be in a position to make a statement before the end of this session?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am speaking from memory now, but it seems to me we were promised a report some time this fall. Obviously we are getting along into the fall, but I do know one has not been received as yet. I shall look into the matter to see what I can tell the hon. member.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will he consider the advisability of conferring at an early date with his colleague the Minister of National Defence and the United States defence authorities on the advisability of both countries participating in the construction of a road from Hay River, Northwest Territories, to Tree River on the Arctic coast, to serve the distant early warning line?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that anything that can be done to enhance the opportunities and increase the development of the Northwest Territories will certainly be considered by this government.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister had from the Co-operative Union of Canada or other cooperative organizations representations asking that the Farm Improvement Loans Act be extended to include credit unions as lenders under the act, thus giving the same guarantee to credit unions as is now provided to banks? Can the minister say what consideration has been given to these representations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank my hon. friend for his
courtesy in sending me notice of this question. Representatives of the Co-operative Union of Canada met with the cabinet on September 11 and made certain representations, including one to the effect stated in the question of my hon. friend. I understand that some of my colleagues are meeting this week with representatives of the credit union national association. Consideration of course is being given to all the representations that were made to the cabinet.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice, not in his judicial capacity but as the minister who has taken the lead in negotiations with the Howe Sound Company with the hope of keeping the Britannia mine in operation this winter. Can the minister report any action the government proposes to take to halt this threatened closure?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since I last reported to the house I have had two further conversations with officials of the mining company in New York. The last conversation indicated that the company had received just recently, since our talks began, a report from a consultant whom they had sent up to inspect the property. It was also indicated that as a result of this report consideration would have to be given to the whole question by their executive committee. I am expecting to have conversations with them early next week. Until the executive committee has considered the position, there is no way in which the matter can be advanced further. We will know more definitely what can be done after we hear from them early next week.



ADVERTISEMENTS IN C.N.R. DINING CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I shotild like to ask the minister-he will not do anything but I should like to ask him, nevertheless-why only British Columbia apples are advertised on the C.N.R. dining car menus on trains in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where excellent apples are also grown, and whether he will do anything to remedy this matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: 1 really have no knowledge why both types of apples are not advertised, but I will make inquiries of the railway company and give the hon. member an answer.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have been unable to give the Minister of Transport notice of this question, but I know he can answer by saying yes or no. I noticed a report that Chairman Moses of the New York state power authority and his officials are now in contact with federal officials concerning a new international bridge at Niagara Falls. Is that a fact?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any officials with whom Mr. Moses is in contact. If the hon. member can give me more information perhaps I will be able to give him an answer. I will make inquiries in my department and see whether any of my officials have been in touch with Mr. Moses.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On November 19 the minister made an announcement of a change in the price support on butter and butter oil, and then I believe he referred to butter oil and similar products being brought under import control. I wonder if he has tabled the order in council, or orders in council covering this and, if not, whether he will do so.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I do not know whether or not the order in council covering this matter has been tabled. I think it will appear in due course in the Canada Gazette, and I presume that will serve the purpose which the hon. member has in mind.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, there is real interest in what is being done to help the farmers of Canada, and I think there will be a real desire to find out much sooner than that what the government has done in this regard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think there is any question on the part of the dairy farmer as
1616	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to what was done. The price support legislation-the price support order, I should say -as far as butterfat is concerned was extended, and in order to include butterfat of any nature, or in any form, several forms not having been previously included were covered. At the same time all the forms of butterfat which would be included in the price support legislation were brought under the import control order which had previously existed.
This applied particularly to the product known as butter oil, which has been coming into Canada during the last three months in very considerable quantities. If it had continued to come in at that rate, or if these quantities had been increased, I think there is no question but that the entire dairy industry price structure would have been very badly disarranged and perhaps destroyed. Therefore this action was taken in order to maintain the dairy products price structure which we have had in existence now for some time.


Walter Adam Tucker: A supplementary question. I take it from what the minister has said that an order in council has been passed on this very important matter. Do I also take it that in the light of the protests which have been made by the leader of the government there is objection to disclosing to the country what the government has done by order in council in this matter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no intention in the world of trying to conceal anything that was done in this matter. The hon. member for Rosthern is trying to set up a straw man so he can go through the motions of knocking it down. I have just finished disclosing to the house everything contained in the order in council. If there is any need for it to be tabled I will be delighted to have it tabled but, as I say, the order in council will appear in the Canada Gazette in the normal course of events, and I should think that is all that is required.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in accordance with the policy his government appears to stand for, to table this important order in council.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of


Public Works. Has the minister any information regarding progress on the construction of the post office in Quebec city?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the house some weeks ago, the situation with regard to this post office is that the government acquired a site, but that site was not satisfactory to the town planning commission or committee of the city of Quebec. The city authorities wished to have the post office built on a site owned by the Canadian National Railways.
The Department of Public Works is ready and anxious to proceed with this work, but as yet the city of Quebec has not been able to arrange for the necessary transfer of the land. Responsibility for further progress does not rest at the present time with the Department of Public Works.


Maurice Bourget: A supplementary question. I think the answer given by the minister is right, but I should like to ask him if it is his intention to discuss this matter with officials of the C.N.R. so that an early agreement can be reached between the railway company and the city of Quebec.


Howard Charles Green: It is a question which will have to be worked out between the authorities of the city of Quebec and the Canadian National Railway Company.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government still giving consideration to taking whatever steps are necessary to increase the pensions of retired civil servants, along the lines of the assurance he gave to the house on October 23? If so, may we expect action on this matter at this session?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already stated. As to whether or not this and various other matters will be brought before parliament at this session depends to a major extent on the extent to which we get on with the business at hand and the legislation already placed on the order paper, and also those matters to which reference will be made on Monday next. If we get on with what we have to do we will have a job on our hands to conclude parliament before Christmas, and it will require the co-operation of all hon.

members in that regard if we are to discharge our responsibilities to the fullest measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Prime Minister accept a supplementary question? Is there any reason why he cannot include reference to this matter in the list of business he intends to bring before the house on Monday next?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago and as I stated earlier the matter is under active consideration, but there has been no determination in this regard as yet to such an extent as would permit the introduction of the necessary legislation.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister pursued the representations which were made by his predecessor, Mr. Gregg, to the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway concerning certain complaints having to do with changes made recently in the pension plan of that company? Surely the minister has had letters about this matter from some of the Canadian Pacific Railway pensioners concerned? I wonder whether he is pursuing the matter on their behalf.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the "no" refer to?


Michael Starr: I am not pursuing the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the representations which are being made by Canadian Pacific Railway pensioners in regard to this matter to the minister and to other members of the cabinet-if he shakes his head I will have to send him copies of letters which have been sent to him.


Michael Starr: I have not had any representation made to me on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: shall send the minister copies of letters which have been addressed to him.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the member for Comox-Alberni yesterday
Inquiries of the Ministry regarding a telegram from the secretary of the international confederation of free trade unions on the question of the transfer of registry of Canadian National ships, I would like to table the reply I made, if that meets with the wish of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, and ask whether in view of the seriousness of the situation he would not convene in his office a meeting of labour and management and perhaps the president of the Canadian Labour Congress?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my reply to this question is very simple. I have on two previous occasions attempted to mediate this unfortunate strike, and my offer was twice rejected by Mr. Banks. My feeling now is that I would be willing to try again provided I could be assured of the willingness of both parties to strive sincerely to reach a satisfactory conclusion.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke asked me a question about a wing dam on the Columbia river at Revel-stoke. I find it was decided in 1949 that the federal government had no further responsibility in respect of this wing dam, and there has been no work done by the Department of Public Works since that time.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of that answer. Could the Minister of Public Works advise us on what grounds such a decision was made and why the responsibility of the department was abrogated in 1949?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, apparently on the basis that there was no question of any damage being caused by navigation because, as the hon. member knows, there is no navigation on the Columbia river at that particular point any longer. Therefore there was no ground on which the dominion government could be made responsible for any such work.

Inquiries of the Ministry



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry I could not notify him of my intention to ask it, but the inadequate secretarial supply in this house sometimes does not permit us to do what we want.
According to a statement made by the minister of public utilities of the province of Manitoba, assistance to the province under P.F.R.A. has been withheld until after the dominion-provincial conference. Is this statement correct, if so, was the matter discussed at the conference?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the carrying on of P.F.R.A. activities in Manitoba or elsewhere has had nothing whatever to do and no connection with the holding of the dominion-provincial conference. The statement to which the hon. member refers is not correct. As I indicated in the house some two days ago some P.F.R.A. work on the St. Malo dam and reservoir is now under way.



WAR DEAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I fully realize that he has been very busy for the last few days, but I should like to ask him whether he is in a position to state whether in the near future he can answer the question I asked him some time ago and which he promised to answer. My question was whether or not consideration is being given to the request of the white cross mothers' association for some financial aid to a pilgrimage of mothers to visit the war dead overseas.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought to my attention at an earlier date a letter which he asked me whether I had received from mothers and widows whose sons or husbands had died in action so as to assure them an opportunity of visiting the graves of their loved ones.
This is a matter that has a tremendous appeal to the feelings and the emotions of all of us. I am sure it is an appeal that would commend itself to all hon. members. There has been no final determination made on the question, but I assure the hon. gentleman
[Mr. Green.l
that whatever the decision may be it will be one which will take into consideration all the factors and all the needs, the demands and requests of those who are desirous of visiting the graves of their loved ones, as well as those other matters which are also of importance in the decision of questions such as this. I am not in a position to say more at this time.


Harold Edward Winch: It is under consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the letter has been received by myself and I think by other members of the cabinet. Every consideration consistent with all the things that must be taken into view is now being given the matter, but I must say frankly I am not too hopeful of an affirmative answer at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jacob Schulz: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware of the reported shortage of electric power in the town of Churchill, which is now supplied by his department, and what has been done to alleviate the situation?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be very pleased to look into that question and let the hon. member have a definite answer shortly.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 4, to provide for minimum wages for employees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I address myself directly to the motion for the second reading of this bill may I say a word as to my own intentions today, in view of the fact that a number of the public bills on the order paper are in my name. This is the only Thursday we shall have this session for public bills, in other words bills regarding public matters brought forward by private members. If the consideration of this bill were completed it would be unfair on my part if I were to ask the house to take the rest of the day dealing with another of my bills. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will not take too long on this bill but that a decision can be reached-naturally I hope it will be a favourable decision-and that having been accomplished, I should like

the rest of my bills in this first group to stand so that other members with bills on the order paper might also have a chance to present their bills to the house this day.
In keeping with what I have just said I shall endeavour to speak as briefly as I can in support of Bill No. 4. To put it in a nutshell, the purpose of this bill is to establish a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
This bill provides that such minimum rate of wages shall be $1 per hour. The bill also provides that its terms do not affect any employee whose rate of wages is higher than the minimum established by this legislation. However, any rate of wages less favourable to employees than $1 per hour is superseded by this bill.
With one exception, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the only occasion in the history of the Canadian parliament when a bill has been presented proposing a minimum wage law for Canada. That single exception was, of course, in 1935, when the government of the late Mr. Bennett, who was prime minister at that time, presented to parliament what was popularly known as the Bennett new deal legislation. Parliament in that session before the 1935 election passed chapter 44 of the statutes of Canada for that year, which was known as the minimum wages act. However, that act, along with several other pieces of that Bennett new-deal legislation, was declared ultra vires of the powers of the federal parliament when it was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Liberal government that came into office after the election of 1935.
The reason that act was ruled ultra vires was that it had been established by the courts by that time that labour matters come in part under federal jurisdiction but in part under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore it was not competent for the federal parliament to pass one minimum wages act applying to all workers in Canada. I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bennett, the eminent lawyer that he was, knew of this difficulty and he tried to meet it by a rather lengthy and interesting preamble which can be found in chapter 44 of the statutes of 1935. The gist of that preamble was that Canada, having agreed to an international convention regarding the establishment of certain labour standards, including minimum wages, was obligated by that treaty arrangement to put such legislation on the statute books of the country. Nevertheless that position did not stand up when the minimum wages act of 1935 was taken to the supreme court. So far as I can ascertain, from that day to this parliament has not had occasion to debate an
Industrial Relations
actual bill for the enactment of a minimum rate of wages so far as the federal parliament is concerned.
The bill now before us, Mr. Speaker, clearly avoids the error of Mr. Bennett's bill of 1935. The bill now before us, like the two bills respecting annual vacations with pay now on the order paper, like the fair employment practices act and like the act providing for equal pay for equal work, makes it clear that it covers only those employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction. Not only have we in the federal parliament the right to legislate regarding employees in those works and undertakings that come under federal labour jurisdiction but some of us feel that we have the duty and obligation to do so. In other words, just as v/e have already enacted the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and these other pieces of legislation to which I have referred, some of us feel that the so-called labour code at the federal level should be rounded out and that we should make provision for such things as annual vacations with pay, statutory holidays with pay, minimum rates of wages, maximum hours of labour and so on for all those workers who are not protected by provincial legislation but who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
I say that this is the first time since 1935 that the house has had a chance to debate this issue. It is, of course, not the first time that this suggestion has been made on the floor of parliament. Some of us have been doing that for a long time, as we have been arguing for uniform labour standards across Canada. In addition, I might point out that this bill has been introduced and given first reading in parliament previous to this session but this is the first time that it has actually been reached for debate on second reading.
We in this group who present this bill to parliament are not alone in our support of the idea that there should be this kind of legislation providing for a minimum rate of wages for all employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction. The point, of course, was made very effectively once again this year in the submission made by the Canadian Labour Congress to the new government on October 21, 1957. Most of us remember that very interesting occasion in the railway committee room when the Canadian Labour Congress, only a week after parliament had met, appeared before the government at which time Mr. Jodoin read this brief and at which time the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) replied on behalf of the government.
One of the points that is underlined in the brief is that in filling out the gaps in labour

Industrial Relations
legislation there should be legislation providing for a minimum rate of wages for employees who come under federal jurisdiction. The Canadian Labour Congress says this about it on page 18 of its brief:
But the dominion should not confine itself to doing as well as the best of the provinces. It should give a lead. It should, specifically, establish a legal maximum work week of 40 hours and a legal maximum wage of $1 an hour. This is not really a very drastic proposal.
After some references to the maximum work week the brief goes on to say:
As for the minimum wage, there must be precious few workers in industries under dominion jurisdiction who are not getting at least $1 an hour. In some industries under provincial jurisdiction, a minimum of $1 an hour might be hard to apply immediately; but in most provinces the legal minimum rates are preposterously low, and if parliament set a minimum of $1 for industries under its jurisdiction, that might provide a spur to provincial laggards.
I remind the government that these are the words of the Canadian Labour Congress in its brief to the cabinet on October 21, 1957, and that therefore the bill now before the House of Commons is a clear-cut implementation of that request for a minimum wage of $1 an hour enacted by the federal parliament to cover all those employees who are in works, businesses and undertakings that come under federal labour jurisdiction.
I am satisfied that there is support for the principle of a minimum wage at the federal level in the other parties in the house. It has been indicated to me by members of both of the other opposition parties that they like this legislation. Some of them have changes here or there that they might like to make, and I may say in that connection that if the bill is given second reading, as I hope it will be, I will then move that it be referred to the committee on industrial relations so that there may be public hearings about it and so that any details of the bill that members might like to have altered could be adjusted so as to meet the various viewpoints. In other words, all we are dealing with at second reading is the principle of the bill.
Of course, we could get into an argument as to what the principle is. I think the principle of the bill is that there should be established by law a legal minimum wage for employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction and that that legal minimum should be not less than $1 per hour.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. As we have legislation providing equal pay for equal work for men and women, does this $1 an hour apply to both sexes?
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
answer is definitely yes. That would be the case because of that other legislation but as far as this legislation is concerned it is worded so that it applies to all employees without discrimination as to sex, race, colour, creed or anything else.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Good boy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
only does the principle of this bill have the support, to my knowledge, of members in all opposition parties, but I have before me evidence that it must have the support of members on the government side of the house. I have before me a clipping reporting, by the Canadian Press, an address made by the present Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition, at Vineland, Ontario, in February of this year. It was a speech that seemed to be directed mainly to labour matters in which the then leader of the opposition promised that if his party came to power after the then ensuing election there would be a number of items of labour legislation put on the statute books. One of those items, as indicated by the then leader of the opposition at Vineland was in these words, within quotation marks, "enact legislation to provide minimum wages."
It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, did not just say something casually when he made that promise in February because I, too, have in my hand a copy of a document to which frequent reference has been made in this house, namely, the "Highlights of Progressive Conservative Policy", which are contained in a booklet spread far and wide in Canada during the recent election campaign. It is a document, on the front of which is that famous picture of the Prime Minister. On page 7 of the document there are quite a number of items which the Conservative party promised would be implemented if that party came to power. I find here exactly the same words that the Prime Minister used in his speech at Vineland in February. I read from page 7:
The Progressive Conservatives are convinced now, as always, that the free enterprise system coupled with effective free trade unions, offers Canadian labour the best assurance of opportunity, security and highest possible standard of living.
Then, I jump down to the point that is relevant to the bill now before us:
To attain this end we shall;
(d) Enact legislation to provide minimum wages, hours of labour, and vacations with pay for all workers under federal jurisdiction.
Well, that is quite clear. The Progressive Conservative party, like the other parties in this house, favours legislation at the

federal level to provide minimum wages for all workers under federal labour jurisdiction. Since that is the case, I hope that this house will see fit, in an hour or so, to give second reading to this bill so it might be sent, on the motion I would then make, to the committee on industrial relations.
I suppose that, despite my hope that the bill will be approved by the house, I should anticipate some of the objections that might be made and give answers to those objections even before they are presented. One objection that may, of course, be made by some- I do not know why it would but it could be made-would be that the minimum rate specified in the bill is too high, a rate of $1 an hour. The only possible reason for anyone making that objection would be, of course, that so far as I know no province yet has passed a minimum wage order that is that high. The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, has already been given to the government in the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress.
Surely, there is a place in Canada for the federal government to give leadership. The federal government cannot dictate to the provinces in matters of labour legislation. The provinces are sovereign in this field, as is the federal parliament, but a lead can be given. Surely in this day and age, at today's cost of living and in the light of today's gross national production, the suggestion that anybody should be asked to work for less than $1 an hour is ridiculous and grossly unjust. I hope that no one will seriously argue against that rate. In fact, I suspect there may be those who will criticize me for not having made the figure higher, and that is a criticism to which I would not object. I hope, nevertheless, that that is a point we might thresh out if and when the bill gets to the committee on industrial relations.
Another objection that may be offered is that the provinces that have legislation regarding minimum wages, for the most part if not entirely, provide for the rate to be fixed by the lieutenant governor in council or by some minimum wage board or in some other way than by including it right in the statute. This practice has more justification in the provinces where a much wider range of industries and kinds of work is involved. So far as federal labour jurisdiction is concerned it extends to a limited number of kinds of businesses and industries. They are set out in one of the sections of the bill. Since we know the exact categories of workers to be covered by this bill we are in a better position than the provinces are to decide what is a reasonable minimum wage.
I might point out also that there is a certain tendency on the part of some provincial
Industrial Relations
governments to crawl out from under their responsibility as to what the minimum wage should be by saying that this is for the minimum wage board or some such advisory body to decide upon. We think that in terms of responsible government it would be better to have the minimum put right into the act. I would not be averse to the act being changed to permit the governor in council, on the recommendation of some advisory body, to raise the figure higher. I think, in any case, parliament should take the responsibility of putting right in the act what the bare minimum should be.
Another objection that might be raised would be the suggestion that this bill, unlike some of the provincial measures, covers all the workers in the field covered by federal labour jurisdiction. Most of the provincial statutes pick out certain sectors of industry, some of them even make a division on geographical terms. I point out again that that is because provincial labour jurisdiction extends to just everybody who works at anything except those in the categories reserved for federal labour jurisdiction. Since that is the case, it is necessary to leave a certain amount of latitude to the lieutenant governor in council to deal with matters.
So far as federal labour jurisdiction is concerned, once we get beyond transportation, the employees in banks and in communications, there are few employees covered, so there are not so many questions about the kinds of employees who may be covered. Hence, there really is no doubt but that we have a responsibility to draft the legislation in such a way as to cover all of those who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
Another objection that might be offered, if someone is just looking for an excuse as a basis to oppose the legislation, would be that this is in advance of what the provinces have put on their statute books thus far.
I think we have already answered that in the quotation I gave from the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress. I do not apologize for this bill being in advance of what the provinces have enacted. I am proud of that fact. That is the sort of thing we should be doing in this parliament, namely giving a lead, proposing legislation that matches today's conditions.
Surely in today's conditions no one can seriously contend that the minimum wage should be anything less than this figure of $1 per hour. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members generally will realize that this bill is in line with the position that has been taken by all parties, namely that it is time to round out our labour legislation.

Industrial Relations
Particularly I hope that hon. members on the government side will realize how fully the presentation of this bill coincides with the things they said during the election campaign with regard to labour. They promised a great deal more. In fact, from what was said during the election campaign and from what was said by government spokesmen after the new government came into office on June 21, I thought that we would have at this session a review of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the introduction of legislation on vacations with pay, statutory holidays, maximum hours of work and minimum wages. But the Prime Minister today gets to his feet and, in reply to one question, says that it depends on the co-operation of the house whether certain measures can be brought forward. But when we come back with a supplementary question he admits that some of the matters that we want are not ready as far as the government is concerned. In other words, that excuse about the co-operation of the house becomes a hollow one when one really examines into it. I hope that excuse will not be put up in relation to this matter. When the Conservatives were on the opposition side of the house they promised for a number of years back that they would review and overhaul the labour legislation. They have stood for the principle that is contained in this bill. They said so during the election campaign. They have said so since then. Here is another opportunity, along with several others that we are giving the government in bills that are on the order paper.
I hope the house will see fit to accept the principle of this bill. That is all that is involved in voting for the second reading, namely approval of the principle of a minimum rate of wages for all employees under federal labour jurisdiction. Implicit in that approval, of course, is approval of our proposal that the figure, the rate itself, whatever it is, should be not less than $1 per hour. I present this bill for second reading, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the house will approve it so that I can then move for its reference to the standing committee on industrial relations.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be limited to only one aspect of this legislation. I do not intend to make any comment whatsoever as to the over-all effect of this bill or its desirability. There has been one thing which has come to my attention and that is the problem as to whether the hon. member in this case can bring forward a bill of this type. The explanatory notes of the bill indicate that the

purpose of this bill is to establish a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the third section reads as follows:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing-
Then the bill goes on with many itemized types of works and services which are to be covered by it. I think it is a generally understood principle that a private member cannot propose legislation which would have the effect of increasing the amount of moneys to be spent by the federal government. If the explanatory notes are correct and if the section to which I referred covers the situation, I believe that this legislation would cover all employees of the federal government. I am not aware as to what are the rates of pay that are presently in effect with the various employees of government and in the various departments. I am not so sure that my observations can be extended to the numerous crown companies which may be affected by this legislation. However, I am wondering whether we may not be on dangerous ground and may be creating some precedent in connection with this type of legislation.
I would respectfully submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, this question as to whether in fact-without referring in any way to the general effect or purpose of the bill- it may not be overstepping the rules in so far as what a private member may introduce into this house. I would raise that matter at this time as a point of order. It may be that other members will have something to say on this particular point. I might say that I think it should be disposed of before we continue with the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: this is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better deal with it now. May I do so?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Casselman):: Yes. It is my intention to allow you to go on and then when we have heard the discussion, I will set the matter over until such time as the Speaker is in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
point of order which the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) has raised is, I take it, to the effect that a private member may not introduce a bill which directly involves the expenditure of public money. May I point out to him that there have been decisions on points of this kind in the past. For example, at page 457 of Beauchesne's third

edition, there appears a decision of some length, the headnote of which reads as follows:
A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by parliament, is not a money bill and no resolution is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.
Similarly at page 459 there is set out another lengthy decision, the headnote of which reads as follows:
A bill designed to furnish machinery, for the expenditure of a certain sum of public money to be voted subsequently by parliament, may be introduced in the house without the recommendation of the crown and without a resolution being first considered in committee.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is not a bill which calls upon the federal government as such to spend any money. This is a bill which requires employers who come under federal labour jurisdiction to meet certain conditions, and it undoubtedly would result in increased costs to those employers. The bill does not specifically name the civil service or employees of crown corporations. But if, as a result of the passing of this bill and its becoming general law, the federal government as an employer or crown corporations had to get money to meet the terms of that law, there would have to be further votes in the usual way.
That is what is envisaged in the two decisions of Mr. Speaker Sproule to which I have drawn attention by referring to pages 457 and 459 of Beauchesne's third edition.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that not long ago-last session, I am told-the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) presented a bill which is on the order paper again today proposing that cheques issued by the federal government be printed in the two official languages of this country. Mr. Walter Harris, then minister of finance, raised the point of order that this would involve the expenditure of money. We made the point which I have made right now that the bill itself did not directly involve the expenditure of money, but that if any money had to be spent by the government to meet the terms of that law there would have to be another bill, another appropriation, another vote. That contention, made from the opposition side of the house in support of a bill presented by an independent member of the opposition, was sustained by the Speaker at that time.
There have been other examples of that kind. In fact, I myself have sponsored bills which have been challenged on that point, but in all instances where they have been challenged the Speaker of the house has admitted that so long as the bill was merely
Industrial Relations
one laying down a general law, one that did not in itself directly involve the expenditure of money, it was within the competence of a private member to introduce that bill.
Let me give further examples. A few years ago-and I give her credit for it-the hon. member for Hamilton West, now Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough), presented to the house a bill to provide for equal pay for equal work. Did the hon. member for York West raise a point of order about that bill? I am waiting for a reply. No, he did not. But that bill, so far as the section indicating what employees were covered was concerned, is exactly the same as that to which the hon. member for York West is now referring. No point of order was raised at all. The bill was presented, debated from time to time, and in due course its provisions became law though, of course, in a bill presented by the then minister of labour, Mr. Gregg.
Mr. Speaker, I have one other example. In this very session of parliament, on the order paper which is now before us, there is a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) providing for annual vacations with pay. This is similar to a bill of mine, except, of course, that my bill is better. But may I point out that the bill of the Minister of Labour lays down a general law which affects pay to be granted to these people when on vacation. Again, the Minister of Labour has exactly the same categories as I have in my bill. Did the Minister of Labour precede the introduction of that bill with a resolution? No, he did not. If it were a money bill, that is what he would have had to do. And the fact that this house permitted him, quite properly, to introduce that bill without a prior resolution means that that was not a money bill in the terms in which we understand that phrase. That bill, presented by the Minister of Labour, was in order without the prior resolution required in the case of a money bill because it is not a bill directing the expenditures of money but, rather, a bill laying down a general law. If, in keeping with that general law, private employers have to spend more money, that is their business. If the federal government feels that it is morally bound to meet the terms of that law and has to expend more money then it has to take the necessary steps to get that additional money.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question that the Minister of Labour was perfectly in order with respect to that other bill. No point of order was raised against it by the hon. member for York West or anyone else, and I suggest that though he is a smart lawyer and I am not-

Industrial Relations


John Borden Hamilton: Don't be
modest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -he
is off the beam in the suggestion he has made at this time.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I should only like to ask you to refer again to the meaning of the words "direct expenditure", as used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in order to determine whether this will not be the direct result if this legislation is passed, that it may mean an increase of federal expenditures. I am not saying that it will, I doubt very much if it will, as far as present rates of pay are concerned. But it might, and I ask you to consider the effect of the words I have mentioned.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has effectively disposed of the matter, but there is one point I wish to make, and that is that I personally do not believe that every time an adjustment is made in wages it becomes a direct charge. On the contrary, a satisfied employee usually performs his work in a more satisfactory way for the industry in which he is engaged-in this case, the civil service-and simply to say that conditions will be improved does not mean, in my opinion, that there will necessarily be an extra charge.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order? I hesitate to disagree with observations made to you by a recognized authority on the rules, but the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is that the proposed legislation does not directly involve the expenditure of money. I would have thought, with respect, that in simple terms the legislation he brings forward in his capacity as a private member would oblige the government of Canada in its capacity as an employer to increase, in certain cases, the moneys it pays out by way of salaries, and that therefore nothing could be more directly an expenditure of public money.
I do not think that the failure of the hon. member for York West to raise a point of order in respect to some piece of legislation at some other session would have any binding effect on Your Honour. All this must, too, be considered in another context, as the hon. member pointed out when he read our platform with such great glee-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Interesting reading.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: Very interesting reading, and it will be followed by interesting actions.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: But fiction.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: The government has it in mind in its comprehensive view of labour and management to introduce its own legislation of this kind. That rather makes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a Conservative in a hurry. But the government cannot do everything at once. I think this bill clearly involves the expenditure of money, and I therefore speak in support of the point of order.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in support of the point of order. I would judge from the contents of this bill that it would mean the federal government would have to employ extra inspectors to go around to these different business premises employing workers and according to the bill before us they would have to inspect or take extracts from any books or documents, etc. I would judge that this would involve an outlay of moneys on the part of the government.


Mr, Chown:: Mr. Speaker, I thought our discussion of this point of order could be appropriately carried one step further when one looks at clauses 5 and 6 of the bill where the sponsor attempts, in clause 5, to move into existing contracts between employers and employees which in the case of crown corporations would again involve the expenditure of public funds in certain instances, and in clause 6, to make a financial encroachment, by providing that certain minimum amounts should be allowed for meals, namely 40 cents, and again that $50 a month should be allowed for room and board. I note that in clause 8 he provides a saving clause whereby if the contents of existing agreements do not come up to these standards, then the clauses I referred to and other clauses shall prevail.
At the same time, however, I think it is important while we are discussing this point of order that we should point to additional encroachments provided for in clauses 5 and
6.	Indeed, one feels in reading the explanatory note of the bill that it is simply a bill to provide for a minimum hourly rate of $1 an hour and no more, and yet in the clauses I referred to, it proceeds to carry the whole matter two steps further and disturb many existing agreements between employers and employees by moving into areas which have probably already been negotiated at some considerable length. It is the point that it does involve the expenditure of public funds which I think should be brought to your attention, that is in clauses 5 and 6 as well as in clause 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Casselman):: I am
sure that hon. gentlemen have had a very interesting discussion on this point and I

think you will also agree with me that it is a highly technical point and one that I with my limited experience in this chair should not undertake to decide. For that reason I would ask that the debate proceed. I will report the matter to the Speaker and when he returns to the chair he will then give his decision.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this house who is availing himself of the first opportunity to rise to speak I would like at this time to extend belated but nonetheless sincere congratulations to both Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker on their appointments to their high offices. In the short space of time which has elapsed since the opening of this house we all have had, I am sure, ample evidence of their capabilities in discharging the responsibilities involved in occupying those high positions.
In speaking to the bill which is presently before the house, which is a bill to provide minimum wages for employees, I wish to state at the outset that I am in wholehearted support of any measures within reason which may tend to better the lot of the wage earner be he a labourer or any other type of employee because like many other hon. members in this house I am one who has been in that particular class all his life.
I have been closely associated with labour for many years and feel that I am well aware of the problems of the employee. I have been a mine employee for the past 22 years and prior to that I worked for a long period of time in various jobs in the city of Winnipeg. If I might be permitted to dispel any doubts as to my personal experience with the problems of labour I would like to cite the following example. I have in my hand an urgent letter which I received from a national publication in this country, Maclean's magazine, which is in the process of preparing an article which I hope will shortly appear in their publication concerning the district and town of Flin Flon. This most recent letter which is one of many I have received from them lately lists a great number of questions which they have submitted for my approval, verification or correction. In bringing up this point I would like to refer to one question they have submitted for my verification or approval. They ask me to confirm that I am now a Conservative member of parliament representing the constituency of Churchill and that in the mid-thirties I earned 56 cents an hour and worked 56 hours a week in a northern Manitoba mine. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the questions I will have to correct for Macleans Magazine because although I did work 56
Industrial Relations
hours a week my wages were not 56 cents an hour, they were 42 cents an hour at that time.
In case you might think 42 cents an hour is a fantastically low figure I would hasten to explain that one of the main reasons for my going to the northern part of Manitoba to work for that kind of money was due to the fact that it was approximately double the amount I could possibly have earned in the city of Winnipeg in those days.
During my years as a mine employee I have been a union member continuously wherever possible and when possible I acted as a union steward. I hope hon. members will realize from these remarks that I am not only very sympathetic to the problems of employees but I would like to see those problems alleviated to the greatest extent and as quickly as possible.
Many of the provisions of this bill to provide minimum wages for employees are highly commendable and well thought out and some of them would tend to lessen to an appreciable degree some of the burdens presently being shouldered by a great many employees. There are, however, certain aspects of the bill which I think should be given much more consideration.
I hope that I have convinced this house that I know partially from personal experience the problems of the working man and that I am wholeheartedly in sympathy with him. We must, however, be fair, honest and open minded about these considerations; especially so when in many cases under this bill we shall be legislating in regard to public money. In this regard, I might say that be it public or private money with which we are dealing we must have the same consideration at all times.
I am one who will always look on both sides of the fence, and despite the fact that for over 15 years I worked as a labourer or mill operator,-and I believe did a good enough job to earn my money-I still feel that I and many others owe a great deal to the mining industry of Canada. I grant that over the years shareholders and promoters have made millions of dollars, but they also- and I know this very well-provided me with an opportunity to bring up my family in an atmosphere which was the essence of security. I believe and I honestly think that that is one of the things that the working men of Canada want today. People might say, or some might think, that I should be afraid that some of my constituents might feel that I am saying these things merely to get into the good graces of a mining company. Well, the people of the Flin Flon area certainly will not say that because there are

Industrial Relations
too many thousands of them up there who feel just the way I do. We are fortunate in many ways to have experienced fine labour-management relations and these have resulted, I believe, in the building of one of the most happy, hospitable and congenial communities in the Dominion of Canada.
I say these things to try to show the house that I believe there are two sides to the story of many problems and sometimes both of them are very worthy. I have to say these things so that no one will feel that I am favouring one side or the other. For instance, after saying that some of the principles of this legislation to provide minimum wages were well thought out and that some should be given more consideration, I should like to point out-I have been very interested in this, especially if I am not out of order in referring to clauses-that clause 6 reads:
Where board or lodging are supplied by an employer to an employee and are accepted by the employee the value of such board or lodging for the purpose of calculating the minimum wages the employee shall be paid under this act shall not exceed $.40 per meal for board and $.50 per day for lodging and no employer shall deduct from the wages of such employee any sum for board or lodging in excess of the values fixed herein.


Mr. Deniset:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we allowed to refer to clauses at this stage on the second reading of a bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Casselman):: No;
I am afraid the hon. gentleman is out of order but I can see the reason why he referred to the clause. During the argument on the point of order it was quite in order then to refer to clauses. I am sure the hon. member will keep himself within the rules.


Robert Simpson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for stepping out of bounds and I certainly hope that on Saturday the Winnipeg Blue Bombers will not be charged with that infraction on too many crucial occasions.
In regard to this particular part of the bill, I wonder whether it is the feeling of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this is a sufficient amount properly to feed and house an employee, or to what extent does he feel the employer should be willing to subsidize this venture? I am sure that extensive subsidization would be necessary. If it is public money we are dealing with this has to be considered. I can say, for instance, that in my area alone we can find many places where board alone runs from $2.10 to $3.00 per day, and still there have to be subsidies paid by the employer. Incidentally, in many instances these feeding places are running at a loss. We are fortunate, of course, to have some system set up in many of these places where the subsidies are
[Mr. Simpson.}
taken care of by the employer. However, I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, where 40 cents per meal and 50 cents per day for lodging in certain areas of Canada is going to provide adequate money to house and feed those employees. I must say I would be quite happy if we could make desirable living conditions available to those employees at that amount; but from experience in the northern areas, where some of the provisions of this legislation will take effect, I am quite sure that this figure is quite a long piece off what would be required.
I think also the principle of the bill which suggests that the employer should provide articles of clothing, or necessary clothing for the employees, clothing which by regulations they have to wear, is a very good move; but there are aspects to that which, from experience in other places, have caused a great deal of concern. Consideration should be given to just how much of this type of clothing is included. For instance, safety-toe shoes, hard hats, miners' slickers, and things of that nature are provided in some places by the employers, but there is always the question of when new equipment is necessary. Some provision would have to be made with regard to how much of that equipment would have to be provided by the employer. I might say that in some instances a very good plan has been worked out under which the employer pays half of the cost of those articles. Therefore, there is no decision made as to when new equipment has to be purchased because the employee, since he pays half of the cost himself, just about calls the shot as to when new equipment is necessary. These are just two of the points that I feel should be given more consideration in this bill. Generally speaking I am in full support of the bill with some minor changes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, with respect to what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I want to say that any miner who may have been required to work over the past few years for anything less than $1 probably would not have a stomach large enough to accommodate a meal valued at more than 40 cents. I am sure he is having some difficulty in justifying his position on the bill and for that reason has made some statements which should not be taken too seriously.


Robert Simpson: I think the hon. member misunderstood me.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Over the past several years when I have been in the house it has been the policy of some members of the Liberal party to take the attitude that questions

of this nature were best left for labour-management negotiations. I, of course, have not shared their opinions on all occasions, but one reason the Liberal party has been so popular throughout the years is that there is such a wide range of views in the party.


An hon. Member:: How popular?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In the past I have personally supported legislation of this type.


An hon. Member:: When?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You were not here.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I make no excuses for that position. There is perhaps another reason why such legislation has not been brought forward since 1935. In 1935 it was deemed necessary to put a floor under wages because we did have a Tory administration at that time and there was a natural apprehension that the bottom was going to fall out of things. It may be understandable that there is such a feeling throughout the country now and that may be one of the reasons that prompted the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to bring forward this legislation again at this time.
There should be no quarrel among hon. members regarding the setting of a floor of $1 under wages. Some service industries make use of the gratuity system in order to make up the wages of those who are required to work at very inadequate wages. This legislation may go a long way towards eradicating that type of thing and it would lead to a much greater feeling of self-respect among employees. An employee who is being paid a living wage should not and would not be looking for gratuitous assistance from those whom he is required to serve.
I remember that back in 1947 the battle cry of the miners was for a wage of $1 an hour. They thought that if they could reach such a wage they would have achieved a goal really worth striving for. Since that time, of course, wages of miners in most instances and certainly of those in other industries have more than doubled.
It is hard to visualize people in this day and age being required to give their services for anything less than $8 for eight hours work. There are precedents even in this house for the setting of a floor. I refer to farm products. For instance, does not the wheat board, a body established by parliament, set at the beginning of the crop year the minimum price that they are prepared to pay for wheat? New legislation is anticipated, in fact it is on the order paper even today, which we hope will be brought forward before the Christmas recess so that
Industrial Relations
we will be able to deal with it and give farmers producing other products some assurance that they will receive a proper price for their goods.
Therefore it is not setting a precedent for parliament to accept legislation which would establish a minimum wage of $1 an hour for all employees. The unemployment insurance commission considers that an unemployed person sitting idly by his fireside- perhaps I should not say "idly" but it is correct-is entitled to at least $30 a week, and if he is able to go out and work for a day or two a week he can have an income of $43 a week. The average work week in Canada is in some cases even less than 40 hours a week but 40 hours is more or less standard. Such an unemployed person is entitled to be idle and receive up to $43 a week. Surely a person working in a service industry or other productive industry should be entitled to at least a minimum of $40 a week.
I do not want to take any more time in this debate. I hope the bill will be voted on this afternoon and that if it is given second reading it will go to the committee on industrial relations where it may receive a thorough study and where we may be able to find out if there is in fact a large or small number of people who even at this date in 1957 are being required to work for less than $1 an hour.


Mr. Christian:: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to ask a question at this time of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? I thought he would have dealt with the particular point during his speech. In what work, undertaking or business, to which clause 3 of the proposed bill has application, are the employees now receiving less than $1 an hour?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I speak now I will close the debate. I should be glad to do so, but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Casselman):: I am
afraid the question is out of order. We are on second reading of the bill.


Frank Claus Christian: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agree to answer the question later?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to make a few comments in connection with the bill presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Since this is the first time I have undertaken to make a formal address in the house, I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my most sincere thanks to all

Industrial Relations
members of this house for their kindly reception of me as a new member, and to the members of the civil service who have been so kind in every way in helping to make my stay here pleasant and effective. I have a difficult role to fill in representing the riding of Middlesex West. My immediate predecessor was the parliamentary assistant to the minister of agriculture in the former government and his predecessor was, for many years, the postmaster general and minister of public works. The standards of service, therefore, to which the people of Middlesex West have become accustomed are very high. I feel somewhat at a disadvantage. However, it is my purpose to give them the best possible representation I can, and to be a good member of this house. If the great Canadians who have preceded us here and who have passed to their reward ever come back in spirit and hover around this place, I hope that anything I might say or do will meet with their approval.
In so far as this bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of great pride to me to belong to the party which was mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North Centre in opening his remarks, which party under the administration of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett attempted to introduce into Canada a minimum wage act. I am glad that the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and no doubt his colleagues in that part of the house as well, have made a careful study, not only of the minimum wage act but a number of other acts which were introduced by that administration. I am sure that after studying these acts anyone would reach the conclusion that the Conservative party, now the Progressive Conservative party, has been more courageous and more ambitious in passing legislation for the benefit of the people of Canada than any other party in the house.
This effort to establish a minimum wage act has remained dormant now for many years. It is being revived, and no doubt while there are arguments both for and against it, as a conservative, spelled with small "c", I vould probably be justified in reminding the members of this house that every time we ncrease our social security we decrease our individual liberty. However, as a Progressive Conservative I think it may be fair to say that as a result of the interference which has taken place with the natural laws of supply and demand, these laws are altogether too harsh in their application now. If we were to allow the law of supply and demand free play, and to follow that through to its logical conclusion we would have people starving in our country today, lying on the streets suffering from lack of hospital care, without

sufficient clothing to protect them from the winter. However, we have come a long way from the days when people did starve to death, die from exposure or from lack of care. I am glad that we have come a long way and, so far as I am concerned, there still may be a long way to go before we reach that Utopia that we may relegate to the land of our dreams and leave as an objective to which we can aim but an objective which we can never attain in full.
I am going to take up for a moment the relationship of this act to the majority of the people in the riding which I represent who are farmers. I am going to suggest to you that although there is no mention of farmers in the bill and it does not apply to farmers I am sure that one of the reasons behind the introduction of the bill is that the actions of this government in setting a minimum wage should have an influence on the people in the country. It should influence every employer, and it should influence all wage earners. It should influence everybody. It should set an example of fair dealing in the matter of wages.
With that in mind, I should like to point out to this house that it is out of the question for the average farmer to come anywhere near living up to the provisions of this bill. I have made a little calculation. We know that there are slightly more than 30 days in the average month, but we will take 30 days for ease of calculation. Three meals a day at 40 cents a meal would come to $1.20, and for 30 days that amounts to $36. If we allow 50 cents a day for a bed to sleep in, that would amount to another $15, and $15 added to $36 gives us a total of $51 for board and lodging which a farmer could expect to deduct from the cash remuneration he paid his hired man. Then, if we limited ourselves to working eight hours a day, and I do not know of any farmer who does because it is mostly ten hours or more, at $1 per hour this would amount to $8 a day and for 30 days it would amount to $240. We must remember that on a farm Sunday is just like most other days. Then, if we subtract $51 form $240, we arrive at $189 per month, plus board, that the average farmer would be expected to pay if he lived up to the good example set by this bill.
If anyone inquires at the unemployment insurance or labour offices, I think he will find that the average wages paid to newcomers to the country run from about $65 a month and board up to possibly $100 for those with some experience. The hired man has disappeared from the rural scene in the area which I represent. I know of two

or three hired men in the township in which I live. They are men who have worked for their employers for 25 years or 30 years. They are elderly men who can no longer depart for other places or other jobs. They are going to finish right where they are. That is the only type of help left in that area.
Last spring while I was going around campaigning I passed a field one morning and in it saw a neighbour lady. I knew her and I know her husband. Her husband is crippled up with rheumatism. I expect that both of them have been drawing old age security allowances for some years. The little old lady was out on the tractor trying to plant some oats. That is the farm situation in the area from which I come. The young people are leaving. The old folks are left struggling as best they can to keep the homes together.
I am pointing this situation out only to show that we must do something. If we are going to set minimum rates of wages and if we are going to relate rates of wages and prices, and are going to protect industry which includes both management, labour and invested capital, then I wish to point out to this house that we are also going to have to take similar action in raising the status of our farmers.
I do not know whether or not the resolution is out of order as I have no technical knowledge in that regard. I do not know that it matters very much whether it is or not. I am in favour of legislation of this kind. I hope that something can be done to improve the standard of living of those on lower rates of pay. However, we must equalize the rest of our economy so that one class of people is not discriminated against by passing legislation of this kind for the benefit of another group in our economy.


Louis Deniset: I just wish to state, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of the principle behind this bill. From time to time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) advances many ideas with which I am not in agreement but this is one with which I am in agreement and I am pleased so to state at this time. We must do all we can to help government employees and, in fact, all employees. Of course I reserve the right to study the bill when it reaches the committee stage. However, I do not want to bury this bill under flowers. I hope that no party in this house intends to bury it under flowers. This matter, of course, might be gauged by the length of speeches. Therefore at this time all I want to do is to register my approval.
Industrial Relations


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: I rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, to express my sympathy for the general intention behind this bill. As I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) outline the historical background to this particular measure in this country I could not help but recall that the first minimum wage law was passed in the United States in 1938 and that its passage was possible only after a long series of court cases which finally resulted in the admission that this type of law was constitutional in Washington. It is interesting to recall that the first hourly rate established under the minimum wage law in that country was 25 cents an hour and had increased only to 40 cents an hour in 1945. When the measure was first introduced in the United States there were large numbers of employers who objected to the passage of the measure because they felt that it would have an extremely injurious effect on employment in that country. The main effect of the legislation, as experience later showed, was to displace several thousands of pecan shellers in the state of Texas and other southern states who at that time were working for eight cents an hour. Of course, the industry had to mechanize and become more efficient, so there were gains to be had on all sides.
The effect of this measure in the United States has been studied and the experience has been that it has had no harmful effect on employment opportunities, the chief difficulty being in the field of enforcement, a fact which caused difficulties to enforcement officers in the first years in the United States.
I feel that this particular measure reflects the advances that we should be making in the field of labour legislation in this country, however far they are behind those made by our neighbour to the south. For that reason I give it my support. However, I want to take the opportunity provided by the introduction of this bill to discuss some related and pertinent wage problems in my own constituency of Inverness-Richmond.
One of the hon. members of the Social Credit party asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whether he could outline any employees presently receiving an hourly rate of less than $1. During the past hour or so I have been examining the wage rates now prevailing in the national parks of Canada, particularly the Cape Breton Highlands national park. I find that in that particular park there are 11 classifications of employees receiving an hourly rate of less than $1 an hour. I am sure that there are other national parks, particularly in Quebec and the maritime provinces, where classifications of employees receive an hourly rate of less than $1. I hope that the passage of this bill will have

Industrial Relations
the effect in certain instances of superseding the results that are gained from the present wage surveys conducted by the Department of Labour. At present, as hon. members are aware, these prevailing rate employees are paid according to the results of wage surveys conducted by the Department of Labour whose recommendations are then submitted to the appropriate department for action. This procedure has resulted in extremely unusual distortions and anomalies in the payment of wages to various employees in various parts of Canada. Of course the purpose of using wage surveys was a good one because an attempt was made to guarantee that government employees would receive at least the maximum average rate prevailing in any particular labour market. However, I think this particular system has serious deficiencies or at least it works well in only two particular situations.
First of all, in a situation where there is a very competitive labour market and where employers of labour are bidding for workers, with the result that the highest possible rate is paid, the wage survey table will guarantee the government rate is based on a competitive rate provided in a competitive labour market. The wage survey works well in that situation. It works well, also, in a unionized market where the action of the trade unions has guaranteed that the union rate is being observed. And then, of course, the prevailing rates to government employees is based on that type of sample.
However, in the Cape Breton Highlands national park there are very serious limitations on the use of wage surveys. I think hon. members of this house will be surprised to learn that there is a great difference in the wages paid to employees of the Cape Breton Highlands national park, for example, and the employees of the Banff national park, although both groups of workers are hired by the same employer, the government of Canada or the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. For instance, a labourer employed at the Cape Breton Highlands national park receives 70 cents an hour, while the rate for similar work in the Banff national park is $1.35. Likewise, the prevailing rate employee-the labourer in the Cape Breton Highlands national park who works a 44-hour week is paid $39.60 under the present rates, while his counterpart in the Banff national park receives $59.40, a discrepancy of almost 50 per cent in the payment made to Canadian workers employed by the same employer. For a carpenter in the Cape Breton Highlands national park, the weekly pay is $55; in Banff, it is $88. For a motor mechanic in the Cape Breton Highlands the rate is $58; in Banff

it is $74.80. The weekly rate of a painter is $48 a week in Cape Breton in respect of a 44-hour week, while in Banff it is $79.20.
I do not believe any sensible Canadian can justify this wide discrepancy which exists between these rates of pay, and members of parliament who have national parks in their constituencies, particularly in the eastern parts of Canada, should compare the wages received by their constituents with those received in other parts of the country, particularly in the western parts.
I know it is a great privilege to live on the island of Cape Breton, particularly in areas surrounding the finest and most beautiful national park in Canada, but I doubt whether employees are prepared to pay for this privilege by receiving in wage payments almost 50 per cent less, in the case of labourers, than workers in the Banff national park.
The situation is made even more absurd by the fact that wage surveys undertaken to establish the prevailing rate in this particular park are based upon a survey of wages in two fishing villages, the villages of Ingonish and Cheticamp where there is no real industrial employment and where there are no unionized plants. Even the Department of Labour would, of course, be making some improvement in its rate-setting if it took into account the wages paid to labourers in the adjacent coal mines in the Cape Breton coal field or in the steel mills in Sydney where the rates are much higher. Instead, we find the Department of Labour using these wage surveys in areas where they were never intended to apply and in which there is no basic competitive labour market or unionized market to guarantee that these workers will receive just and fair treatment.
I am supporting this measure, Mr. Speaker, as a first step toward remedying the injustice which now applies to prevailing rate employees in certain parts of Canada. I believe that its passage would guarantee to at least 11 classifications of employees in the Cape Breton Highlands national park a basic minimum of $1 an hour. I do not regard that as sufficient or proper, because I believe that these prevailing rate employees should be treated in exactly the same way as civil servants or employees of the Canadian National Railways are treated. These employees receive exactly the same rate no matter where they live in Canada. While I am supporting this measure on that ground, and for other reasons, I do not believe that the rate which would ensue under this legislation would provide fair and just treatment for these classifications of employees I have mentioned.

It is the object of this government and of this parliament to do something about narrowing the gap in income which exists between various regions of Canada. A very modest but important step would be to make the rates paid in the Highlands national park in Cape Breton equal to the highest rate applicable in Canada. Failing this, I will settle for the moment as a first step with having these 11 classifications raised to at least $1 an hour as a basic minimum.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, my first word is to congratulate the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas). I think he has made a splendid beginning, and it looks as if he is going to continue as the champion of the farmer. Of course, I do not agree with him about the wages paid to those who work on the farms. I think the man who drives a tractor on the farm has a good right to have the same wage as the man who drives a tractor in the city or for a corporation. But I will not answer him any further on this, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has included in his resolution an explanatory note with respect to "all employees". That is why I asked him if it included the fair sex.
Mr. Speaker, I have a right to speak on this question because I know something about it. I have worked on the farm. I have worked in an office in the government. And in my first year out of university in Winnipeg I earned 15 cents an hour carrying bricks. I became the president of the first labourers' union in Winnipeg, but I was there only a short time because I went on to timekeeping and was then considered a capitalist. But the man who hired us for 15 cents an hour became a millionaire in less than ten years. Therefore, my interest in the matter today is that the labourer should get a square deal.
My interest in supporting this resolution is because it deals with the lowest paid workers. A man employed in the construction work in which I was engaged at that time received 15 cents an hour. A bricklayer got 45 cents or 50 cents; he was always paid three times as much as a labourer. And I think the outstanding argument which can be voiced in support of this bill is that it deals with the people who are in the lowest income bracket, the labourers who receive $1 an hour. Of course I know that in Fort William we pay our labourers more than $1 an hour. I asked the hon. member if this applies to both sexes because we do not pay our working ladies $1 an hour. I doubt that the wives of any hon. members pay their charwomen $1 an hour.
Industrial Relations


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: These ladies who work in private homes and do decent honest work have as much right to receive $1 an hour as if they worked in a factory or an office. I am convinced that corporations ought to pay $1 an hour for their labourers because this is only fair but as it is well understood today our labour organizations realize what the corporations are making and they endeavour to have the wages adjusted accordingly. I do not know whether or not this bill is in order and I have just a little doubt about that but if it is in order I am going to support it. Thank you.


Mr. S. H. S. Thompson (Edmonion-Siraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, we presently have legislation for equal pay as between the sexes. The legislation which is presently introduced indicates a minimum wage of $1 per hour regardless of the type of work done by either of the sexes. I would like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) how he brings the two principles into agreement. The provinces have had control of labour legislation because of the wide differences in economic conditions across the country. Subject to an assurance that the legislation will not supersede the proper authority of the provinces and subject to an explanation regarding my first question I should like to fully support this bill.
In his introduction of the bill the hon. member referred to the universal shortening of the work week as being desirable. I feel that in relation to some industries this is questionable particularly when no consideration is given to the particular industries involved.
At the moment we have a serious problem in winter seasonal unemployment. In this connection I think it is particularly true of the western provinces where winter weather is so much more severe. This is a difficult problem for those in the agricultural industry who become unemployed but it also has another effect. Due to the large number of unemployed at that one particular time of the year we have a falling off in purchasing power right across the nation. This is inclined to create a chain reaction such as we are experiencing at the moment which then starts to create unemployment in industries across the land and produces what can develop into a serious condition of general unemployment.
What have been the original solutions adopted to meet seasonal unemployment? Much consideration has been given to this question throughout the years by unions, management, individuals and government. The first solution of course was higher wages

Industrial Relations
during the working year to compensate for lay-offs. This worked fairly well at first but gradually more people who were regularly employed were able to obtain higher wages and the unemployed person became worse off than ever before due to the increased cost of living. Another attempt made in recent years that met with some success was the promotion of winter employment and improvements in winter construction through scientific methods. This has been of particular assistance to tradesmen but is not of too much benefit to general labourers.
The basic answer to the problem on the part of the government has been unemployment insurance. This of course assisted the individual in enabling him to live during that particular period providing he qualified for receipt of benefits and the government has now acted in the face of a serious situation to improve the benefits which unemployed workers may receive at this time. This, however, does not answer the problem created by the terrific shortage of purchasing power during the winter season and it will not answer the problem facing us this winter.
The unions have recently been considering and advocating a new type of approach to this situation known as the guaranteed annual wage. In some industries which are relatively stabilized this may work and in fact in some instances the unions have been able to negotiate contracts which brought this about. Strangely enough it is not particularly new in developed countries. Some years ago when the price of tea rose sharply in Canada the reason was that the government of India had decided that the tea producers in that country should provide accommodation even if it were a mud hut and should provide food even if it were only rice to the people employed in the tea industry.
I believe that in certain industries we should direct our efforts towards shortening the work year rather than shortening working hours or the work week. This would mean a great change in thinking on the part of most concerned, away from the idea of shorter hours and a shorter work week toward a shorter working year with a paid holiday period falling in the months of January and February. This is already done in one large profession. Although they are not affected in the winter period we have long grown accustomed to acceptance of the fact that those engaged in the teaching profession receive regular pay throughout the year and we do not even think of them as being unemployed during those long periods in the summer when the schools are closed and the teachers are not doing their usual work.
A similar system could be introduced particularly for labourers in fields where
[Mr. Thompson (Edmonton-Strathcona) .1
their work cannot be accomplished or is economically unsound in the winter months. In this particular group I think it is essential that they be available for work when work is available for them and that it might be wise for them to be on paid holidays in that period when no work is available due to the fact that it simply cannot be performed or conducted at that time. This would have the effect of equalizing their pay and levelling out their purchasing power throughout the year so we would not be regularly thrown into this rise and fall in market conditions across the country.
The thought I have introduced at this time is not of course directly related to the legislation before us but it is an idea to be left before this house for those who may be interested in management, unions or the problems of government in dealing with the serious difficulties created by unemployment at a time when seasonal unemployment is of so much concern to the nation.
(Translation):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Sf. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a constituency which is partly made up of working men, I could hardly do otherwise than support every measure which tends to improve the lot of these people. That is why I wish to go on record as favouring the resolution introduced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The main object of the bill is to provide for a basic minimum wage of $1.00 per hour for every employee coming under federal labour jurisdiction, whatever his age or ability, as long as he remains in the service of his employer, that is the government.
This bill would also authorize the governor in council to establish a higher hourly rate for part-time employees, that is for all those who work at least 32 hours a week.
This legislation is not conceived along the lines of provincial regulations regarding salaries. It constitutes a new approach to the matter and is designed to establish a minimum wage on the national level, since as yet no Canadian legislation applies in this field.
In all the provinces, minimum wage legislation (every province except Prince Edward Island has such legislation on its books) merely provides for bureaux where the rate of wages is determined after consultation with the employers and labour organizations concerned. It is generally provided that this wage must be approved by the lieutenant governor in council.

The minimum basic rates established in this way vary considerably among the various provinces and within particular provinces. The highest rates, with the exception of certain rates established for particular industries, is $30.00 a week for men in the urban centres of Alberta, and for both men and women in Saskatchewan. On the basis of a forty-hour week, this rate yields an average hourly wage of 75 cents, and on the basis of a forty-four hour week, an average of 68 cents.
It will therefore be seen that the rate proposed by bill No. 4 goes much farther than the minimum wage rates generally applied in the provinces at this time.
No province has struck a minimum general rate for all its workers. A distinction is generally made, in the provinces, between more experienced workers as well as between communities of various sizes.
Generally speaking, certain exceptions are also made with regard to certain groups of employees such as those belonging to a particular age group or those classified as apprentices.
I am sure that hon. members would find it rewarding to study provincial legislation in this regard before expressing an opinion on the matter.
In principle, this bill appears to be more along the lines of American legislation whereby a minimum wage rate of $1.00 per hour is established for employees under federal jurisdiction. This legislation was originally enacted around 1930 and provided at the time a minimum of 25 cents per hour.
One question which arises immediately is that of determining what effect that proposal would have on wages now being paid to employees who would come under the act.
According to the estimate made by the economic and research division of the Department of Labour, probably no more than 5 per cent, or approximately 20,000 employees of industries subject to federal jurisdiction are now paid less than $1.00 an hour. These are mainly to be found in a limited number of occupations such as the telephone industry, radio, transportation, grain elevators and hotels. The occupations most directly affected would be junior office employees, a certain number of telephone operators and service employees such as cleaners, watchmen, etc.
In terms of costs for the industries involved, the whole thing does not seem to be overly expensive. If this proposal were implemented, it could very well have far reaching effects on the standards of wages in the provinces. It would certainly force the provinces to increase their basic rates.
Industrial Relations
How would this proposal affect the rates paid to more experienced employees? That remains to be seen and considered.
According to available information on surveys carried out in the United States, any minimum wage legislation generally tends, in the long run, to affect salaries paid to other employees, as well as to those who come under the established minimum. By that I mean that if the lower salary ranges were increased, the higher salary ranges would be increased also.
In establishments where there are a substantial number of workers who are at present under the prescribed minimum, a large proportion of these could expect salary increases over the few months following the implementation of this legislation, a fact which would upset the economic balance of the industries concerned.
The major provisions of this bill are along the lines of a recommendation contained in a brief presented to the government by the Canadian Labour Congress on October 21 last, with regard to the establishment of a minimum wage of $1.00 per hour through legislative action.
I believe that on that occasion the representatives of the congress were informed that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) would give serious consideration to this recommendation. I think I can also say that the minister has already under consideration legislation along those lines which he will shortly bring before the house. It will be noted that the house has not been told how this basic rate of $1.00 per hour was arrived at. This matter will require more thorough consideration because of the substantial margin between that rate and the highest minimum rate provided by provincial legislation.
I think there is merit in the suggestion that this matter should be thoroughly discussed so that the house may obtain as many details as possible before coming to a decision.
While I am in favour of this bill, I would like everybody here to give the legislation serious study before arriving at any opinion in this regard.
(Text):


Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when my hon. friend launched the debate this afternoon to find that the ranks behind him were so thin. Indeed, all I saw over in that corner was emptiness. In view of the history of sympathy for the ranks of labour across this nation of that party I do not for a moment suggest that his absentee fellow members would not in their speeches give support to the legislation we are considering today. To

Industrial Relations
show that the Progressive Conservative party likewise have their hearts in labour and are in sympathy with the things that they were seeking and sought from the previous government so unsuccessfully. I should like to put on the record the history of our party in this regard.
The Conservative party first gave recognition to labour as far back as 1873 when they recognized the principle of fair wages and reasonable working hours. They set up the first federal machinery to promote industrial harmony between employers and employees. They gave the first recognition to compensation for employees injured at work. They appointed the first trade union member as minister of labour. They gave the first federal aid to provinces and municipalities for unemployment relief. They established the principle of unemployment insurance and set up the first national employment bureau. They established minimum wages, limitation of hours of work and fair wage contracts and, to show the country that you should never underestimate the power of a woman, in February, 1953, the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) first introduced a bill to provide equal pay for men and women in the same occupation.
She presented the bill again in November, 1953 when it received only first reading. In April, 1954 the bill was presented in the house and at that time it was voted on and defeated by a vote of 109 to 78, although several members of the previous administration supported the bill. In February, 1955 it was again defeated by a vote of 107 to 83. In January of 1956 the bill was placed on the order paper. In August, 1956 the previous administration brought the same bill in and it was passed. In that field our party forced on the previous administration, through the efforts of one of our outstanding members, legislation applicable to both sexes across the country.
Since the government has been in power it has already taken steps to combat the problems of unemployment by the very sweeping changes in the unemployment insurance benefits that were passed yesterday with the consent of all members of the house. Indeed, the government has on deck a bill to provide for statutory holidays with pay, one week in the first year of employment and two weeks thereafter.
Then to show that our interest continues in the problems of labour, a great number of whom live in my constituency of Winnipeg South, particularly in St. Vital, our party is on record that it will do all in its power to maintain full employment with the highest possible standard of living, and towards that end it has already provided indirect legislation. For example, there is the legislation to pro-

vide cash advances on farm-stored grain. That is a measure which will put in circulation a great deal of money, namely $150 million. Such money will provide additional employment and additional wages pursuant thereto for many people in western Canada.
The government has under review, and I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has made this clear, national labour legislation which they are considering in consultation with labour, management and all levels of government. Towards that end they have under consideration as well the need or lack of need for compulsory arbitration as an instrument in settling labour disputes, the elimination of delays in conciliation procedures, the limiting of hours of labour and the provision of vacations with pay for workers under federal jurisdiction, which is already on the order paper. In addition, as I have already pointed out, they have brought into the house changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which will undoubtedly benefit a great number of people who for the time being during this temporary set-back are without employment for a longer period of time than is usual.
Therefore I think we can well be proud of the efforts that have been made by this party throughout its long and glorious history. We can assure with confidence hon. members across the way that all aspects of labour-management problems are already under consideration by the cabinet and indeed have been discussed by private members with private members and by private members with the cabinet. But you cannot build Rome in a day. We have not been encouraged by some of the antics of some of the opposition members in our desire to bring before the house as expeditiously as possible and in the interest of everyone's Christmas holidays the legislation that was set down and considered in the throne speech debate. I think it is necessary as far as members on all sides are concerned that we should move forward without any further delay to endeavour to consummate before Christmas arrives what we offered to the public of Canada before June 10.
I am one who in the practice of law has had the privilege of representing both management and labour. I represented management as an alderman of the city of Winnipeg where I was a member for three years and chairman for one year of the committee on personnel and legislation which dealt with all wage problems brought before it by the federation of civic employees. On the other side of the fence, it was my privelege to represent the firefighters of greater Winnipeg and the municipal police forces of greater

Winnipeg in their labour negotiations with management in the various municipalities surrounding our great city.
Therefore I am not one who walks on either side, favouring management or favouring labour, but one who has sought out on all occasions a compromise agreeable to both parties. I think the point of order which was raised dealing with the appropriation of public funds to meet the costs of crown corporations and other contractors and units of the federal government was very well taken, and it seems to me that in clauses 5 and 6 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has encroached on an area which I, with the experience I have outlined to the house, consider part of the bargaining and conciliation procedures that must of necessity take place towards the acquisition by labour of certain fringe benefits.
In the experience I have had I have found that these are benefits that work in favour of labour as an instrument for compromise, and to legislate them into existence through this bill as an adjunct to the clause providing for a general minimum wage or $1 an hour is, in my opinion, going beyond the intent that the hon. member had in mind when he first brought the bill into the house. I would be more sympathetic, by a great degree, to the principle involved here if these two clauses had been omitted.
There is another point which I feel deserves consideration and that is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he not aware of the fact that the clauses of the bill to which he is referring, perhaps improperly so under the rules but I am not raising that point, do not add additional benefits but are inserted there merely to make sure that the benefit that is provided will not be subtracted from by some subterfuge?


Gordon Campbell Chown: It may be that the hon. member's point is as outlined, but my concern with it is this. In certain instances, under existing agreements, there may be no provision whatever for the contents of clause 5. Then, in the normal course of events and through changing practical application of the company's purposes for existence, this may become the subject of negotiation in agreements in the future and in my opinion might deprive the union of an instrument or weapon with which to negotiate-and this has been my experience with fringe benefits-which would lead to the consummation of a happy agreement. For that reason I would rather 96698-104
The Royal Assent
have seen that clause in particular omitted. I think it is the minimum benefit which the hon. member is getting at in clause 6, which concerns the minimum benefit for the provision of meals, board and room in certain areas of industry across the country, mining in particular.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the hon. member permit a further question? Would he not agree that if this clause were not in the bill an employer could pay an employee $8 per day and then deduct a $5 per day charge for board?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I cannot agree with that thinking, because I would not expect the business agent of workers in that area of employment would agree to such terms provided the workers were organized. I know the hon. member is speaking probably of workers who are not organized, but I cannot envisage that happening in the field of operation where board and room is involved because there would be few workers who were not organized. If they were organized, I think the practical experience-I cannot cross the country and I do not know what the regional situations may be-would be to the contrary. It may be that that is not true of the maritimes, for example.
Again I feel that this is better left to the field of conciliation than to be provided for in legislation and enforced upon employers across the nation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not think the hon. member knows much about collective bargaining.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I outlined my experience earlier, and probably it is greater than that of the hon. member who made the comment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh,
no; and I know both of you.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps the thing to be considered by the house is the fact that there is a conference on the uniformity of legislation across the nation which takes place just a week or so before the Canadian Bar Association convention.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa,
November 28, 1957
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate

Industrial Relations
chamber today, the 28th November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)
A message was delivered by Mr. C. B. Larose, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to provide for minimum wages for employees.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Before we rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I made brief reference to the work of the commission on the uniformity of legislation under the auspices of the Canadian Bar Association. Every year that association, meeting in convention, has done very valuable work in connection with provincial legislation in promoting uniformity of legislation with regard, for example, to acts dealing with bills of sale, chattel mortgages, and conditional sales, besides-* getting nearer to the subject-with the matter of the workmen's compensation acts of the common law provinces of our country. The commission is, no doubt, about to consider other labour legislation which is already on the statute books of the provinces, and in this useful service they are making a great contribution, without any interference by federal legislation, in this field.
I know that as late as October 21, 1957, the congress of labour submitted to the

dominion government and cabinet their memorandum on what they are seeking in the form of labour legislation from this new government, and on page 17 thereof they said in part, and I quote:
But the dominion should not confine itself to doing as well as the best of the provinces. It should give a lead. It should, specifically, establish a legal maximum work week of 40 hours and a legal minimum wage of $1 an hour. This is not really a very drastic proposal. About 65 per cent of all plant workers in manufacturing now have a standard work week of 40 hours or less; so have all railway workers and a host of others.
So, they dwell primarily on this point of a 40 hour week. However, a little later they go on to say, and I quote again:
As for the minimum wage, there must be precious few workers in industries under dominion jurisdiction who are not getting at least $1 an hour. In some industries under provincial jurisdiction a minimum of SI an hour might be hard to apply immediately, but in most provinces the legal minimum rates are preposterously low and if parliament set a minimum of $1 an hour for industries under its jurisdiction, that might provide a spur to the provincial laggards.
In its own submission, the Canadian Congress of Labour, by using the words "a minimum of $1 an hour might be hard to apply immediately" would indicate that having tapped the information available to it, the congress recognizes that there could be some difficulty in the application of federal legislation of this sort right at the outset.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question. Was that the end of the quote?


Gordon Campbell Chown: That was the end of the quotation. I went down to the words "provincial laggards".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member repeat the part of the quotation he used, when he stopped before he got to the reference to the provinces?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I did not stop before the reference to the provinces. I went right through the quotation, as you will find by reference to Hansard if you read it tomorrow.
There is something which arises out of that quotation which was brought to our attention by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) when he said there were certain depressed areas in the economy of the country where in present circumstances, subject to change by the new administration, it might be most difficult for employers to pay the minimum wage of $1 an hour suggested by this legislation, and that it would not be in our best interest to impose on provincial governments dealing with these

depressed areas a wage rate which they in their present financial situation cannot possibly meet immediately.
Another thing which comes to mind is the question of casual employees. All of us have had some dealings with this matter in the past and have found that because of the stringent application of provincial legislation a certain hardship has been worked on people who are advanced in years, for example, and who are perhaps not able to work full time, or who, if they can work full time, cannot work to full capacity. This situation occurs when a person is suffering some physical handicap and in cases where the nature of the work is such that it can, perhaps, be done by a child, for example, but is made available to some one who requires some sort of income to supplement an old age pension.
This legislation would encroach on the supplemental earnings of many of our older citizens, and bring hardship to bear on them, because it would be necessary for the inspectors who we would have to employ under this act to prevent these people, or their employers, from engaging in this sort of relationship notwithstanding the fact that the employee might be perfectly satisfied to take less than the legal minimum of $1 because the amount he was earning did provide supplementation to a war veteran's pension or to a disabled person's pension or to an old age pension. That is a conflict which might arise if such legislation as this, or even, indeed, certain provincial legislation, were applied too stringently.
So for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that labour should be given the opportunity to follow up the brief which they submitted to the cabinet, perhaps to the industrial relations committee; make their representations, go into all the details of the possible difficulties I have endeavoured to outline, and then come forward with a well thought out act to be proposed by the government for the consideration of parliament after all these things have been thoroughly discussed and a greater degree of unanimity has been reached as to the terms and conditions to the act than is apparent at the present time.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, this act, an act to provide minimum wages to employees is, I feel, a very important act, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is to be congratulated for having brought the matter to the attention of the house. The legislation has a great deal of merit and whether it should be proposed as a motion on the order paper or whether it should be brought into the house as a bill might be debatable. However, it is my opinion that this question should receive the attention it warrants.
96698-104i
Industrial Relations
I feel that the government should be the first to recognize it has an obligation to those over whom it has jurisdiction. In introducing his bill the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre read from the explanatory note or perhaps the text of the bill itself which we have before us but he did not enunciate in specific terms exactly which groups would be involved should this bill become law. The hon. member should be given an opportunity to outline to the house how many individuals might be involved and those industries to which he had particular reference in drafting the bill.
In this day and age it is unthinkable that any one should be able to pay an employee less than $1 an hour. We in this house recognize the tremendous increase in the cost of living and we found it necessary to increase the pensions of the aged, the disabled, the blind; to increase the war veterans allowance and assistance under the Old Age Assistance Act in order that the recipients of these welfare payments would be better able to meet present day costs.
The bill before us relates to individuals who are doing work in an industry whether or not it is a government-operated one. In this regard I would point out that our minimum is definitely too low. Costs are an important factor, of course, and must be borne in mind but I feel that the additional work we would get from an employee if we paid him a fair wage would be ample compensation for whatever increase might be granted.
As I listened to the hon. gentleman who introduced the bill I wondered in exactly what category temporary employees engaged by the Post Office Department would come and whether or not they would be affected by this proposed legislation. If they do come under the provisions of this bill then I would accept that as one of the reasons why we have so much difficulty at the Christmas season in securing adequate temporary help to handle the additional mail.
In crossing the country I have frequently discussed this and similar problems with those with whom I have been associated. I discovered that some of the individuals who work in our national parks receive a sum considerably less than the figure quoted in this bill. Choosing an example at random I would point out that the waitresses employed in the hotels in the national parks are dependent for a large portion of their livelihood upon the whims and fancies of philanthropic people who are prepared to reward them for their services in the way of tips which help to augment their salaries.
Recently a friend of mine who is a business executive and frequently has occasion to

Industrial Relations
travel across the country drew this very question of tipping to my attention. My friend felt that individuals receive sufficient money in the form of salary and should not be given gratuities and went on to suggest that if they did not receive a sufficient wage it should be increased so they would not be forced to rely on the philanthropic individual who is prepared to give them a few cents for the small extra services performed for him. I believe we should pay people in these circumstances a sum sufficient to enable them to live comfortably without depending on gratuities the general public might give them. The people who depend on the receipt of tips dislike being forced into the position of parasites just as much as would an employee who receives a fair wage.
I have frequently asked myself about the question of those civil servants who are not doing the jobs they should be doing. That is not just an irrelevant statement, it is a matter of fact. I am sure that hon. members in this house have frequently heard from their constituents about cases of this nature. Frequently we are told that some of our civil servants are just not doing the job they should be doing. Whether or not an individual is a civil servant and whether or not he receives $1 an hour the fact remains that if industry in the surrounding area pays more than $1 an hour or more than the wage he receives for doing a similar type of work or for the time spent in doing a specific job you have a disgruntled employee.
Naturally enough, if you are going to pay someone less than $1 an hour you are going to have an employee who is worth less than $1 an hour and if he is worth more than that sum it is reasonable to assume that the only reason he stays on the job is because he has no other job to which he can turn. In some instances he may be a person raised in an atmosphere of fear concerning the loss of his job and his inability to secure other employment. As long as such conditions exist they will not be conducive to an employer receiving from an employee the best service he can perform.
One hon. member opposite in the Liberal party mentioned that the provisions of this bill would not add to the cost of production and I would agree with him because, as I said earlier, if the present rate of pay of an employee is lower than that offered by industry in the surrounding district for comparable work the employer will not get his dollar's worth in terms of productive labour and if the employee is paid less than $1 an hour the employer will receive performance in like kind.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) he expressed the view that is common to most of us, that we are in general accord with the principle of the bill. The first time this legislation was presented was by the Bennett regime in 1934 when Canada agreed to conform to the international conventions of the League of Nations and the legislation that followed was declared ultra vires on the question of split jurisdiction. He covered the general purposes fairly well.
With respect to a minimum wage, I can recall when the matter was first introduced into and adopted by the city council of Toronto some years ago. It was more or less sponsored by James Simpson, who was active in the trades and labour councils of that day. They desired to have a minimum wage on all work pertaining to the city of Toronto. Pratically all of the labour men endorsed the idea but Jimmie Simpson pointed out that a minimum wage eventually became a maximum wage. The unions did not have the strong status they have today. Instead of calling it a minimum wage, Mr. Simpson had it accepted as a fair wage.
To see that it was enforced they had to appoint a fair wage officer and the fair wage officer was probably someone who just filled in from another department. He was not very conversant with the demands for labour at that time, and there was considerable difficulty in having the provision adhered to in the work that was being done by the various contractors for the city of Toronto. It was confirmed at that time that 50 cents an hour was the amount that should be paid to ordinary labour. Skilled labour at that time, as it is now, was generally paid a higher amount and did not come within the purview of the provision.
Then, the time came when there was unemployment. There was no unemployment insurance at that time and they had to make provision, on a welfare basis, for the people in Toronto who were out of work. That was done mainly through the removal of snow. One of the other controllers, who employed labour, conceived the idea that the way to make more work was to place more people on the snow removal and he also thought it would be a good idea to have the fair wage minimum reduced to 45 cents an hour. He was not successful in doing that; the amount of 60 cents an hour was maintained; but the point I am trying to make is that a minimum wage eventually has a tendency to become a maximum wage in the ordinary flow of lower grade workers, as I might call them.

I can remember the discussions that went on, and it was always the desire of the council to create more work. Only a certain amount of money was appropriated and when that was spent there was the usual wrangle to get more. In some winters the necessity for snow removal was not very great because there was very little snow to remove. At other times, when there were severe storms, they did not have a sufficient labour force to move the snow, and even if they did have a sufficient force they could not move it in the time required.
As the war came on they resorted to mechanical methods of removing the snow. Therefore, they reduced the labour force and they moved the snow by mechanical equipment at a considerably smaller cost.
Then there is the question of talking out this bill. Everyone who has spoken here today has said that he is in favour of the purpose and the principle of the bill; but no one is being deluded. No one can be fooled. Everyone knows that this is a case of jockeying for what might be called position. We witnessed the same performance when the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) sat on the opposition side of the house and introduced her bill calling for equal pay for female labour for equal work. We all know what happened. For three or four years in a row the matter was talked out because it was not expedient, in the eyes of the government of the day, that a bill should be brought in by a private member, because it did not give them the necessary kudos to go to the people and have to admit that some person on the side benches or in the opposition had brought in such a bill. We are in the same position. We do not intend that legislation such as this should escape us. It is covered here very amply.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was very fair in his statement today and no one can complain about that. No one can complain about his having the desire or the initiative to try to get this legislation on the statute books in his name and in the name of his party. That is fair in the hurly-burly of politics. Each one of us is striving for the ascendency of his own party.
When the Canadian Labour Congress met here on October 21 they presented their memorandum to the government. They covered what I would call the whole gamut of the scale. They outlined what they desired of the government, what they approved and what they disapproved and related the hopes they had for the future. At the conclusion
Industrial Relations
of their memorandum the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) replied and said this:
No one reading this document or hearing it read, would have any doubt that it had covered in general most of the problems of our country, not only in relation to labour, but in relation to the economy as a whole. Your representations will receive mature consideration, based upon the emergency nature of some of the representations which we believe at the present session will have to take precedence over many others that we would like to deal with.
I could read further from the Prime Minister's comments. The congress delegation were very fair in making their presentation. The government received them and listened to them very carefully and I think attentively. I think the Prime Minister left a favourable impression on the delegation and indicated that he intended to do something about most of their problems. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
former cabinet also listened attentively.


Robert Hardy Small: But there is this vast difference. Since the present government listened to them they have implemented two or three things that I can recall. They rescinded the regulations that discriminated against married women so far as unemployment insurance is concerned. They have extended unemployment insurance benefits to take care of the unemployment situation. Six particular items have been brought down since the session opened and probably three or four more will be dealt with, since the government has the benefit of the wisdom of the Canadian Labour Congress. The government is implementing its promises as fast as it is possible for it to do so. The only difference that has come up in this house is that we are accused of having made very many promises, which is quite true, and various remarks are made about how we are fulfilling them. Some say that we are not accomplishing them to the full, down to the very percentage point. Others say we are not getting the legislation through fast enough, but the fact is that we are taking our promises one by one and are fulfilling them having regard to the expediency and emergency of the situation. I think you will find that the people of the country will realize that the government is endeavouring to meet its promises, and as time goes on I think that even the opposition will say that we have done a very good job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Do I gather that the hon. member and his colleagues really support the idea of minimum wage legislation but want to vote for it on

Industrial Relations
their own motion rather than on a bill from the opposition side of the house?


Robert Hardy Small: You have described it aptly. Do not let us fool ourselves about this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is quite an admission.


Robert Hardy Small: Well, as far as I am concerned it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
will not vote for it just on its merits but you will consider it depending upon which political side it comes from.


Robert Hardy Small: We are taking the matter as the Canadian Labour Congress presented it to us and they have enunciated it very well. I will not read the whole memorandum but there is one clause in their presentation that struck me as being very appropriate to the situation. The Canadian Labour Congress said that a judicious relaxation in monetary policy would also help. They went on to say further in their presentation to the government:
The situation is markedly different from what it was when the tight money policy was adopted.
That shows they are cognizant of the effort that the government made last summer when $150 million was made available to help the building and construction trades. That is now bearing results in relieving the situation created by the tight money policy that was in effect and the situation will continue to improve because $200 million more is being made available to keep that industry going. The money will be available in the right places at the right time in order to help the right people.


An hon. Member:: In Ontario?


Robert Hardy Small: No, that is the game you were trying to play during the election. You were trying to set one province against another.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What was your game?


Robert Hardy Small: This money was made available to any province that wanted to apply for it in order to build homes for the people who needed them.


Henry Joseph Murphy: One-half of one per cent for the maritimes.


Robert Hardy Small: The maritimes are being looked after and better than when you people were looking after them.


An hon. Member:: Don't try to be a leader. You cannot.


Robert Hardy Small: I think the official opposition should be the last people to say anything about what is being done for the maritimes.

The government is now fulfilling its promises and it is probably hurting to the extent that the opposition are now trying to outbid. When their convention is held you will see the greatest bid ever made to the people of Canada to try to encourage them to support the Liberal party. They have not done anything about a minimum wage bill since 1934. They are the ones who took it off the statute books, and even though it was ultra vires it was good legislation. At that time the government of the day thought it was the right thing to do because it was under the aegis of the League of Nations but the Liberals opposed it. Why? Because it came from that man they cursed up and down the nation the late Richard Bennett who put such good legislation on the statute books that right down to the last sentence the Liberals took it over and put it back upon the statute books of the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Liberals were against that other bill because it originated with Mr. Bennett and you are against this bill because it comes from the C.C.F.


Robert Hardy Small: No, we will line up behind this and we will support this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Some hon. Members:: Let us vote.


Robert Hardy Small: Sure you would like to vote.


An hon. Member:: Of course we would. How about you?


Robert Hardy Small: Then there is the legislation brought down by the hon. member for Hamilton West. That is an example of what you did when it came to voting. You did exactly the same thing as we are doing tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Let us hear about that.


Robert Hardy Small: We are going to bring in this bill. It will be brought in under the aegis of the Conservative government after proper thought and consideration has been given to it. It will probably be broader and wider and go farther towards meeting the wishes of the labour people. There will not be just one little piece of legislation that will be brought down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What portfolio does the hon. member hold since he seems to speak for the government?


Robert Hardy Small: I do not hold anything and I have never aspired to hold anything.


An hon. Member:: You probably will not be here when the vote is taken.


Robert Hardy Small: I will be here, don't worry. I should like to remind hon. members of the old fashioned labour days under Samuel Gompers whose goal was to attain a roof over the head of every worker and three square meals for every worker 365 days of the year. He was the old fashioned type of labour leader. He did not pin his faith on any one political party. The former A.F. of L. labour union to which I belonged always adhered to that. They always maintained that they would support the party that looked after their interests. If the labour people of this country follow the concept of Samuel Gompers they will go far, and keep going in the right direction. There are certain things I should like to mention with regard to that.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: You still have ten minutes to go.


Robert Hardy Small: Minimum wages are set out in a memorandum I have and nowhere in the country does the minimum wage exceed 75 cents an hour. In Newfoundland it is 50 cents for men and 35 cents for women. In Nova Scotia it is on a weekly basis and the figures are $16.80 a week in the larger centres and $14.80 in the smaller centres. In New Brunswick the rate is 50 cents an hour for women working mostly in specialized trades. So far as Quebec is concerned, on Montreal island the rate is 60 cents for Quebec city and other municipalities it is 55 cents and for the rest of the province 50 cents. If you go through them all you will see that the situation is the same. This is a little more important than appears on the surface. If a minimum wage of $1 an hour is adopted it will be some time before it can be enforced because the provinces will have to make adjustments. If I had my way I would make the amount a little higher.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what the minimum wage rate is in Ontario?


Robert Hardy Small: I will give it to you. It is no higher than the rest; it runs from 75 cents to 80 cents. It covers a wider ambit. It is the same as in Alberta and British Columbia, where the going rate for mechanics or tradesmen is around $1.50 per hour and up. Probably the minimum wage in none of the provinces exceeds that of British Columbia which is 80 cents per hour. I am not trying to set up one province against another or say that one is any better than the other. However, we are going to need something more than the mere passage of this bill and putting it into force.
Industrial Relations
Before resuming my seat, there are many other things in connection with this subject that I should like to bring to the attention of the house and which were not mentioned in the labour brief. Probably they do not have very much to do with the government, but they are things upon which I have had strong feelings for some considerable time. I feel there has to be a re-alignment or adjustment in the ranks of labour itself. It is all very well to pass legislation of this type and to attempt to regulate business, but I think the time has come when in this country we are going to have to enact labour legislation of our own, set up our own courts, lawyers and judges that will handle this situation in Canada for Canada. There should be no dictation from outside, either by management or by labour. We should set our own rules, make our own decisions and labour as well as management will have to conform to them.
This is not a one-sided affair or we would not be experiencing the situation we have with regard to the seamen down on the St. Lawrence. I think the member for Winnipeg North Centre knows exactly what I mean. When you find gentlemen amongst the ranks of the upper brass of labour who should not be in the country and have no right in this country if the laws of the land were enforced, then I say labour itself has got to conform to certain rules and regulations. This must be done if labour is to have an organization, as we would want it to be, above reproach. Therefore, these things will have to come into being.
Personally, I would work to obtain all the things mentioned in the memorandum here, plus all the things I have mentioned. We do not want any repetition of the episodes that are taking place south of the border which are bringing labour into disrepute. Labour does not deserve this because the people who are bringing disgrace upon the movement form a very small fraction of the movement. Such episodes could occur in this country unless we wake up and establish laws in this country that will regulate labour for the benefit of Canadians. The sooner that is done the better it will be for the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to make a few observations on this important subject of minimum wages for employees. There is no question but that there exists a hiatus in our labour legislation as long as no provision is made for a minimum wage in Canada. What surprises me, indeed, is the fact that in years gone

Industrial Relations
by such legislation was not enacted. It is hard to conceive, having in mind the highly industrialized development of Canada and the long and noble history of labour unions, that legislation covering such an important subject has been overlooked. Perhaps there are difficulties in the drafting of this kind of legislation which would be satisfactory to all parts of Canada.
I can foresee variable factors, such as differences in the cost of living as manifested by such items as the cost of rent, the cost of food, influencing what would be a suitable minimum wage standard in the different parts of Canada. Again, the nature of the occupation would have to be taken into consideration in establishing a suitable minimum wage. Some occupations are undoubtedly more hazardous, some are more arduous, some are more demanding of skills than others, while still others require special contributions which may not be common to all situations. These factors certainly increase the difficulty in arriving at a figure which would be both fair and adequate to meet the needs of the working man in all parts of the country.
Again, the setting up of what might appear to be a moderate and fair sum may within a very short period of time be viewed as an almost niggardly amount, especially if the buying power of the dollar continues the path it has followed during the past 20 years or so. I can well remember, Mr. Speaker, that after graduating from high school and following a special course in commerce I was able to obtain employment at the handsome sum of $12 per week, with a $2 deduction for five lunches which were served me during the week. This took place not so long ago; in fact, it was in the late thirties. It would be better, sir, in establishing such legislation to take into account the cost of living index. By tying this cost of living index to the minimum wage, we would thus ensure labour its rightful reward for services rendered. The $1 per hour rate outlined in the bill which is before us may be adequate for some parts of the country, but I am sure that in the high cost of living sections of this country this provision is totally inadequate.
Provincial legislation in some of the provinces may be more efficacious than the proposed bill. However, I do not think that this nullifies the necessity for such legislation, nor does it detract from the principle contained in this bill. What is desirable, however, Mr. Speaker, is, as I have outlined, a provision which would assist the greatest possible number of people throughout the entire land. Under present circumstances the

minimum wage earned in many sections of the country has to be greater than that proposed by virtue of the higher cost of those essentials to life which people must provide for themselves. In the light of these circumstances the present proposal looks rather small and inadequate.
Looking at the problem in a general way, it appears that the only real solution to this problem is to take into account the cost of living and tie the minimum wage per hour to this figure. Otherwise we are failing to meet the problem face to face. I know in the area from which I come an amount such as $40 per week, based on a 40-hour week at $1 per hour, would be totally inadequate for any person to say nothing of those who are the breadwinners. This legislation would serve some useful purpose only if wages were to come down, but no purpose whatever when wages are rising. The important thing to keep in mind is, what will this dollar buy? If the basic commodities are priced high, then the standard of $1 per hour would be entirely futile. Certainly in the light of our observations during the last two decades, the dollar is buying less and less all the time.
There is still another aspect of the $1 per hour minimum wage proposal which I feel is worthy of mention, and that is the consideration of including a clause to that effect in all government contracts.
We who are believers in this principle of a minimum wage per hour should also give deep and thoughtful consideration to whether the contracts let out by the federal government contain assurance that the spirit of this minimum wage principle is incorporated within those contracts. It should be a matter of concern to us that fair wages are being paid on government works. Then it would be a matter for government officials to make certain that not only is the minimum wage per hour being paid but also, in keeping with this principle, that the minimum wage per hour be consistent with a fair wage for a particular region of the country, in keeping with the standards of living and the cost of living in a given area.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) has pointed out that in the city of Toronto, of whose local government I also happen to be a member, we have a fair wage clause considered in all the contracts that we let. In other words, our fair wage officer investigates the person who sends in a tender on a given contract in order to find out whether he pays what we consider to be a fair wage in our area. I think such a principle might well be considered to apply to any part or to any region of Canada.

Does a minimum wage per hour as outlined in the bill before us satisfy the requirements of such a fair wage? If we answer that question, then we must come to the conclusion that a minimum wage per hour must be such that it will be guaranteed by some means which would take into account the variables to which I have already referred.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the principle of a minimum wage is a sound one and one with which I heartily agree along with other hon. members of this house. I am concerned, however, whether we are protecting the best interests of the working man when we set an arbitrary figure which does not guarantee against any depreciation of the buying power of our dollar. There is also the problem of applying such a standard to an area where the cost of living is so high as to nullify the good motivation which is contained in the legislation which we have before us. In so far as the minimum rate of $1 per hour is concerned, these are some of the problems which require a solution in order to bring about in this field sound legislation which would assure the working people of this country a decent minimum rate of wages.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that we have in the house tonight a great party, the Progressive Conservative party, that great friend of labour. But let us tell our labour friends that they are great only in that we have heard some very silly remarks put on Hansard not for the purpose of supporting this great labour movement which they profess to support but in order to talk out a very minimum bill; and may I say that when we ask for $1 as a minimum wage, we are certainly asking for the very minimum.


An hon. Member:: It is better than you have ever been able to do.


William Arnold Peters: If the Conservative party feel that they have people employed to whom this act will apply, that it is going to cost a few dollars somewhere, they certainly should hide their heads in shame. If they assert that they are Progressive Conservatives, I would say that tonight there are no progressives but rather a great number of conservatives. Let us take a look at the rate of $1 an hour for a wage in this atomic age. We heard today from a gentleman who represented a mining community. I refer to the riding of Churchill. He went on to say that the miners in that area had worked for so much money so many years ago and pointed out what a great debt they owed to the mining industry. I worked in the mining 96698-105
Industrial Relations
industry, I am sure as long as has anyone in this house and I certainly owe nothing to that mining industry because everything that I received out of it I worked extremely hard for. I might suggest that when I started to work in the mines in 1940 the rate of pay was $4.64 a day; the rate was 58 cents an hour. We did not accomplish more than that rate because of a Progressive Conservative government giving a minimum wage law of $1 an hour.
We also heard the farmers speak of labour and how this minimum wage law would affect the farmer. I do not know whether this has something to do with immigration policy or what the situation is, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that farmers are going to go bankrupt if they sit around waiting to hire men for $65 a month. I live on a farm. We pay our hired men three times that amount. Even the Ontario compensation board will allow another $45 for his room and board; and I may say that in calculating wages the compensation board is not very generous. I can assure the hon. gentleman of that fact. If labour on a farm receives the rate of $150 a month which is not an unusual amount to pay on a farm for labour -and I suggest that that labour should also work for a reasonable length of time-he will be getting $1,800 a year. Then if you add another $540, he will receive more money than would be paid under this minimum wage if the man is working a 40-hour week. He will be receiving $340 more than this minimum wage and I do not think that that man is overpaid but I think the other is underpaid.
We have also heard some labour people- and I suggest that labour would not recognize them-speak in support of that valiant party that the old A.F. of L. supported. Frankly, it is my opinion that they never supported any political party and that is one of the problems that we face today. If they support a party, then that is probably what is being asked for tonight.
This act, I would suggest, will be something for the people of Canada. It is not going to cost the government any money because I am sure that representatives of all parties in this house would not be satisfied to see any of the workers under their jurisdiction receiving a dollar an hour or less. I am sure that they would all be in agreement that the payment of any employee under their jurisdiction should be far greater than that. But we find in Canada people who are still working for less and they continually look towards the provincial minimum wage laws as an "out"; and the provincial labour departments continually look towards federal labour jurisdiction for an act on which they can pattern

Industrial Relations
their own provincial acts. I suggest that the Progressive Conservatives remember that word "progressive" and, instead of trying to talk this bill out, give it their support in the only way in which that support can be given, namely with a vote, and that they allow the vote to be taken immediately.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a few moments in which to deal with this bill inasmuch as it affects the people in my constituency. If we were to listen to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) perhaps I should not get up and talk here at all, because he stated that lawyers should not be talking on farm bills. If that is true, I have no right to talk on a labour bill. But this bill does affect the people I represent, and therefore I should like to make a few comments on it.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is quite sincere in his desire to help the people he represents, and I am equally sure that his colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who has been a very able spokesman in this house for the farmers, is equally sincere.
But there are some difficulties, as I see the situation. I fear this bill is going to create an imbalance between industry and agriculture. There are real problems which exist in agriculture today. The price of the things we have to buy is increasing, while the price of the goods we have to sell is falling. This is a real problem and the disparity has been growing apace in the past few years. I would not suggest for a moment that wage increases are the only course of price increases. Indeed in these days of automation and organization wage increases in industry represent a very small portion of those price increases. But to the small businessman in towns in rural areas this presents a problem.
I should like to give the house just one example. I know of a businessman in my local town who wanted to hire extra help for the fall months. I think most hon. members will know that the margin of profit in most of these small businesses is very small. This individual managed to secure the services of an old age pensioner who was very happy to supplement his meagre pension, and they agreed on a salary, but the businessman was later informed that he was violating the minimum wage law of the province. Consequently he had a choice of increasing his wage or of letting the man go. He chose the latter course.
Now this was a disadvantage for both, and I am sure that this bill is not going to help

the situation. In the result, the old age pensioner lost his opportunity to supplement his income, and the businessman could not provide the type of service that he wished to provide for his customers who were mainly farmers, without increasing the cost of what he had to sell. He could, of course, have complied with the regulations, but that would have meant increasing the cost to the farmers.
This appears to be the confused philosophy of the C.C.F. group-playing both ends against the middle; giving a great deal of lip service to the needs of the common man, yet advocating policies which would prevent him from making decisions which are rightfully his. I do not deny to organized labour the opportunity or the right of collective bargaining, or the right to achieve for themselves the highest standard of living possible, but I do believe that we should not assume the responsibility for arbitrarily determining what wages should be.
I, for one, would be interested to hear what the farmer members of the C.C.F. party will say about this bill. I note they have been strangely silent up to now. I feel that the passing of this legislation will be another stage in increasing the disparity between conditions in industry and on the farm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I am through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would be his attitude to this kind of a minimum wage bill if his own government brought it in?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: My attitude, as far as I am concerned, would be that it would have an adverse effect on agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How would you vote?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I had great hopes for the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) when he came to this house. I thought he might bring a breath of fresh air from Manitoba to the government side of the house, and that in this new government with its many new members we should not see so often a repetition of the kind of thing we have experienced in this house for so many years. But I see that the hon. member, after a few weeks experience in this house has become as adept in talking out, and in pitting farmer against labour as a great many other members have succeeded in being after many years in this place. I will always be prepared to stand in my place in this chamber and say that any person who does an honest day's work is entitled to an

income in keeping with that honest day's work, and I do not believe you help the agricultural industry of this country by promoting and maintaining depressed wages and depressed areas in this country.
I have read the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress which was presented to this government a few weeks ago, and far from suggesting that there was any basic conflict between the people who work on the farms and the people who work in industry, organized labour came out in full support of the position of agriculture. In support of that contention I quote from the brief at the bottom of page 7:
We are alarmed by the drastic fall in farm income. This is bad for the farm people, most of whom are far from rich, and who still make up one-sixth of the Canadian population. It is bad for the economy generally, which is still heavily dependent on exports, of which farm products make up about one-quarter. It is also bad for Canadian workers, for whose products a prosperous agriculture would provide a substantial market. This is particularly true of the agricultural implement industry, which remains in a very depressed condition, with employment only about two-thirds of what it was in 1949. We urge the government to redouble its efforts to sell our wheat at fair prices. Canadian labour will fully support anything the government can do to restore the purchasing power of Canadian farmers.
I say that is a statesmanlike position which has been taken by the Canadian Congress of Labour and consequently I fully believe-


An hon. Member:: I don't.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that Canadian farmers will fully support anything the government can do to restore and maintain at fair levels the purchasing power of all working Canadians.
The hon. member who is a member of the farmers union and who held an office of importance for some years and who, I have no doubt, is still a member of the Manitoba farmers' union today, knows that his organization sponsored with some success for a number of years a joint committee of the farmers union and labour called the interprovincial farm labour economic council. That body has been able to adopt and promote a common policy in the interests of farmers and labour in this country; and not only have they presented this common position but they have taken it to the government, so that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the government to say that because organized agriculture wants a certain body of prices the consumer is automatically against it. We know it is not so, because organized labour, representing almost a million and a quarter members in the Canadian Labour Congress, have supported and are supporting fair labour legislation and fair legislation in the interest of the farmer.
96698-105J
Industrial Relations
Not only is there growing co-operation between the farmers union and the Canadian Labour Congress but the other day I saw a report of an event which I think marks a great forward step in this country in terms of progressive thought. I refer to the announcement of the setting up of a joint committee composed on one side of representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress and on the other side of representatives of the Co-operative Union of Canada. Hon. members know that the Co-operative Union of Canada represents consumer co-operatives in this country as well as the credit unions and so we have the co-operatives-which are very important not only in western Canada and the maritimes but in all parts of Canada -now joining hands on behalf of their membership which includes consumers generally and also a large body of agricultural producers, with labour in a common front to get rid of the kind of policies and conditions this bill is directed against.
I think the Conservative government is going to get in trouble if it continues in the future to adopt the kind of attitude it has adopted today. Its attitude has been undemocratic for two reasons. In the first place, it is quite obvious that members of the government are talking the bill out.


Mr. Jones:: You are.


Hazen Robert Argue: We want a vote on it but members of the government want to talk out the bill. If the government were prepared to call a vote I would sit down but I know it has no intention of doing so because one speaker after another on the government side of the house has been getting up to enter the debate.


Mr. Brooks:: Have they not as much right to do so as you have?


Hazen Robert Argue: The second reason that the attitude of the government is undemocratic is that members of the government have gone all across this country representing the Conservative government as the friend of organized labour. But where is this government that is the friend of organized labour tonight? The government has entered speakers in the debate who have risen to say that the passage of this bill would make it more difficult for certain important sections in this country. We do not have a Progressive Conservative government today; the way it is behaving it can only be described as a straight Conservative government. This is a government of two faces. We cannot see one of its faces tonight. We can only see its Tory face.

Industrial Relations
I am sure that legislation giving labour its fair share of the national income is something that will be supported by all Canadians. Members of the Conservative party have risen to say that the passage of this bill would hurt some other sections of the country. I would be far more impressed personally if they would stand up in this house and say it is time the government got on with its legislation to provide improved prices for our agricultural producers instead of attempting to stall and delay the legislation they promised many months ago to give the agricultural industry its fair share of the national income.
I have been in this house in other years during which controversial debates occurred affecting both labour and agriculture and on behalf of the members of this group I can say that we are prepared at all times to stand four square in support of the best interests of the working people of this country whether they work on farms, in factories or in offices.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Vote.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is with some interest that I rise at this point in the debate especially after listening to the previous speaker. I think he will perhaps now realize how some of us on this side of the house have felt-especially those of us who are amateurs at this game-as we have seen how long it has taken the members of the opposition groups to say "yes" to that part of the legislative program the government has brought forward to date. I do not think that in all sincerity they can criticize us if we continue to reserve the right to bring in the labour program we wish to bring in that will cover the whole national picture instead of bringing it in on a piecemeal scale as has been advocated by one particular group in the house.
I agree with the principle of minimum wages set forth in the bill and I do not think there are many hon. members in this house who would oppose that principle. I do not believe this bill will affect very many people but I do not know in fact what groups it will affect or what effect it will have in respect to the prices of goods and the services produced by these groups. In any event we cannot oppose the principle of it because we believe that legislation of this kind would cover a group of people who have been overlooked in the passage of time, who have not

been protected by the unions or by the demands of labour which would give them a living wage. For that reason it is good to set a minimum wage and although the amount suggested would not give these people an entirely adequate wage it would perhaps be something better than what they have. I hope there are not too many people in this group who do not receive this minimum wage, but it would serve as a good example to those who are not receiving such a wage.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the right to criticize certain particular aspects of the legislation. For instance I would question whether the provisions in clause 4 (1) are too rigid in saying that the minimum wage of $1 would be effective from one end of the country to the other. This is perhaps not correct because in certain industrial centres such as Toronto and Montreal a minimum wage of $1 an hour might not be sufficient and perhaps there should be some variation from region to region in relation to the costs of living in those areas.
I also would raise a question in respect to clauses 5 and 6 which I realize have as their purpose guaranteeing that the minimum wage would not be destroyed by employers causing employees to buy their own tools. I am wondering, however, if the implications of those clauses go beyond what was intended. Is it intended, for instance, that an employer should pay for the normal tools and equipment of an employee? I do not think that was the original intention. I feel that the intention was to cover special tools, equipment and clothing but as it is expressed here it leaves the implication that an employer might be responsible for paying for all the tools of a tradesman. Perhaps that does not matter very much because as a rule most tradesmen have their own tools and are receiving much more than the sum set out as a minimum wage but what I am concerned about is whether it would in effect add to the expense of employers who are already paying high wages to skilled tradesmen who now supply their own tools.
One other question which arises concerns enforcement. We note there are quite a number of clauses relating to the enforcement of the proposed legislation. It seems to be human nature that when we set out a laudable principle we have to have almost a police force to ensure its enforcement. With respect to clause 14 I suggest the imposition of a time limit which might be one year from the date of the commission of the breach or one year from the date of the discovery of the breach. I have no particular recommendation one way or the other but I observe that in one clause it requires that the records be kept for a period of two years but there

is a possibility that an offence might be committed beyond the period and nothing could be done about it.
These are the few comments that I have on the bill itself. I would say, as I said at the beginning, if some of us on this side are taking a little longer to say yes than was expected it is because we have learned so well the tactics of the hon. members opposite to us.
(Translation):


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, as it seems obvious that the Conservative party intends to extend this debate to the very end of the day so as to forestall a division, I feel justified in taking this opportunity of expressing my appreciation for the bill now before the house. I shall be very brief, and will merely state my reasons for approving the bill.
In the first place, the lowest rates of pay are those received by the least organized workers. In most cases, employees who draw good salaries are members of very strong labour organizations so that this bill providing for minimum wages would help the least organized workers of this country.
The second reason why I feel justified in supporting this legislation is that the bill to provide for minimum wages would tend to create more uniform standards throughout the country.
We have the experience of legislation enacted by this house to set up floor prices for certain products; I do not believe that the setting up of floor prices for some agricultural products has done any harm anywhere in this country.
The provision of a minimum salary of $1 an hour would tend, in my opinion, to rectify some situations existing in some parts of the country.
Those were, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wished to make concerning this measure since we shall not have the opportunity to vote on it, because the government members intend to speak until the time allotted to such measures has expired. I wish however, to emphasize that I am certainly in favour of this bill.
{Text):


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia one finds the finest type of working man. Examples of his ability are many. Probably it was never better exemplified than during the last war when a then unindustrialized area welcomed war industries and supplied the manpower. And they did a job as well at that time as any done in any part of Canada.
Industrial Relations
Another fine example of their abilities and their virtue was provided in Springhill last year during the Springhill mine disaster and the later rescue of the survivors from that disaster. I feel this bill would be a great step in the direction of giving the labouring man of Nova Scotia the one recognition he has yet to receive, namely a rate of pay similar to that in other parts of Canada. I do not feel it necessary for me to cite examples of the inequities. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) made it quite clear inequities do exist and they are not peculiar to his constituency alone.
Clauses 5 and 6 are both steps in the right direction; for it is indeed unfortunate that in some instances labourers are forced to pay rates of board and lodging far out of proportion to their earnings. Further, in Nova Scotia, we find a labour force older than the labour force in some parts of Canada through the exodus of youth to greener fields. The older labourer has not the bargaining power of the younger man and I feel that this bill would assist him in his bargaining powers. To my mind this bill is a tribute to the forgotten man, the labouring man.


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising on my first occasion in this house I should like to congratulate you on your elevation to the very high post which you now hold, and I should also like to extend my congratulations to your deputy. I might say, sir, at the beginning of the session I thought that had I been congratulating you at this time it would have been in what I would have liked to think were the dying days of the session. However, as things stand now it looks as though we may continue on until Christmas and perhaps into the new year.
Since I come from the riding of Essex South, which embraces the Windsor area, I would not like to miss the opportunity of speaking on this bill and to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on bringing the bill to the attention of the house.
In view of the time, it would not appear that the bill will pass tonight, but I do think that the principle behind it is the one thing that those of us in the Windsor area are heartily in favour of. We like to feel that Windsor is the cradle of our modern labour unions in Canada. Along with other hon. members I personally feel that legislation of this kind is necessary. It provides a floor for wages in the same way as floor prices are provided for agricultural products which may come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.

Industrial Relations
I would like to think, sir, that this legislation could be brought in by the present government. I would not want the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for whose industry I have the highest regard, to have the opportunity of taking credit for this legislation, of course; but I do recall when I was just a young man, and I remember the days of the Conservative government from 1930 to 1935 when we had legislation of a similar nature. Hon. members who now form the official opposition were responsible for having that legislation declared ultra vires.
I am not certain, sir, whether I am in complete sympathy with everything set out in the bill. I would like to have the opportunity of hearing more on the minimum wage of $1. I do not know whether that is a proper amount. I am a little concerned about clauses 5 and 6, about the price of 40 cents for a meal and 50 cents a day for room. I am not certain whether these are proper amounts. I am also questioning the fact whether such measures should be included in this bill. Certainly labour should have some protection for gratuities that an employer may offer; but if such gratuities were spelled out or put on too high a plane, it may happen that the employer would pay a wage and then charge the employee something for those gratuities and thus bring an end to them. For that reason probably some other method should be designed to give labour the protection that it needs in this particular measure.
In conclusion, sir, I should like to say that I am supporting the principle of this bill.
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the bill I do so coming from a riding that has in the past been famous as an agricultural riding and is now day by day becoming highly industrialized. I can therefore appreciate all the arguments that have been advanced today both from the agricultural point of view and from the industrial point of view. But I do not appreciate the arguments advanced from the other side of the house that we on this side, because we see fit to discuss a bill which, after all, is the duty of parliamentarians, are attempting to talk it out. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows, it is our parliamentary function to speak in this place and any suggestions from the other side to the effect that we are not entitled to speak on the bill are, I suggest, quite improper.
As to delaying tactics, let it not be forgotten that every day since the house has opened the question period has extended

from not less than one hour up to an hour and three-quarters, taking valuable time of the house and, sir, I suggest that most of the questions were not properly asked at that time. So let there be no suggestion from the other side that when we on this side seek to speak properly we are perhaps not exercising our proper function in this place.


Frederick George Hahn: We are not debating the bill. We are co-operating. We want the bill to go through.
Mr. Pallet!: Hon. members of the Social Credit party gave examples in the last session of the house of their regard for parliamentary traditions.


Frederick George Hahn: We certainly do not try to ram business through in one day, whether it is unemployment insurance or anything else, and try to finish estimates, involving the spending of $4 billion, in 20 days.
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member who introduced the bill belongs to a party which enjoys the confidence of the people of one province. I think it would be of interest to put on the record the type of legislation they have in that province with respect to minimum wages. As I understand it, in Saskatchewan there are two general orders, one applicable to all establishments not covered by other orders in the cities and the 15 larger towns and one applicable to such establishments in the remainder of the province. These orders set rates of $30 and $29 a week respectively for full-time adult workers and fix lower rates for employees under 18 years of age.
In addition, there are nine special orders covering specific groups of workers. The coverage of the special orders and the rates set for full-time experienced workers are as follows: hotels and restaurants in cities and the 15 larger towns, $30 per week; hotels and restaurants in the remainder of the province, $29 per week. For educational institutions, hospitals and nursing homes in cities and the 15 larger towns the rate is $30 per week; for educational institutions, hospitals and nursing homes in the remainder of the province it is $29 per week. Janitors and caretakers in residential buildings have a minimum rate of $40 per week. For truck drivers the rate is 85 cents per hour or 3 cents per mile, whichever is the greater. For logging and lumbering the rate is 70 cents per hour. For amusement places it is $30 per week and for oil well drilling rigs it is 70 cents per hour.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as the government formed by the party to which the hon. member who introduced the bill belongs recognizes in a single province that it cannot

legislate right across the board for an hourly-rate, we too should recognize the limitations in attempting to establish across this wide dominion one particular rate to apply to all classes of persons. It must be recognized that in certain areas of the country fuel bills are higher. In other areas there are higher transportation costs. In other areas rents are higher. All of these factors must be taken into consideration.
I suggest that my friend could have improved the bill if he had followed the pattern, to which I point particularly with a certain amount of pride, laid down in my own province of Ontario as set out in the minimum wage act. I refer to the establishment of a board which may hold hearings in certain areas and negotiate and define minimum wages for those areas. For the hon. member's information I should like to read section 2 of the act. It is in these words:
The board may arrange for a conference between employers and employees or their representatives in any business, trade, work, undertaking or occupation for the purpose of obtaining information as to the prevailing rates of wages and conditions of employment and may accept recommendations from the conference with respect to any matters which may be dealt with by an order of the board.
Section 3 of that act reads as follows:
The board may establish minimum rates of wages for all employees and generally enact such provisions with respect to conditions of employment as may be deemed necessary for the betterment of the physical, moral and intellectual wellbeing of employees and without restricting the generality of the foregoing the board may make orders and by means of such orders may,
(a)	designate or define any business, trade, work or undertaking or the part or parts thereof to which the order is applicable;
(b)	designate or define the zone or zones within Ontario in which any order or part thereof is applicable;
(c)	classify employees and separately provide for any one or more classifications with respect to any matter over which the board has authority;
(d)	establish a minimum wage for the prevailing weekly work period in the business of any employer or for any other working period which the board may establish;
(e)	establish the maximum number of hours of labour which may regularly be worked in the business of any employer with respect to any minimum wage established.
(f)	establish minimum hourly rates of wages for overtime work;
(g)	establish minimum hourly rates of wages for employees who regularly work less than 40 hours per week;
(h)	define any term used in any order;
(i)	establish a special method of payment for any classification of employees;
(j)	specify when and under what conditions deductions may be made from the minimum wage established for time lost by employees through illness, holidays, absence from duty or for any other reason and also for special privileges or perquisites resulting from the nature of the work performed.
Industrial Relations


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Mr. Pallet!: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the hon. member is speaking in such praise of the minimum wage legislation of Ontario, will he tell us what the highest minimum wage is that has been established under that legislation?
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member knows the answer to that question himself. I do not have that information before me. But the point I was seeking to make-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not know it?


Mr. Pallett:: The point I was seeking to make was this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That proves that that kind of legislation does not have the effect the hon. member thinks it has.


John Cameron Pallett: The machinery set up both in the province of Saskatchewan, where my hon. friend's party is in power, and in the province of Ontario is machinery designed to recognize conditions that may be found in different categories of employment and which would enable the different classes of employees to be dealt with equitably. If my friend's argument were followed to its ultimate conclusion, he would say to every man in the ranks of labour, no matter what your own particular qualifications are, whether you are skilled or unskilled, whether you have years of experience or no experience, you must work for exactly the same pay. I am sure that that principle would not be recognized in any way in any labour negotiations in the country. I would suggest that we, in parliament, should not for one minute attempt to recognize a principle that would not be recognized in labour negotiations throughout the country.
A minimum wage set at too low a level would have a very adverse effect on labour generally. If you set the minimum wage too low the effect would be to bring down the pay that employees receive and such a generalization would defeat the very purpose which I think my hon. friend is honestly trying to achieve but perhaps has not succeeded in setting out in the bill as clearly and as succinctly as might have been done. I think he recognizes this, as a matter of fact, because in the second last section of the bill, section 17, it says:
The governor in council may make such regulations, not inconsistent with this act, as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this act according to their true intent.

Industrial Relations
Immediately when one sees a section such as that in an act he says that the draftsman did not quite know what the act meant and is leaving it to the governor in council to draft the necessary regulations. A wording of that sort, Mr. Speaker, could only leave that sort of an impression.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question? Could he name me another bill similar in any way which does not contain a provision for the drafting of regulations by the governor in council?


John Cameron Pallett: You evidently heard but you did not understand.


An hon. Member:: That is not strange at all.
Mr. Pallet!: I was speaking to the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, when I addressed that comment. The bill before us says:
-make such regulations, not inconsistent with this act, as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this act-
If the section had stopped there, that would have been fine, but it goes on to say, "-according to their true intent". Those are the words to which I was referring in suggesting that the person who drafted the bill did not quite know what the bill meant and therefore was leaving it to the governor in council to be interpreted through order in council.
I believe there has been some suggestion by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who took a great delight in twisting around his tongue the words "Tory", "Conservative", and all that sort of thing- I do not mind running as a Tory, a Conservative or a Progressive Conservative...


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make up your mind.


John Cameron Pallett: They all stand for the same thing. They stand for Canada and the interests of this party in labour was recognized in the brief to which the hon. member referred. I would suggest that the hon. member might read the first paragraph of that brief, which says:
Mr. Prime Minister and members of the cabinet: This is the first formal meeting between this new government and our only slightly older congress. But such meetings are part of the tradition of the Canadian labour movement. Indeed, they have been going on so long that they might almost be said to have become part of the unwritten constitution of Canada. It was on May 18, 1891, that the executive committee of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, successors to the Canadian Labour Congress of 1883, and predecessor of the Canadian Labour Congress of 1956, "waited on the Right Honourable Sir John A. Macdonald and the members of his government . . . when the various subjects of interest to our organization were laid before them".

I would suggest to the hon. member that the interest of this party in labour is a lot older than the interest of his party.


Hazen Robert Argue: But yours did not continue.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Was not the statement the hon. member read an indication of the interest of the labour body in the government, rather than the converse as the hon. member is suggesting in his argument?


John Cameron Pallett: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that that interest has been maintained from 1891 until now. I say to the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in this government today will go down as one of the greatest Ministers of Labour this country has ever had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
will go down all right, and all the other Tories with him. Will the hon. member permit one more question? If the government which he supports brings in a bill providing for a minimum wage for employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction will he support it?


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question put by the hon. member. However, I can say to him quite frankly that if the government did introduce a bill in exactly these terms, without the proper recognition across the country, I would very much hesitate to support it. I would point out to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that one very good reason why I could not support the bill in the form as drawn is that he has completely neglected the armed services in this bill. One of the largest groups employed by the government of Canada does not even get a mention in this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member knows that as a private member I could not introduce a bill that would call for expenditures directly to civil servants or to members of the armed forces. The hon. member surely knows that is the reason there is in this legislation no reference to any person who receives his wages or salary directly from the government, but rather that this is an act of general application.


Pierre Gauthier: He did not know.


John Cameron Pallett: With that extra clarification from the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am amazed at his inability, with his long experience in the house, to draft a bill. If that is what he intended to say, it is not set out in so many words and it does not mean what the hon. member suggests it means because if the bill came in

in that form, with that intention, I know it would not be brought in by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the hon. member cannot read.
Mr. Pallet!: In many languages he can, Mr. Speaker. There is another thing I should like to bring forward.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Mr. Pallet!: I do so with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. Since reference has been made to the Canadian Labour Congress brief to the government I therefore think it has been brought into this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The five minute whistle has blown.


John Cameron Pallett: 
Henry Joseph Murphy: Say it over again; there are only two minutes left.
Industrial Relations
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member who has just interrupted-


Henry Joseph Murphy: Say the first paragraph over again.
Mr. Pallet!:-certainly had his opportunity to take part in this debate in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minute flag is up. You have time for only one more kick.


An hon. Member:: The quarterback down there has not had a chance to carry the ball.
Mr. Pallet!: When the chitter-chatter subsides, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to start again. A labour policy is not formulated with the introduction of one bill that deals with only one aspect of labour legislation. The brief of the Canadian Labour Congress recognizes the fact that labour is vitally interested in every aspect of this economy, whether it be internal of external. By the same token, hon. members of this house must recognize the fact that we must not be interested solely in one aspect of labour legislation. If we attempt to pass single bills dealing with one aspect only it would be like trying to build a house without a plan; and everyone here knows what ensuing chaos would result. Consideration must be given to every particular feature that affects a large body of the population.


Henry Joseph Murphy: You had better shoot the puck.


John Cameron Pallett: I have often been on the ice with 30 seconds to go, so I know what it feels like. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Tory friends of labour have done it again.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, then those of the Department of Justice and of the Department of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hansell: How many orders in council have been issued in each of the months of June, July, August, September and October of 1957?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):
June July Aug. Sept. Oct.
Orders of the governor in
council	 365	235	319	222	312
of which
208	105	165	103	169
were minutes of the treasury board approved by the governor in council


INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS, 1956-57
Mr. Christian: 1,	How much money was collected under the Income Tax Act from January 1, to October 31, 1956?
2.	How much money was collected under the Income Tax Act from January 1, to October 31, 1957?
Answer by: Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
1.	Total net collections under the Income Tax Act from 1st January, 1956 to 31st October, 1956 were $2,379,023,955.81.
2.	Total net collections under the Income Tax Act from 1st January, 1957 to 31st October, 1957 were $2,625,928,673.90.


VETERANS PENSIONS
Mr. Hansell: 1. How many veterans are in receipt of pensions for disability under the Pension Act?
2. How	many of these are in each			percentage
category?				
3. What	is the total		yearly amount	paid under
the act?				
Answer by: Hon. A. Veierans Affairs):			, J. Brooks (Minister of	
As 1. 158,881.		at September 30, 1957		
2.				
Per	World	World	BothCent	War I	War II	Wars100 ...	. 3,686	3,484	7,17095 ...	. 109	70	17990 .. .	. 529	377	90685 . . .	. 401	264	66580 . . .	. 4,449	1,445	5,89475 . . .	. 335	543	87870 . . .	. 772	1,486	2,25865 .. .	. 201	402	60360 . . .	. 1,331	2,694	4,02555 .. ,	. 244	639	88350 . . .	. 2,618	6,341	8,95945 .. .	. 145	189	33440 . . .	. 2,554	4,245	6,79935 .. .	. 1,290	1,771	3,06130 . . .	. 3,440	5,903	9,34325 .. ,	. 3,284	4,728	8,01220 . . ,	. 6,022	12,108	18,13015 . . ,	. 5,267	9,731	14,99810 . .	. 10,571	27,472	38,0435 ..	. 5,695	15,956	21,651Totals .	. *52,943	99,848	152,791
*The discrepancy of 6,090 between the total given and that in the answer to question (1) represents a number of small special groups, regular force, special force, miscellaneous pensions, etc. for whom detailed particulars are not kept. To obtain them would necessitate a review of each card.
3.	Disability	$108,683,812.00
Dependent	 39,355,228.00
Total	$148,039,040.00

Territorial Waters


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
The Secretary of State for External Affairs presents his compliments to the Secretary General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to note No. LE 130(3)-9-2 dated March 25, 1957 from the director of the codification division requesting any provisional comments which the Canadian government might wish to make on the international law commission's final report on the law of the sea and related matters.
The Canadian government desires to say that it considers that the increased interest of states in the exploitation of the resources of the sea and the consequent need for conservation and regulation of these resources along with the need to preserve the principle of the freedom of the seas calls for a reappraisal of the existing law of the sea and subsequent agreement on generally accepted rules, whether they be existing rules reaffirmed or revised or entirely new rules. Accordingly the Canadian government welcomes the convoking of an international conference to examine the law of the sea and proposes to be represented at this conference, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed the secretary general on April 17, 1957. Regarding the international law commission's report on the law of the sea, the following are the views of the Canadian government on some of the recommendations of the commission:
(a) Breadth of the territorial sea and contiguous zone.
The relevant recommendations of the international law commission are as follows: "Article 3:
1.	The commission recognizes that international practice is not uniform as regards the delimitation of the territorial sea.
2.	The commission considers that international law does not permit an extension of the territorial sea beyond 12 miles.
3.	The commission, without taking any decision as to the breadth of the territorial sea up to that limit, notes, on the one hand, that many states have fixed a breadth greater than 3 miles and, on the other hand, that many states do not recognize such a breadth when that of their own territorial sea is less.
4.	The commission considers that the breadth of the territorial sea should be fixed by an international conference."
"Article 66:
1.	In a zone of the high seas contiguous to its territorial sea, the coastal state may exercise the control necessary to
(a)	Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea;
(b)	Punish infringement of the above regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.
2.	The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 12 miles from the base line from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured."
The Canadian government consider that any new rules must meet the essential needs of coastal states. The 3-mile limit is not adequate for all purposes. It is not adequate for the enforcement of customs, fiscal and sanitary regulations. It is also not adequate for the protection and control of fisheries. The commission has recognized in Article 66 (quoted above) the need for extended jurisdiction in respect of the enforcement of customs, fiscal and sanitary regulations. The Canadian government considers it to be fully as important that the rules of international law should provide adequately for the regulation and control of fisheries off the coast of any state. One way of providing for this would be by accepting, for general application, the 12-mile breadth for the territorial sea. That would allow for complete fishery, customs, fiscal and sanitary control and regulation within that limit and dispense with the need for any provisions along the lines of those contained in Article 66. It is recognized, however, that a general extension of the breadth of the territorial sea to 12 miles could have consequences of importance with regard to the freedom of sea and air navigation. Instead, therefore, of having a general adoption of the 12-mile breadth for the territorial sea an alternative approach which would not affect the rights of navigation by sea or by air would be to agree on a contiguous zone of 12 miles as recommended by the commission but with the modification that within that zone the coastal state should have the exclusive right of regulation and control of fishing. Rights over fisheries accorded by such a zone should, in the view of the Canadian government, be as complete as those that are afforded to a coastal state within the limits of territorial waters.
(b) Straight base lines
[Stage Direction]
Territorial Waters
"Article 5:
1.	Where circumstances necessitate a special regime because the coast is deeply indented or cut into or because there are islands in its immediate vicinity, the base line may be independent of the low-water mark. In these cases, the method of straight base lines joining appropriate points may be employed. The drawing of such base lines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast, and the sea areas lying within the lines must be sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters. Account may nevertheless be taken, where necessary, of economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usage. Base lines shall not be drawn to and from drying rocks and drying shoals.
2.	The coastal state shall give due publicity to the straight base lines drawn by it.
3.	Where the establishment of a straight base line has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which previously had been considered as part of the territorial sea or of the high seas, a right of innocent passage, as defined in Article 15, through those waters shall be recognized by the coastal state in all those cases where the waters have normally been used for international traffic."
This recommendation is acceptable to the Canadian government as reflecting the decision of the international court of justice in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case. The Canadian government agrees that the employment of straight base lines as outlined by the commission should be recognized universally as being a proper means of establishing the datumline for measuring the territorial sea or contiguous zone, in appropriate cases.
(c)	Continental shelf "Article 67:
For the purposes of these articles, the term 'continental shelf' is used as referring to the sea bed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres (approximately 100 fathoms), or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas."
In its final report on the law of the sea (United Nations document A/3159, section III, paragraph 2, page 40) the international law commission stated that it "accepted the idea that the coastal state may exercise control and jurisdiction over the continental shelf, with the proviso that such control
and jurisdiction shall be exercised solely for
the purpose of exploiting its resources	"
The commission believed, however, that the legal boundary of the continental shelf should be a fixed limit in terms of the depth of the superjacent waters because a boundary defined in terms of the admissibility of exploitation as the commission's first draft of 1951 proposed, would "lack the necessary precision and might give rise to disputes and uncertainty". The 200-metre depth was selected by the commission as the limit of the continental shelf because it considered that this depth is where the continental shelf in a geological sense "generally" comes to an end and that the limit proposed would be sufficient for all practical purposes at present.
Against the contingency that exploitation of the seabed at depths greater than 200 metres might prove technically possible the commission recommended at its eighth session that the continental shelf in the legal sense might be considered as extending beyond the 200-metre depth mark to areas at greater depths where the superjacent waters admit of the exploitation of the resources of the seabed of these areas.
This additional provision reintroduces the uncertainty which led the commission to favour a fixed limit in terms of the depth of superjacent waters for determining the legal boundary of the shelf. It is considered that the foreseeable possibilities of exploitation at greater depths than 200 metres might be provided for without sacrificing the element of certainty concerning the extent of states' rights to exploit the resources of the seabed. It is understood that in 90 per cent of instances, excluding polar regions, the edge of the continental shelf is well-defined geographically. It is suggested, therefore, that in these cases the boundary of the shelf should be its actual edge. Where, however, the edge of the shelf is ill-defined or where there is no shelf in a geographical sense, the boundary might be set at such a depth as might satisfy foreseeable practical prospects of exploitation.
It should be added that this suggestion might also solve the special problem raised by the international law commission regarding submerged areas of a depth less than 200 metres which are separated from the main shelf by narrow channels. While the scarcity of soundings in many areas makes it impossible to be definite concerning the number of such submerged areas it is thought that if the actual edge of the shelf were considered to be the boundary, by far the greater number of these "islands" would then be included as part of the shelf and would so not create a special problem.

(d)	High seas fishing
The Canadian government has the following comments with regard to the draft articles indicated:
"Article 51:
A state whose nationals are engaged in fishing in any area of the high seas where the nationals of other states are not thus engaged, shall adopt measures for regulating and controlling fishing activities in that area when necessary for the purpose of the conservation of the living resources of the high seas."
There is a possibility that in a given area the nationals of one state could be exploiting one kind of living marine resource and at the same time the nationals of another state could be exploiting another kind of resource. The article, as presently drafted, does not seem to take account of such a situation. It refers to an area rather than to a particular resource. A more explicit statement appears to be desirable.
"Article 52:
1.	If the nationals of two or more states are engaged in fishing the same stock or stocks of fish or other marine resources in any area of the high seas, these states shall, at the request of any of them, enter into negotiations with a view to prescribing by agreement the necessary measures for the conservation of such resources.
2.	If the states concerned do not reach agreement within a reasonable period of time, any of the parties may initiate the procedure contemplated by Article 57."
The article, as drafted, might be interpreted as applying only to a case where the nationals of two or more states fished the same stock or stocks of fish in any one area. In some instances, to provide adequate conservation measures it would be desirable to have them applied to the same stock of fish even though it were fished in different areas. A clarification in wording is therefore suggested.
The criterion suggested by the commission (see paragraph I of its commentary to Article 52) for invoking the procedure envisaged in this article is that a state be "regularly engaged in fishing". Under Article 53 an existing regime does not apply to a newcomer unless he is engaged in substantial fishing (see paragraph 2 of the commission's commentary on Article 53).
It would seem reasonable therefore that under Article 52 a state ought only to be allowed to call for the establishment of a regime if it is engaged in substantial fishing, subject of course to Articles 54, 55 and 56.
Territorial Waters
"Article 53:
1.	If, subsequent to the adoption of the measures referred to in Articles 51 and 52, nationals of other states engage in fishing the same stock or stocks of fish or other marine resources in the same area, the conservation measures adopted shall be applicable to them.
2.	If these other states do not accept the measures so adopted and if no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, any of the interested parties may initiate the procedure contemplated by Article 57. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 58, the measures adopted shall remain obligatory pending the arbitral decision."
The article, as drafted, would make conservation measures adopted pursuant to Articles 51 and 52 applicable to other states only in the case of fishing for the same stocks of fish in the same area. From the conservation point of view the provision is inadequate. It is the stocks of fish which must be protected regardless of the fact whether they are fished in the same area or not.
In paragraph 2 of the commission's comment on this article, it is stipulated that the regulations should be applicable to newcomers only if they engage in fishing on a scale which would substantially affect the stock or stocks in question. It would be preferable to have this stipulated in the article, for instance, by adding after "any of the interested parties" in paragraph 2 of the article the words, "engaged in the fishing on a substantial basis".
"Article 56:
1.	Any state which, even if its nationals are not engaged in fishing in an area of the high seas not adjacent to its coast, has a special interest in the conservation of the living resources in that area, may request the state whose nationals are engaged in fishing there to take the necessary measures of conservation.
2.	If no agreement is reached within a reasonable period, such state may initiate the procedure contemplated by Article 57."
Although there may, in certain circumstances, be some justification for a state not engaged in fishing in an area not contiguous to its coast requesting a fishing state to take certain conservation measures, care should be taken that this request would not extend to measures necessarily having to be taken within the boundaries of the fishing state. This article, therefore, should be qualified to indicate that the fishing state would be under no obligation to take measures within its boundaries.
[Stage Direction]
Territorial Waters
The government of Canada is of the opinion that the commission's articles on fishing should be subject to the "abstention principle" which was considered at the technical conference on the conservation of the living resources of the sea held in Rome in 1955 and which is stated in the report of the conference (page 7, paragraphs 61-62) namely:
"61. A special case exists where countries, through research, regulation of their own fishermen and other activities, have restored or developed or maintained stocks of fish so that their productivity is being maintained and utilized at levels reasonably approximating their maximum sustainable productivity, and where the continuance of this level of productivity depends upon such sustained research and regulation. Under these conditions, the participation of additional states in the exploitation of the resource will yield no increase in food to mankind, but will threaten the success of the conservation program. Where opportunities exist for a country or countries to develop or restore the productivity of resources, and where such development or restoration by the harvesting state or states is necessary to maintain the productivity of resources, conditions should be made favourable for such action.
62. The international north Pacific fishery commission provides a method for handling the special case mentioned above. It was recognized that new entrants in such fisheries threatened the continued success of the conservation program. Under these circumstances the state or states not participating in fishing the stocks in question agreed to
abstain from such fishing when the commission determines that the stock reasonably satisfies all the following conditions:
(a)	Evidence based upon scientific research indicates that more extensive exploitation of the stock will not provide a substantial increase in yield;
(b)	The exploitation of the stock is limited or otherwise regulated for conservation purposes by each party substantially engaging in its exploitation; and
(c)	The stock is the subject of extensive scientific study designed to discover whether it is being fully utilized, and what conditions are necessary for maintaining its maximum sustained productivity. The convention provides that, when these conditions are satisfied, the states which have not engaged in substantial exploitation of the stock will be recommended to abstain from fishing such stock, while the states engaged in substantial exploitation will continue to carry out the necessary conservation measures. Meanwhile, the abstaining states may participate in fishing other stocks of fish in the same area."
All of the above comments, are of course, provisional at this stage. The fact that comments have not been submitted on other matters does not indicate that the remainder of the draft articles are necessarily acceptable to the Canadian government as they now stand. The comments are submitted with a view to facilitating the exchange of views among countries that will be essential in working out agreed provisions on the law of the sea.﻿1657
[Stage Direction]
.	Friday, November 29, 1957


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. Rea (Spadina) presented the first, second and third reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.