1963-10-09

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Caron.

[Stage Direction]
announcement of storage of nuclear

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house of the continental defence arrangement which the government has entered into with the United States government concerning the storage of nuclear warheads in Canada for United States interceptor aircraft stationed in two United States leased bases in Newfoundland. The arrangement which has been concluded was the result of negotiations to which I referred in the house on May 20 and again on June 7. It is in the form of an exchange of notes and specifies the conditions under which nuclear air to air defensive weapons will be stored for United States air force interceptor aircraft under the operational command of the commander in chief of the joint North American air defence command stationed at United States leased bases in Newfoundland.
Under the arrangement operational use of these defensive weapons would be governed by the operational plans of NORAD, approved by both governments. In other respects as well, such as the strict safety measures which will apply, the terms now agreed parallel those relating to the conditions under which warheads will be made available to Canadian forces as announced on August 16. In accordance with the requirements of national security, military details cannot be made public.
This exchange of notes complements that of August 16 relating to Canadian forces in that it will permit all NORAD air defence forces stationed in Canada, regardless of their nationality, to be equipped with weapons
which, it has been agreed, are presently required for them to fulfil effectively their role of protecting this continent against bomber attack. As a result, the Canadian and United States forces assigned to NORAD for the air defence of North America, wherever they are stationed, will have the means at their disposal to discharge their defensive task, a task which we all hope they will never be called upon to perform.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, of course, the house is in the same position as it has continued to be under this government in that the information made available to us is of so sketchy a character as to deny us the opportunity of knowing whether or not, in any agreement entered into, the sovereignty of Canada is protected or whether Canada is placed in a subservient position. Furthermore, it is a matter, I think, of interest to know that during the election campaign the present Prime Minister told us that the Canadian government intended to negotiate itself out of the possession of nuclear weapons or their storage in Canada.
Naturally the house would appreciate the opportunity to learn something of the negotiations, if any, that have gone on, for it strikes me as passing strange that a government that intends to negotiate out of nuclear weapons now places itself in a position where millions of dollars will be expended for the storage of nuclear weapons. At the same time, in the back of its mind, the government intends to bring about by renegotiation the removal of those things that they are now going to expend money upon for storage purposes.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister simply forges another link in the chain which is now binding Canada to the United States as a military satellite, and is one more step toward making Canada a nuclear power.
We in this group protest most vehemently that these announcements are being made without any documents being placed before parliament and without full knowledge of the facts being made available to hon. members of the house. It seems to us that this agreement ought to be filed in the house, as

Storage of Nuclear Warheads Announced should the agreement with reference to the acquisition of nuclear arms for Canadian forces.
I would urge the Prime Minister first of all to make this information available to the house. If he is not prepared to make it available to the house, he might at least agree to make it available to the parliamentary committee on defence so that the members of that committee would have an opportunity of perusing this information and of questioning the ministers concerned regarding it.
I would also urge that the Prime Minister set aside a day fairly soon for the discussion of this whole question of Canada's becoming a military satellite of the United States or being boxed more and more into a nuclear role, out of which the government itself promised to negotiate us. If the government does not avail itself of such an opportunity, then those of us in the opposition groups would have to take whatever opportunity we can find to raise this question and have it fully debated in the house.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we note with keen interest the announcement which the right hon. Prime Minister has made in regard to the continuance of what has been the declared policy of the Liberal party respecting our obligations for the defence of this continent. However, I am of the opinion that this information, in its greatest maximum detail, should be made available to the defence committee so that the committee can fulfil the obligations which rest upon it, and so that we can know for sure that the policy which is being followed by the government is the one that is essential at this point.
So far as defence is concerned the real need which we in Canada have today is to strike out on a new role, such as that which we heard the Minister of National Defence talking about a few weeks ago, concerning our share in the defence of the continent as it relates to a non-nuclear mobile defence force which can play an essential part in the defence of our country, and can also play its part in the defence of the free world whenever it may be called upon to do so. We in our party trust the government will move forward with this suggestion and that the defence committee will be utilized to its maximum effect.


Mr. Caouette:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out, even though it should be obvious to everyone in the house and I hope it is not misunderstood, that I have taken the stand from the opening of the present session, and will continue to do so until I have received formal instructions

from the house, that on motions I am bound by the rules of the house just to recognize spokesmen of recognized parties in the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
In my opinion, we have the right to express our opinion at this time when the Prime Minister makes a statement.
Considering that we are legally elected representatives of the people, why are we denied the right to speak when we have something to say?
I should like you to give a decision in that regard, since I have a few remarks to make concerning the Prime Minister's statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry but I must hold to the original position I have taken from the beginning, and when the house gives me formal instructions to recognize the leader of a new party 1 will be delighted to do so. Until such time I am bound by the facts as they are.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, since it does not belong to the house to recognize a political party but rather to the voters themselves and to the members to form such a party, I appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have heard the discussion and the decision of the Chair. From the decision of the Chair an appeal is taken. Those in favour of upholding the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The hon. member for Villeneuve, having risen to comment with regard to a ministerial statement, and the Chair having stated that in recognizing the hon. member it would, in effect, be deciding upon a question which had been referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections, the Chair went on to say that in accordance with practice it was bound to recognize only leaders of recognized

Division
parties; whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the decision sustained.


Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Seconded by Mr. Gilbert Rondeau, I move that the house adjourn its business until such time as all rights and privileges of all its members have been acknowledged.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to give a ruling on the question of privilege which the hon.

Division
member for Lapointe has raised. First of all, I do think it is in general terms. There is nothing specific about it. It is more in the nature of a grievance than a question of privilege. The specific matter referred to is under consideration at the present time, and in the circumstances I see no question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair on the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe. Those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: The question is an appeal to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Chair.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Chair.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I was paired, and I would have voted for your ruling.


Mr. Nugent:: I was not paired, but I was outmanoeuvred.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker-
(Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. May I know under which standing order-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I move, under standing order 29, that the hon. member for Eglinton be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I did not hear what the Secretary of State said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I move, under standing order 29, that the hon. member for Eglinton be heard.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Villeneuve raised a question of privilege before Your Honour recognized the Secretary of State. I think Your Honour should recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Villeneuve raised a question of privilege I could not make my motion. However, I was observing carefully and I observed that the hon. member for Eglinton rose even before the pairs were declared, and he certainly rose before the hon. member for Villeneuve. If these were just the ordinary proceedings of the house, standing order 29 would apply. Of course a question of privilege, if there could be a question of privilege at this time -which I doubt, sir-could be raised at any time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I be informed under which standing order you are prevented from recognizing the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Mr. Dupuis:: There is no rule or regulation to prevent people from spitting on the floor.
and get it in the eye.


Mr. Speaker:: First, may I say that questions are not asked of the Speaker in that fashion. Second, as you know, until the house instructs me I cannot act on those instructions. I do not believe I need to say more at this stage.

On the orders of the day:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. With reference to the announcement he made this afternoon regarding the agreement with the United States for air to air nuclear missiles for northern North American defence, could I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to make this agreement available either to the house or to the defence committee of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must know that this is a military agreement which contains facts which bear on military security and the security of the country, and it would therefore be quite improper to make all those facts and all those details public. In that respect we are following the course followed by the previous government and outlined more than once by the right hon. gentleman who then led the government. All the information which can be made available will be made available. The matter can be discussed in the defence committee of the Commons. Next Monday we hope to have a supply motion, so the hon. gentleman can bring up the question at that time and debate the whole issue, if he sees fit, in spite of the fact that the issue was debated for four days in the early part of the session.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister what assurance can we have that there is adequate provision for joint control, and that there is no danger of unilateral action which would precipitate an unfortunate situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will give my hon. friend the assurance of myself and the government that there are adequate provisions for joint control. I will also tell my hon. friend that this agreement is based substantially on a draft which was submitted by the previous government to the United States government in 1959, accepted in principle by that government, and not proceeded with by the Canadian government of the day.
3350	HOUSE OF
Storage of Nuclear Warheads Announced


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is apparently going to become a debate. May I say at once that the statement of the Prime Minister is not in accordance with the facts. Let that be clear and unequivocal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman apparently forgets that I have access to the records, and my statement is strictly in accord with the facts. If the right hon. gentleman will raise this question on the supply motion next Monday, we can go into the record.
While I am on my feet, the right hon. gentleman said earlier in the day that this agreement would cost the Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. It will cost the Canadian taxpayers nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a very strange statement on the part of the Prime Minister, that if we move a motion or an amendment he will then reveal that which he has refused to place before parliament. Whenever he finds himself in a corner he always becomes peevishly annoyed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that if the matter was debated I would reveal information which I say now cannot be revealed. I said that I would reveal the record of the government, and I would be delighted to do that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I may say to the Prime Minister that I am sure Canadians will find that in the long run, most things which appear to cost them nothing cost them a great deal. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the sections of the agreement having to do with joint control could be made available to the house. This would not involve security information which would be privileged.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the agreement does provide for joint control, I have said that. Surely the hon. gentleman will take my word.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister how the control can be joint control, and still cost Canada nothing. Will it be the United States which is going to pay for the Canadian part of the joint control?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are mixed up.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. With reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister concerning nuclear bases, there being five air defence
[Mr. Pearson.)

stations, the two Bomarc stations and the two leased bases in Newfoundland, will the minister inform the house if consideration is being given to establishing such a base at Val d'Or in Villeneuve and, if so, what would be the nature of the target it was intended to protect?



TABLING OF DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH TRADE AGREEMENT

Mitchell William Sharp: As requested, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today two copies in English and in French of the protocol renewing the trade agreement between Canada and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, signed at Ottawa on September 16, 1963, together with an exchange of correspondence between Mr. Borisov and myself of the same date in respect of the purchase and sale of wheat by the wheat board and by the Soviet agency.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that we are very glad to have this protocol and correspondence tabled. I should like to point out to the house the very embarrassing circumstances under which this is done. This agreement was signed over three weeks ago, and it is being tabled in the house on October 9. This matter has been discussed in the public press of the United States for two weeks. Now we are in the embarrassing position of having put before us, on October 9, a subject matter that was under discussion in our neighbouring country for over two weeks.
I should like to point out to the house the embarrassing position in which have been put. It is a question of experience in these matters, I know, but when you do sign these protocols you table them as soon as possible. On the last occasion a protocol was signed on April 18, 1960, and was tabled in the house on April 25. There was none of this leaking of information or discussion in the public press by the central intelligence agency and other parties to the agreement until we, in Canada, had a chance to see the agreement, not between the United States and Russia but between Canada and Russia.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order, but perhaps I am as much in order as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I just wanted to say that I gave a full explanation of this transaction, and the discussion that has proceeded subsequently has been on the basis of that explanation and not on the basis of the documents I am tabling today which merely show formally what I had announced publicly.

On the orders of the day:


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to the trade agreement between this country and Russia. Was this agreement shown to the United States government or to any of its agencies, or to any joint agency or committee of the two countries before its tabling in the Canadian parliament today?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not certain of the answer to this question but, as I said in the house in answer to earlier questions, we kept the United States informed during the course of the negotiations about the contents of this agreement. Whether they actually saw the terms as I tabled them today, I am not certain.


Mr. Ian Granl Wahn (St. Paul's):: I wish to direct a further question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the headline in last night's Toronto Star reading "Canada Won't Ship Russian Wheat in Time -U.S. View", is the government considering, or will it consider, underwriting government insurance or providing other incentives to shipping through Churchill or other available ports so that the wheat from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba may be delivered in time to fulfil Canada's commitments despite strike action at certain Canadian ports and any possible irresponsible action on the part of the S.I.U?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member's question is one for the order paper.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskaloon):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question supplementary to the one asked by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle. I wonder whether the minister could ascertain the facts in this connection and advise the house as to what action was taken with regard to informing the United States about this agreement?


An hon. Member:: Why?


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce following the question which was asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon and which remains unanswered. When the United States authorities were made aware from time to time as negotiations went on between Canada and the U.S.S.R. regarding the sale of wheat, is there any foundation for the suggestion in the United States press that strong objections were raised by the United States
Russian Trade Agreement Tabled to the fixing of the price at an average of $1.74 which they contended would have a detrimental effect on their sales of wheat abroad? Were objections raised by the United States or not?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the short answer to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition is, no. We kept the United States authorities informed of the general course of the negotiations, but we did not at that time talk about price at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Subsequently, when the question of price had been determined, were their any objections by the United States to the price comprised in the agreement as stated in the Canadian Press dispatch, from Washington, as I recall it?


Mitchell William Sharp: The question of price, as the hon. gentleman knows, and as members of the house are aware, is a matter which is decided by the wheat board from day to day and from time to time, as they are negotiating. This price is determined by the wheat board in the interests of the western farmers. As far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce is concerned, this is not a matter with which he ordinarily concerns himself, so I would not have had any discussions about prices. I have heard, however, that some members of the United States administration have made some comments about the prices which the wheat board felt it advisable to charge its customers.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the nature of those comments?


Mitchell William Sharp: They were comments rather of the kind which appeared in the newspapers.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Along those same lines, with regard to the pricing of our wheat, there are reports in this morning's Globe and Mail that Canada has entered into a fixed price arrangement for the next eight months in connection with a trade deal with Japan. Is this true? Have we set a price eight months hence?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have discussed this matter with the Canadian wheat board. As I have explained, the wheat board is responsible for the pricing and sale of Canadian wheat in foreign markets. I have been advised by the board that current reports suggesting that the Canadian wheat board has altered its methods of selling wheat for forward delivery and the pricing of such sales are inaccurate. The Canadian wheat board has continued to follow its usual marketing policy this season as in the past. The board's quoted price for wheat has advanced approximately 8 cents per bushel since the recent sale to the

Russian Trade Agreement Tabled U.S.S.R., and contracts with traditional customers have been completed recently at the board's quoted prices then current for shipment during the crop year which ends next July 31. There is nothing new or unusual about this procedure. The Canadian wheat board has always been prepared to sell to buyers wheat for forward delivery at its current daily quoted prices.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have another supplementary question, and this is on the point. Has the minister received information that, because wheat shipments from western Canada have been held up due to strike conditions here, the department of trade and commerce in the United States, and other departments there intend to take advantage of the situation in concluding wheat deals with Russia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no secret that the United States government has been reconsidering its position. It was reconsidering its position even before there was any strike or threat of strike on the great lakes amongst the longshoremen. I do not think the United States government, whether or not it changes its policy, will be influenced by the strike now going on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will it reduce our contract?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have the wheat board appear before the standing committee on agriculture, as has been the usual pattern in the past, so that we can be given full details with regard to this proposed new implementation of forward pricing?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have just denied there is anything new about this, but I can assure my hon. friend I shall have no objection whatever and shall encourage the Canadian wheat board to appear before the committee.


Mr. Herridge:: A supplementary question- [Later:]


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce know that, this morning, it was reported that the United States reached a wheat sale agreement with Russia yesterday, I think?


Mitchell William Sharp: I really have no information about the policy of the United States government, other than has appeared in the newspapers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the answer the minister has just given to a prior question answers my question.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the necessity of restoring orderly shipping along the St. Lawrence, would the minister consider calling together repersentatives of the union and representatives of the shipping federation, as well as representatives of the grain handlers, elevator companies and railway transportation companies with a view to bringing before all these segments of commerce a common understanding and purpose with regard to the movement of goods going into-international trade?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that is a question for the order paper.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relating to an earlier reply. He said he had kept the Americans informed of the progress of the discussions in regard to our negotiations with the Russians for the wheat sale, and he just said a few moments ago that the Americans have not similarly kept him informed. I wonder whether he can explain the reason for the difference in treatment, and why we were not informed.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



FISHERIES


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: As I stated last Friday, Mr. Speaker, and repeated to the house yesterday, I should like to inform the house of the progress made in the negotiations at Tokyo concerning the north Pacific fisheries treaty, as reported to me by the Canadian delegation which returned to Ottawa last night. I also table, for the information of the house, the press release issued at the close of the Tokyo meetings.
As I informed the house on June 24, the negotiations between Canada, Japan and the United States on the north Pacific fisheries convention commenced in Washington, D.C., on June 6 and recessed on June 21 after a useful exchange of views. At the close of the Washington meetings, Canada and the United States believed that the conservation and rational development of the north Pacific fisheries would be assured best by continuation of the present conventions embodying the abstention principle. Japan, on the other hand,

proposed a new convention omitting that principle but providing for joint conservation measures by the three countries.
The negotiations were resumed in Tokyo on September 16. At the opening session I emphasized Canada's concern for the protection of our salmon, halibut and herring fisheries in the north Pacific. Canada, in co-operation with the United States, has maintained these fisheries at highly productive levels through extensive research and strict regulation of our own fishing and, in the case of salmon, through measures to protect and assist their production in our fresh waters. These fisheries are fully utilized by our fishermen and should be reserved for their use. On the other hand, Canada wants protection for these fisheries with minimum interference with Japan's use of other fish stocks not now fully exploited.
In the course of the Tokyo meetings, the United States presented a modification of the draft convention proposed by Japan in Washington. Discussions are proceeding on the basis of this draft which would provide the necessary protection for our fisheries but without explicit statement of the abstention principle as it appears in the present convention.
The negotiations were most productive and greatly improved the understanding by each country of the interests and positions of the others. It was especially promising to discover the high degree of protection for our fisheries which Japan is prepared to afford under a new convention. The meeting recessed to enable the delegations to consult further with their governments, but with a feeling of optimism regarding agreement on a mutually satisfactory convention. It is hoped that this will be accomplished at the next series of meetings which, the conference recommended, should be reconvened next spring. The Canadian delegation expressed the hope that these meetings could be held in Ottawa.
The differences which remain to be resolved are concerned mainly with the manner in which the basis for protection of these fisheries is expressed in the new convention. In the case of salmon the Canadian position is that the convention must recognize Canada's special interest in the stocks which spawn in our rivers, based on long continued scientific management and full utilization, and also on positive cultural measures and restrictions of other water uses damaging to salmon production. In the case of halibut the joint special interest of the United States and Canada should also be explicitly recognized in view of the restoration of the fishery to highly productive levels by effective study and regulation by the international Pacific halibut commission.
North Pacific Treaty Negotiations
Canada's special interest in our intensively fished herring stocks should also be recognized. We want the basis for our special interest in these fisheries to be so expressed in the convention as to give general and continuing protection. It is still necessary to reconcile this objective with Japan's reluctance to include any statement of principles which might hinder the development of her far-flung fisheries. Nevertheless the reasonable and constructive tone of the discussions gives hope for eventual agreement. In the meantime the present convention remains in force.
As I have indicated before, when any agreements are reached they will be fully discussed before the standing committee on marine and fisheries before final acceptance by the government.


Mr. Nielsen:: It sounds pretty fishy.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is about the only kind of remarks you can make.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is indebted to the minister for the information he has given on the situation as it now is with regard to the renegotiation of this very important treaty. The systematic exploitation of the living resources of the sea is one problem of great international importance, and its importance will increase as time goes by.
I am pleased that the minister has stated that the importance of recognizing the need for protecting Canada's interests, especially in these three particular stocks of fish, has been stressed, and I am particularly pleased that he has given an assurance the present treaty will remain in force until some determination has been reached in the present discussions.
I would hope that there would be a reconvening of the conference at an early date, preferably before next spring, if this is at all feasible.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we also appreciate the statement which the Minister of Fisheries has made on the negotiations that have been carried on in Tokyo regarding this fisheries treaty.
The fishermen of British Columbia have been very perturbed over developments of the past several months. They have been watching the proceedings very closely, and in many instances have been somewhat disturbed with the attitude that has been taken with regard to a number of the problems involved.
The minister has called attention to the difference of opinion between Canada and Japan regarding the abstention principle. In this connection I would point out that I had the opportunity of attending a meeting of

North Pacific Treaty Negotiations
west coast fishermen at Steveston before the We suggest that the government take the resumption of the session. Several hundred position that fishing for salmon on the high attended and this matter was discussed. As seas be discontinued, and that a circum-the minister knows, communications were scribed area be drawn west of a line of relayed from that meeting, as well as from demarcation within which no high seas us individually, and it is the general feeling fisheries be allowed. When the negotiations that Japan is trying to force its way into resume we hope that the Canadian delega-Canadian fishing areas piece by piece, just tion will advance these proposals and make moving forward gradually, and making one it unmistakably clear that Canada intends to demand after another until our fishermen are protect the fisheries which Canadian conserva-afraid they will be in a position where they tion methods have preserved.
will have all their rights taken away from them.
I do not think Canadian fishermen are particularly concerned that the wording "abstention principle" be retained in the treaty, but they are certainly very desirous that the principle itself be maintained. I appreciate the fact that the minister has indicated the Canadian delegation has pressed very strongly for the retention of this principle, and I hope that in any future negotiations it will be kept in mind that only by such a principle will Canadian rights and prerogatives be maintained.
Therefore we welcome this statement today, but once again urge that in all the negotiations that will be carried on in future this principle will be kept in mind and Canada's interests fully protected.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the reason the treaty negotiations have been adjourned is because Japan is really not interested in having a treaty on the north Pacific fisheries which contains the abstention principle. It may well be in the interests of Japan not to have such a treaty, but it is certainly in the interests of the other fishing countries of the north Pacific, Canada, the United States and the Soviet union.
We believe that Japan has been encouraged in its opposition to a treaty by what we consider the weak positions taken by the governments of both Canada and the United States over the past two years. This spring the government of Canada acted with undue haste, and I think with irregular procedure, in agreeing that Japan be allowed to fish for herring and halibut in areas from which it was formerly excluded. We think the Canadian government has taken an apologetic attitude, both before and during these negotiations. Our delegation seems to be fighting a rearguard action against the demands of Japan, but it should not be afraid to state that we intend to protect our very great investment in conservation against exploitation by other countries.

In the past a great many suggestions were put forward that, in negotiations such as this for a north Pacific fisheries treaty, the Soviet union be invited to participate. Incidentally this was advocated by the Liberal party in British Columbia in 1952, and I feel there is a very great weakness in any agreement concerning the north Pacific if the other major fishing nation of the north Pacific is not included in it. I think the contracting parties to the convention should once more take this matter into account.

On the orders of the day:


Robert William Prittie: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries based on the statement he made earlier today. Will the minister table copies of the draft treaty presented by Japan and the United States?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As I have stated in the house
on other occasions, it is not the practice to table such draft treaties while negotiations are under way or before an agreement is reached.



QUESTIONS

['1. Since May 16, 1963, a total of $5,000,000 has been borrowed for\n\nunemployment insurance purposes, all of which has been repaid.\n2. At September 30 the unemployment insurance fund stood at $7,100,864.83.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the following questions are being answered today: 1,070, 1,108, 1,115, 1,116, 1,120, 1,165, 1,166, 1,173, 1,190, 1,199, 1,200, 1,201, 1,205, 1,208, 1,211, 1,215, 1,219, 1,221, 1,222, 1,226, 1,229 and 1,252.
If question No. 854 could be made an order for return the return would be tabled immediately. I would also ask that question 1,244 be made an order for return.
If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions 1,054 and 1,225, I would ask that all remaining questions stand.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Pigeon: What are the names of the personnel attached to the office of the Prime Minister, giving for each (a) his or her title (b) annual salary and (c) bilingual status?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer this question orally but it would take four minutes to read the answer. I therefore request the permission of the house to have it printed in Hansard without reading it aloud.
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
Personnel Attached to the Office of the Prime Minister
Name	(A)	(B)	(C)T. W. Kent	Co-ordinator of programming	$20,000	Miss M. E. Macdonald	Executive assistant	13,600	YesJ. B. Regan	Executive officer	12,000	R. O'Hagan	Special assistant	10,000	Jules Pelletier	Correspondence secretary (on loan	from Dept, of National Defence)	11,800	YesJ. A. Coutts	Secretary to Prime Minister	9,000	YesMiss A. Perron	Private secretary	7,680	YesMrs. E. Hough	Associate private secretary	6,000	Miss M. Conniffe	Supervising clerk	5,880	Miss L. Lockeberg	Supervising clerk	5,700	Mrs. A. Biard	Principal clerk	5,040	YesMiss E. M. Maclnnes	Principal clerk	5,400	Miss H. Monette	Principal clerk	5,220	YesMiss D. Cuggy	Secretary to executive	4,950	Mrs. G. McCormick	Secretary to executive	4,950	Mrs. P. Bothwell	Secretary to executive	4,950	Mrs. R. Smith	Secretary to executive (office of	parliamentary secretary)	4,950	Miss T. Lambert	Secretary to executive (office of	parliamentary secretary)	4,950	YesMrs. E. M. Gartland	Clerk (4)	4,710	R. Desjardins	Clerk (4)	4,710	YesMrs. L. Donaldson	Stenographer (3) (secretary)	4,200	YesMrs. M. Wilshire	Stenographer (3) (secretary)	4,200	Mrs. G. Ouellette	Stenographer (3) '	3,660	YesMiss T. Brazeau	Stenographer (2)	3,450	YesMiss C. L'Ecuyer	Stenographer (1)	2,580	Yes


JAMES REGAN
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What office does Jim Began hold in the government?
2.	What is his age, place of birth, institutions of education attended and educational qualifications, governmental or business experience (position held, length of experience, name of firm or employer) and initial and present salary with the government?
3.	What length of time has this gentleman undertaken to serve the government and/or what engagement in length of time was given to him?
4.	In brief, what particular qualities of Mr. Regan led to his engagement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1. Executive officer.
2.	Age 33-born Windsor, Nova Scotia. Windsor public schools; Windsor high school. Radio announcer-three years Evangeline Broadcasting Company, Ltd. Program director -three years-Colchester Broadcasting Company, Ltd. Production manager-program director-two years. Colonial Broadcasting Co.
28902-5-214
Ltd. Director of television production-two years. Newfoundland Broadcasting Co. Ltd. Radio-T.V. director-four years-Imperial Advertising Ltd. Administrative assistant to the minister of finance-three years-government of New Brunswick. $12,000.
3.	No given period.
4.	Ability to do the job.


IMMIGRATION FROM CENTRAL AMERICA
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Department of External Affairs issue circular No. 32/62 regarding immigration from Central American nations and, if so, to whom did it circulate?
2.	Did this circular raise the question of the small number of immigrants coming from Central America and suggest that more qualified immigrants could be found and procured?
3.	Has there been any change in policy with regard to instructions given external affairs representatives in Latin America over the last five years on either the encouraging or discouraging of immigration to Canada?

Questions


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: 1. (a) Yes, on August 2, 1962; (b) to all external affairs posts and trade commissioner's offices abroad.
2.	Circular documents concerning internal departmental administration are privileged and it has never been the practice to reveal the contents of such documents.
3.	Yes. The revision of February 1, 1962 of the immigration regulations encouraged immigration from Latin America.


ASSISTANCE TO BEAVERHOUSE INDIANS, ONTARIO
Mr. Peters: Has the government given any assistance to the Beaverhouse Indians resident near Dobie, Ontario, and, if so (a) what assistance towards education has been provided and (b) what other assistance has been provided?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The group is known as the Beaverhouse lake Indians and reside in the general area of Dobie, Indian point and Beaverhouse lake, Ontario. There is no Indian reserve in that area and with a few exceptions, all members of the group are of nonIndian status. The few persons of Indian status residing in this area are self supporting and no assistance from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been required.
With respect to Indian health services, the isolation of the area, the difficult travel conditions and the small Indian population make regular medical coverage impractical. Emergency medical care, when required, is provided and all registered Indians are insured under the Ontario hospital services commission.


ASSISTANCE TO INDIANS, MATACHEWAN, ONT.
Mr. Peters: Has the government given any assistance to the Indian band located at Matachewan, Ontario, and, if so (a) what assistance has been provided towards education, and (b) what other assistance has been provided?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. (a) These Indians reside in the town of Matachewan and not on an Indian reserve. Their children have been attending public and high schools in the district which they are entitled to do as residents and accordingly no educational assistance has been provided by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
(b) Notwithstanding the fact that these Indians reside off the reserve, relief assistance in the amount of $1,379.93 in 1961-62 and $3,553.50 in 1962-63 was provided to various members of this group. In 1959 the department purchased a number of trap lines for the Matachewan Indians. These were in addition to those set aside for this band under the Ontario fur agreement. Assistance was also provided to this band to commence logging

operations on the Matachewan Indian reserve and in the placement of Indians in employment, particularly in the forest industry.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned, an Indian health services public health nurse visits the village every six to eight weeks. A Red Cross nurse is stationed in the village. The nurses refer cases requiring a higher level of treatment to a designated physician at Kirkland Lake. The department pays for care provided to Indians on a fee for service basis. Transportation of the patient is usually at departmental expense. All registered Indians are insured under the Ontario hospital services commission.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING PRISONERS UNDER 16
Mr. Orlikow: Will the government consider appropriate legislative amendments to the Criminal Code to provide that no person under the age of 16 years shall be committed to a penal institution where adult prisoners are confined, as recommended by the Fauteux report?


Mr. Chevrier:: Legislation in the direction suggested is contained in section 1 of the Penitentiary Act and juveniles dealt with under the Juvenile Delinquents Act may not be confined in a place where adults may be imprisoned. Extension of this principle is being considered in connection with the continuing criminal law amendment program.


STORAGE FACILITIES FOR NUCLEAR TIPPED ROCKETS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	Are suitable storage facilities available now in the R.C.A.F. to store nuclear tipped Genie rockets for Voodoo aircraft and, if not, when did construction begin at each base, and when will construction be completed?
2.	Is construction of suitable storage facilities being undertaken as a result of a public tender call or by negotiated tender?
3.	Who have been the successful tenderers?
4.	What will be the construction costs of the storage facilities?
Answer: 1. No. Tenders for construction are to close in October 1963 and it is planned that construction will be completed by October 1, 1964.
2.	Contracts will be awarded as a result of public tender call.
3.	Contracts have not been awarded.
4.	The actual costs will not be known until all contracts are awarded.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, MONTREAL- ENGLISH-FRENCH PERSONNEL
Mr. Douglas: In the Montreal branch of the industrial development bank, what is the number, by grades, of (a) French speaking employees (b) English speaking employees?

Answer:
English speaking French
English	Bilin-	speak-	only	gual	ing	TotalSupervisory and	professional 14	5	19	38Stenographic and	clerical 12	6	11	29-	-	-	-Total 26	11	30	67


INCENTIVE AREA PLAN, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What were the reasons for the non-inclusion of any area in the province of Prince Edward Island in the government's designated incentive area plan?
2.	Have representations been received from the government of Prince Edward Island and municipal authorities, or other sources, relative to the designation of such areas in the counties of Kings and Prince?
Answer: 1. National employment service areas were examined to determine the areas of the country with the most severe conditions of chronic unemployment and slow economic growth. Thirty five areas have qualified for special measures of assistance under the designated areas program. The national employment service areas of Summerside and Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island, in recent years have experienced substantial growth in employment which was considerably above the national average. Thus, they have not met the criteria established for the selection of designated areas.
2.	Yes. There has been an exchange of correspondence between the premier of Prince Edward Island and the Minister of Industry.


CANADIAN EXEMPTION FROM U.S. SECURITIES TAX
Mr. Noble: Has the government secured an agreement with the United States government that Canada shall have a recognized exemption from the 15 per cent tax proposed by the Kennedy administration on the purchases by American citizens of foreign securities; and, if so, (a) what are the terms of such exemption (b) will a copy of the signed agreement be tabled in the house?
Answer: The agreement with the United States government that Canada shall have a recognized exemption from the 15 per cent tax proposed by the Kennedy administration on the purchases by American citizens of foreign securities is contained in the communique of July 21, 1963, agreed between representatives of Canada and the United States.
Ottawa, July 21, 1963: Hon. Walter L. Gordon, Minister of Finance, issued this afternoon the following statement which had been agreed between representatives of Canada and United States meeting in Washington during the week end: 28902-5-214$
Questions
"Representatives of Canada and the United States met during the week end to appraise the impact on the Canadian financial markets of the proposed United States "interest equalization tax".
The two governments recognized the need for effective action to improve the balance of payments position of both countries and are both equally determined that such action shall not impair the intimate economic relationships between the two countries, nor impede the growth essential for both economies.
For many years the capital markets of the two countries have been closely interconnected, and United States exports of capital to Canada have financed a substantial portion of the Canadian current account deficit with the U.S. This need continues. A portion of these flows must be supplied through the sale of new issues of Canadian securities in American markets. U.S. officials had considered that ample flows for these needs would continue under the proposed "interest equalization tax". However, Canadian representatives stated that this would require a very substantial rise m the entire Canadian interest rate structure. It was recognized by both governments that such a development would be undesirable in present economic circumstances.
In the light of this situation U.S. officials agreed that the draft legislation to be submitted to the congress would include a provision authorizing a procedure under which the president could modify the application of the tax by the establishment from time to time of exemptions, which he could make either unlimited or limited in amount. The President would thus have the flexibility to permit tax free purchases of new issues needed to maintain the unimpeded flow of trade and payments between the two countries, and to take care of exceptional situations that might arise in the case of other countries. U.S. officials made clear that this did not modify their proposals regarding the taxation of transactions in outstanding securities; over the past year such transactions between Canada and the U.S. have not been a major factor.
The Canadian authorities stated that it would not be the desire or intention of Canada to increase her foreign exchange reserves through the proceeds of borrowings in the United States, and it is the hope and expectation of both governments that by maintaining close consultation it will prove possible in practice to have an unlimited exemption for Canada without adverse effect on the United States.
It was agreed that active consultations would continue to strengthen the close economic relations between the two countries and at the same time facilitate measures for making the maximum practicable contributions to economic expansion and the strength and stability of both currencies."
The conversations which were conducted in the United States treasury on Saturday and Sunday included for Canada ambassador Charles S. A. Ritchie, Louis Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, Wynne Plumptre, assistant deputy minister of finance, and A. E. Ritchie, assistant under secretary of state for external affairs; for the United States Douglas Dillon, secretary of the treasury Ceorge Ball, under secretary of state, Robert v' Roosa, under secretary of the treasury for monetary affairs, and Stanley Surrey, assistant secretary of the treasury.	J


ARMY CORPS ESTABLISHMENT
Mr, Douglas: What is the establishment by ranks of an army corps headquarters, and what is the approximate number of troops normally to be found under it?

Questions
Answer: There is no corps headquarters in the Canadian army as now organized. The establishment tor such a corps headquarters based on that used in 1945 would be as follows:
Officers
Lieutenant general	1
Brigadier	6
Colonel	3
Lieutenant colonel	5
Major	28
Captain	52
Lieutenant	2
Total	97
Other ranks	
Warrant officer I	4
Warrant officer II	8
Staff sergeant	6
Sergeant	26
Corporal	30
Private	124
Total	198
A corps headquarters normally would command two or more divisions together with corps troops units as determined by an army commander. The normal strength of a division is approximately 20,000.


COMMAND HEADQUARTERS ESTABLISHMENTS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What is the establishment by ranks of central command headquarters, Quebec command headquarters, western command headquarters, and eastern command headquarters?
2.	What is the number of (a) regular army (b) militia troops, under command of each command headquarters?
Answer: 1. The establishment by ranks of command headquarters is as follows:
Officers	East.	Que.	Cen.	West.Maj. gen.	1	1	1	1Brigadier	0	0	0	0Colonel	1	2	1	1Lieut, col.	3	5	5	5Major	14	17	20	18Captain	21	37	40	36Lieutenant	1	1	2	4-	-	-	-41	63	69	65Other ranks	W. O. class 1	i	3	3	3W. O. class 2	3	3	5	7Staff serg.	5	7	9	6Sergeant	14	24	28	36Corporal	13	19	22	19Private	6	10	10	12-	-	-	-42	66	77	83
2. The strengths of troops under each command headquarters are:
Eastern	6,038	7,571Quebec	6,539	11,254Central	13,429	18,268Western	12,091	13,595Total	38,097	50,688


INFANTRY DIVISION ESTABLISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,201
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the establishment by ranks of an infantry divisional headquarters, and what is the approximate number of troops normally to be found under it?
Answer: The establishment by ranks of an infantry divisional headquarters would be as follows:
Officers
Major general	1
Brigadier	1
Colonel	2
Lieutenant colonel	5
Major	18
Captain	21
Lieutenant	1
	49
Other ranks	
Warrant officer, class 1	2
Warrant officer, class 2	2
Staff sergeant	7
Sergeant	16
Corporal	20
Private	107
	154
The approximate number of troops normally to be found under the command of an infantry divisional headquarters is 20,000.


EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIANS
Mr. Simpson: Has the Department of Industry had any consultation with officials of the Indian affairs branch in relation to the plan for setting up the designated areas to provide improved industrial opportunities and employment in the various Indian reservations of Canada and, if not, will the Department of Industry consider taking such steps?
Answer: 1. (a) No; (b) Yes.


APPLICATIONS UNDER MUNICIPAL LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Question 1,208-Mr. Scoii:
1.	Has the board to administer the fund under the Municipal Development and Loan Act been set up and, if so, who are the members?
2.	How many requests have been made to date for loans under the provisions of the said act?
3.	Who have made such requests, and what projects are covered by them?
[Stage Direction]
Answer: 1. Yes. The members are: Mr. K. W. Taylor, chairman; Mr. Jean Miquelon, vice chairman; Mr R. B. Bryce; Mr. Stewart Bates.
2.	To date one request for a loan has been made to the board.
3.	The greater Vancouver water district has requested through the B.C. department of municipal affairs, a loan to assist in financing construction of the Sasamat pumping plant.

Mr. Scoii: 1.	Has the government received representations to remove or rebate duty on all books purchased for educational institutions and, if so, what was the government's response to such representations?
2.	Has the government received representations to exempt from sales tax all materials and equipment purchased for public educational institutions and, if so, what was the government's response to such representations?
Questions


ASBESTOS
Mr. Perron: 1.	What was the total production of asbestos in Canada for each of the last five years?
2.	What proportion of that total production was shipped abroad as raw material?
3.	What proportion of that production was consumed in Canada?
4.	What proportion of the production processed in the mills of Canada was sold in the form of finished products (a) abroad (b) in Canada?
5.	What was the value of the finished products of asbestos that were imported into Canada for each of the last five years?
6.	What countries export such finished products to Canada, and what was the value of the shipments of each of these countries for each of the last five years?
7.	What was the number of Canadian workers employed in the mining of asbestos for each of the last five years?
8.	What is the number of Canadian workers employed in the manufacturing of finished products of asbestos in Canada?
Answer: 1. Factory shipments of asbestos, 1958-1962.
Answer: 1. No representations were received by this government prior to October 3, 1963, to remove or rebate duty on all books purchased for educational institutions. However, a number of representations have been received relating to tariff item 173, which provides inter alia for the free entry of "books which are included in the curriculum of any university, college or school in Canada for use as text books or as works of reference, not to include dictionaries". These representations have included suggestions that the foregoing item be amended by deleting the reference to dictionaries and by including a reference to text books containing notes and/or exercises. The government's response was that these suggestions would be considered in the preparation of material for the budget, or in the context of international negotiations.
2. No representations were received by this government prior to October 3, 1963 requesting that all materials and equipment purchased by educational institutions be made exempt from sales tax.
Representations were made after the presentation of the 1963 budget urging that building materials used in the construction of educational institutions be exempt from sales tax. Bill C-90, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, which received royal assent on August 2, 1963, provided this tax relief.


SALARIES OF DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What is the salary range for the deputy ministers of the various government departments?
2.	How many deputy ministers are paid (a) the highest amount and (b) the lowest amount?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1. $20,000 to $24,000.
2. (a) 1, (b) 14.
Year	Tons
1958	925,331
1959	1,050,429
1960	1,118,456
1961	1,173,695
1962	1,214,992
Proportion iad.	of total shipments shipped
Year	% Shipped Abroad*
1958	94.0
1959	97.0
1960	96.0
1961	95.0
1962	96.0
*No allowance made for changes in inventory.
3. Proportion of total shipments consumed
m Canada.
Year
1959
1961
*By difference from available.
% Consumed in Canada*
6.0
3.0
3.0
5.1 4.0
(2)-exact details not
4. Proportion of production processed in Canadian mills, (asbestos products industry) sold in the form of finished products, 1957-61.
Year	(a) Abroad	(b) in Canada*1957	7.0	93.01958	3.0	97.01959	2.0	98.01960	3.0	97.01961	3.0	97.0*By difference from	column	(a).
5 and 6. See statement attached.

Questions: 5 and 6-Available statistics on imports of finished asbestos products are as follows:-
Year 1958	Year 1959	Year 1960	Year 1961	Year 1962Class	Country	Lb. Value	Lb.	Value	Lb.	Value	Lb.	Value	Lb.	ValueAsbestos packing n.o.p. (class 7001)	United Kingdom	
United States	180,157 $ 107,457 121,464 153,167	225,064 159,530	* 107,346 177,568	287,247 162,253 176	$ 158,110 218,809 1,912	266,282 228,342	$ 154,875 271,725	172,107 260,004	$ 119,203 319,118638	3,000	1,836	5,337Sweden	200	279Totals	301,621 $ 260,624	384,594	$ 284,914	449,676	$ 378,831	495,262	$ 429,600	434,147	$ 443,937Asbestos brake lining for road motor vehicles (class 7002)	United Kingdom	
Germany West	109,070 14,299 1,768 377,949	97,385 6,991	98,341 22,081	200,585 62,963	178,211 74,703United States	506,222 895	510,029	536,767 891	654,350 3,011138	Jamaica	3,162	Totals	$ 503,086	$ 611,631	$ 630,451	$ 804,368	$ 910,275Asbestos in any form other than crude, and all manufactures of n.o.p. (class 7003)	United Kingdom	
Union of South Africa... Belgium and Luxembourg	699,867 46,645 169,010 3,445 11,650 428	514,365	717,220	912,980 34,470	650,234 48,200224,353 5,695	391,614	297,520 6,884	333,893 80,941Italy	10,479	169	1,269	2,51694	207	3,694	8,210United States	2,065,046	1,813,897	1,688,296	2,296,349	1,925,957Totals	$2,996,091	$2,568,873	$2,797,506	$3,553,166	$3,050,140Asbestos clutch facings for road motor vehicles (class 7004)	United Kingdom	
Germany West	
United States	5,770 6,372 312,765	7,669 4,523 352,251	11,111 4,508 266,520 637	3,217 1,845 290,929	7,840 14,291 221,664 1,512Japan	722	4,221Totals	$ 324,907	$ 364,443	$ 282,776	$ 296,713	$ 249,528Asbestos brake lining and clutch facing n.o.p. (class 7005)	United Kingdom	
United States	9,916 108,127	15,775 232,638	27,691 381,244	7,089 180,799	9,669 276,294Totals	301,621 $ 118,043	$ 248,413	$ 408,935	$ 187,888	$ 285,9633360	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

7 and 8. Employees in asbestos mining and asbestos products, 1957-1961.
	Asbestos	Asbestos
Year	Mining	Products1957	7,357	2,2541958	6,997	1,9571959	6,653	2,0671960	6,688	2,0861961	6,875	2,101


FRENCH LANGUAGE TELEVISION STATION, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Beaule: What steps have been taken up to now for the establishment of a French language C.B.C. television station in Quebec city?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that good progress is being made in the work necessary to establish the French language television station at Quebec city. Purchase of the sites for the transmitter on Orleans island and the studios at Ste Foy are nearing completion. Orders have been placed with suppliers of the technical equipment required. Tenders for construction of the transmitter building were called last week. Studio plans and specifications are being put in final form which will enable the calling of tenders within a few weeks.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS, RIVIERE DU LOUP
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many appeals to the board of referees have been made by claimants to the unemployment insurance office of Riviere du Loup in 1962?
2.	Of these appeals, how many decisions have been rescinded?
3.	How many decisions were upheld?
4.	How many appeals against decisions of the board of referees have been brought to court?
5.	What has been the amount of benefits paid to claimants as a result of these appeals to the board of referees?
6.	What has been the amount of overpayment made to claimants who were ineligible under the act?
Questions
7.	How many people have been disqualified for voluntarily leaving their employment?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. 491.
2.	76.
3.	415.
4.	None.
5.	This information is not available.
6.	During the period January 1, 1962 to September 30, 1962, overpayments in the amount of $21,898 were established on claims for benefit filed in the Riviere du Loup local office. Due to a change of procedure effective October 1, 1962, similar information is not available for the months of October, November and December.
7.	457 claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefit in the Riviere du Loup local office during 1962, for voluntarily leaving their employment.


*BAGOTVILLE, QUE.  AIR TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi): Have any recent developments taken place in connection with the construction of an air terminal at Bagotville and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Canlin:: It is hoped to submit initial sketch plans and cost estimates for a new terminal building at Bagotville for governmental approval early next year. If approved, detailed preparation of plans and specifications would then be undertaken, with a view to letting a contract if and when funds for this project could be provided in estimates.
ITextl


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Drouin: 1.	From January 1963 to the end of March 1963, what persons being paid from public funds were attached to the office of the Prime Minister of Canada? (a) in what capacity (b) at what salary (c) what was the capacity of each such person to speak fluently in both official languages?
2.	Was there a Mr. Pigeon being paid from public funds in the office of the former Prime Minister to promote the French language?
Questions

Answer: 1.
January 1, 1963 to March 31, 1963
Name	Classification	Salary	BilingualN. S. Crawford	Executive assistant	$10,000	B. T. Richardson	Special assistant	(Appt'd 15 Jan., 1963)	10,000	J. Fisher	Special assistant	(To Jan. 23, 1963)	10.000	YesR. Thrasher	Executive officer	(To Feb. 25, 1963)	10,000	T. R. Vout	Economist 4	10,300	M. J. Deacey	Secretary (A.O. 6)	9,750	sec. allow.	1,200	C. Gauthier	A.O. 6 (To Mar. 18, 1963)	9,390	YesM. Wagner (Mrs.)	A.O. 2	6,960	R. C. Laing	A.O. 1	6,450	M. Conniffe (Miss)	Supervising clerk	5,880	L. Lockeberg (Miss)	Supervising clerk	5,700	G. Champagne	Supervising clerk	5,340	YesM. R. Pound (Miss)	Principal clerk	5,400	M. Maclnnes (Mrs.)	Principal clerk	5,400	J. Fenton (Miss)	Principal clerk	(To Mar. 15, 1963)	5,040	H. Monette (Miss)	Secretary to executive	4,950	YesG. McCormick (Mrs.)	Secretary to executive	4,950	L. G. Lindsay (Mrs.)	Secretary to executive	4,950	D. Cuggy (Miss)	Secretary to executive	4,950	A. Johns (Mrs.)	Steno. 3 (secretary)	3,900	A. Lachance (Miss)	Steno. 3	3,660	YesT. Brazeau (Miss)	Steno. 2	3,300	YesG. Ouellette (Mrs.)	Steno. 1	3,120	YesP. W. McIntosh	Supervising clerk	5,700	G. Hetherington	Clerk 4	4,710	L. A. Thibault	Clerk 3	4,200	YesI. E. McGregor (Miss)	Clerk 3	4,200	M. Farley (Mrs.)	Clerk 3	4,050	M. Forcier (Miss)	Clerk 3	3,900	YesG. Smith	Clerk 3	4,200


H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;, HALIFAX  LAY-OFFS
Mr. Kennedy: Can the government say whether lay-offs of employees at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, are expected this fall and, if so, when, and how many employees will be affected?
Answer: No, however it must be borne in mind that as the workload in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax fluctuates from week to week and month to month, there are always a few employees being taken on or struck off strength to meet these fluctuations.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
X. Since May 16, 1963, what has been the total subsidization of the unemployment insurance fund?
2. What is the present status of the unemployment insurance fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Since May 16, 1963, a total of $5,000,000 has been borrowed for

unemployment insurance purposes, all of which has been repaid.
2. At September 30 the unemployment insurance fund stood at $7,100,864.83.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Matheson: 1.	How many persons, who were landed immigrants in Canada or natural bom Canadian citizens, left Canada to take up permanent residence in the United States of America (a) in each of the years 1951 to 1962 (b) in the years, by decades, since 1870?
2.	How many landed immigrants in the United States, or United Sattes citizens, took up permanent residence in Canada during the same periods?
3.	Has the government any estimate of what Canada's population would have been on June 1, 1963 had there been no net emigration to the United States from Canda since 1870 and, if so, what is the estimate?
Return tabled.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	What was the aggregate revenue of the Post Office Department for each of the following fiscal years: 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62?
2.	What were the total expenditures of that department for the same fiscal years?
3.	Did the employees of that department receive any salary increase during those fiscal years and, if so, what was the total cost of any such increase in each of the said fiscal years?
4.	Were any new postal services set up during those fiscal years and, if so, what was the cost of each service?
5.	Have any postal services been abandoned and, if so, what was the cost of these services?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Barnett:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency for a copy of the cabinet minute or other official document which authorized the Secretary of State for External Affairs to notify the executive director, the international north Pacific fisheries commission, by telegram under date of May 10, 1963, that the commission's recommendations for the removal of the halibut stocks in the eastern Bering sea and the herring stocks west of the Queen Charlotte islands from the annex to the convention had been accepted by the government of Canada.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this motion could stand, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I agreed on two occasions prior to the recess that this motion should stand. I would hope the matter would be dealt with shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do my best.
Motion stands.



MAINTENANCE OF ALASKA HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Nielsen:
Than an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all documents, reports, engineering or other surveys, communications, correspondence, or other papers, with respect to the (a) all-weather maintenance of the road from Haines junction in the Yukon Territory to Haines in the state of Alaska, U.S.A. (b) existing maintenance costs of the northwest highway system in maintaining the said road by the northwest highway system of the Canadian army and (c) paving of the said road.
Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, there is no date indicated in this motion. However if the hon. member will accept the date January 1, 1959, subject only to the retention of certain privileged documents, we will accept this motion.


Erik Nielsen: That is perfectly satisfactory -to me, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the 28902-5-215
Questions
minister in connection with one of the documents, and to his parliamentary secretary. I do not know whether the particular document about which I have spoken to him is privileged, but if he will grant me the courtesy of looking at it, I am perfectly agreeable to accepting the conditions that the minister has expressed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation as expressed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Nielsen:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all documents, reports, engineering or other surveys, communications, correspondence or other papers, with respect to the construction of a road from Carcross in the Yukon territory to Skagway in the state of Alaska in the U.S.A.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we are entirely agreeable to accepting this motion, subject to the hon. member accepting the starting date January 1, 1959.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation as expressed by the minister.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before we leave 64 and 65 I wonder whether I might, as a question of privilege, simply draw the attention of the Minister of National Defence to the fact that the material which I thought was going to be supplied to me and which I was told was going to be supplied to me on October 2 has not yet reached me.


Mr. Hellyer:: I am sure it will.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all correspondence between the federal and provincial governments or any ministers thereof in regard to the Canada pension plan.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion, subject only to securing the consent of the provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation as expressed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Siefanson:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and briefs, and the replies thereto, received by the Minister of National Defence or any other government official, from the Manitoba provincial government or any other interested parties relating to a cost-sharing arrangement for grading and hard surfacing the access road from the town of Gimli to the Gimli R.C.A.F. station.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to tabling the correspondence asked tor in this motion, provided it is also agreeable to the government of the province of Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Mr. Siefanson:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Starr:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all correspondence between the federal and provincial governments or any ministers thereof in regard to the municipal loan fund.
Mr. Gordon:: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion, subject to the usual reservation about obtaining consent from the provincial governments and from the ministers concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation as expressed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 88-Mr. Marlineau:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, letters or other documents received by the government of Canada from insurance companies or other corporations, firms, associations or individuals concerning the Canada pension plan.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a list of consultants prepared in the office of the Secretary of State for the guidance of cabinet ministers and copies of all correspondence between ministers of the crown and the consultants in each riding.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege in regard to this motion in as non-contentious a way as I

can. The motion refers to something which does not exist. It apparently arises because of a statement that appeared in the Globe and Mail

at least, that is the only reason I can find for it-on August 27, 1963, which it was indicated at the time was entirely fictitious. It does not seem to me that the motion should be on the order paper at all. In any event, if it did pass there would be nothing whatever to produce.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Mr. Knowles:: Nothing that you would produce.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to drop his motion?


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I read that article very carefully and I did not see anything in it which indicated that the story was fictitious. I did not see any statement by the minister later that it was not true. But if the minister tells the house there is no such list of consultants and that he is not writing to the defeated Liberal candidate in the constituency of Danforth, Toronto, as the story says, I guess I will take the minister's word.


Mr. Peters:: That is not what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a rather important point involved here. The hon. gentleman said he guessed he would take my word. I want it very clear that no one in my office, to my knowledge-and I have questioned everybody in my office-ever had anything whatsoever to do with anything of this character. I want to make that abundantly clear. What is more, sir, I would also let the hon. gentleman know that since this was just an allegation and had nothing to do with my administrative responsibility, I am rather accessible and he could have questioned me before putting it on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member withdraw his motion?


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ARDA PROJECTS, ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Horner (Acadia):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, reports, briefs and memoranda, and any replies thereto between the federal government and any of its departments and the province of Alberta concerning projects under ARDA since April 8, 1963.
Mr. Beer:: Mr. Speaker, this motion is quite acceptable, subject to the consent of the province of Alberta to tabling the correspondence, reports and other documents requested.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 91-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the Tote trail progress report for 1963, with respect to federal government financial participation in tote roads in the Yukon Territory.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the document referred to is an internal document prepared for departmental use only. I think such documents have always been considered to be privileged, and probably the hon. member would wish to withdraw this motion. If it would mollify him I would assure him at once that the document for 1963 is not yet prepared and I have not seen it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the report for 1963 is not yet complete I will withdraw the motion. But the minister can expect to see it replaced on the order paper at a future date.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



D.E.W. LINE  CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble address he presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all notes exchanged between Canada and the United States relating to the conditions of employment of employees working for the Federal Electric Corporation on the Canadian sector of the D.E.W. line and any other documents or agreements between the government of Canada and/or agency thereof and the government of the United States and/or any agency thereof, or between the government of Canada and the Federal Electric Corporation, relating to the terms and conditions of employment of the said employees on the D.E.W. line.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there are two sets of documents asked for in this motion, both relating to terms and conditions of employment on the D.E.W. line. The first series of documents relates to exchanges of notes. There have been no exchange of notes specifically relating to conditions of employment. The exchange of notes which embodied the actual contract between the governments was tabled in the house on May 28, 1955. With respect to the other documents or agreements between the government of Canada and the United States, or the Federal Electric Corporation, the Department of Labour and the Department of National Defence have no objection to their production, subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation as expressed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
28902-5-215J
Question of Privilege
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege affecting the business of the house, Your Honour has been concerned about the length of the question period upon calling the orders of the day. Nearly every day ministers are telling us that some of the questions asked would be better put on the order paper. I should like to draw the attention of the leader of the house to the fact that there are questions on the order paper which have been there since the first week of July. One of them, the very first question, was there on July 2 and it requires simply a yes or no answer. Certainly if you want to discourage members from putting questions on the order paper, the easiest way to do it is to leave the questions there for three months. Hon. members will then have no recourse but to ask them on orders of the day. It seems to me that some review of the questions should be made by the leader of the house in order to speed up answers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would just draw attention to the fact that that particular question is not a question about something that is being done. It is a question about the intentions of the government, which I think is probably an improper question even to appear on the order paper, if the rules were strictly adhered to, because the purpose of a question is to find out not what is in the minds of ministers but what has been done by the government. Some of these questions for that reason are very hard to answer. But I think that if the numbers of the questions are looked at and it is seen that there are only five questions up to No. 1,000 which have not been answered, the record is not really very bad.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I just point out that if the government has intentions, whether honourable or otherwise, they certainly ought to be stated, and it should not take three months to tell us what the intentions are.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should put my question as a question of privilege, since three times in this house I have asked the party in office whether it was normal that an English answer be made to questions on the order paper which are drafted in French.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the bilingual character of our country, I am of the opinion that this question is one of privilege, and that more precisely because I noticed only a few minutes ago that the answer given to question No. 1,219, which appears in today's

Inquiries of the Ministry order paper, was drafted in English only. I refuse to accept this answer and I insist upon an answer in French.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to give a report regarding the situation of the longshoremen's strike, having regard to the serious situation both economically and with particular reference to the Russian wheat agreement. Can something be done in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the federal mediator, Judge Lippe, is meeting again with the parties this afternoon and is continuing his efforts to secure a settlement. At this stage we are concerned, as is the right hon. gentleman, with the serious aspects of this work stoppage, but at the present time we feel that the federal mediator should be allowed to pursue his activities.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely there must be something more than this that can be done. It begins to have the appearance of outrageous indifference to a serious situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a view which is being generally held. I am asking the minister how long these negotiations will continue and what are the hopes; for from day to day delay is taking place and the economic situation is deteriorating, so far as the sale of wheat is concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the right hon. gentleman that when he was prime minister of this country he allowed a strike to prevail for 17 days in Vancouver, which he himself described as a work stoppage which throttled the western economy and paralysed the western farmer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the allegations with reference to myself have to be answered, and I answer them as a matter of personal privilege. There was no economic dislocation. There was no endangerment of a large sector of the Canadian economy at that time. We acted and got results when we acted.


Hon. Paul Marfineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which


is supplementary to the answer given a few minutes ago by the Minister of Labour. In his answer to the Leader of the Opposition the Minister of Labour said that the federal mediator was still meeting the parties. Will he tell the house whether it is a fact that the longshoremen have today rejected the proposals made by the federal mediator?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that the proposals made by the mediator to the union membership were rejected, in fact, this morning. But surely it is not wise in this situation to conclude that there is no room for mutual concessions in an effort to reach a settlement.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house how long ships now waiting in the St. Lawrence to load grain are prepared to wait there in order to take on cargoes?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not in a position to answer that question directly. I can assure the hon. member that we hope the interval will be as short as possible.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the minister could get that information and let us know tomorrow, so that we may have some idea what the repercussions may be as far as grain movement is concerned.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will try to get such information as may be helpful.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Does he intend to implement the recommendation of the chairman of the board of conciliation in the dispute between the shipping federation and the international longshoremen's association in Montreal, namely to have a royal commission investigate the retirement fund of the employees, which is under the sole management of the companies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the report of the conciliation board, and I think any comment on any particular aspect of this matter should be reserved for the present.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received official complaints from Canadian Pacific officials because of the fact that the

liner Empress of Canada was unable to anchor in the harbour of Quebec city following the strike of some 200 longshoremen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Can the leader of the house advise the house when he anticipates the convening of the standing committee on public accounts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the committee will be convened right away, or just as soon as possible. I believe the Prime Minister has a word to say about this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to add that it is hoped a member of the official opposition will act as chairman of this committee, as was done under the previous government.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
On October 2 I asked the minister a question concerning the salary to be paid the commissioner general of the world exhibition. The minister told me then that he would answer my question the next day. Since the commissioner general is now back from Paris, could the minister give me an answer now?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer that question in a few days.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED CONFERENCE TO CONSIDER UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house if he is still thinking of calling a federal-provincial conference to study the unemployment problem and the means to deal with it? If so, when does he expect to call the conference?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: A federal-provincial conference has already been called for November-I forget the exact date-and this is one of the important subjects which will be discussed at that conference.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the government intends, in co-operation with the Minister of National Defence, to take the necessary steps to give Canada a true merchant marine, with a view to making our country politically as well as economically independent.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that is a question for the order paper too.



COASTAL TRADE-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION THIS SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Does the government intend to bring in soon a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act in order to limit coastal navigation to Canadian ships?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of what legislation is going to appear on the order paper is one of government policy to be announced in the ordinary way. I think the hon. member has misused the name of the act that would have a bearing on the subject with which he is concerned.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is it true that the Minister of National Defence stated in Quebec that Quebecers should decide in favour of a strong central state at the expense of provincial rights? [Text]


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send my hon. friend a copy of the address.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



BRANTFORD, ONT.    DESIGNATION AS DISTRESSED AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the report in the Globe and Mail today that the town of New Hamburg in Waterloo South has announced its decision to join the councils of the neighbouring cities in protest against the government's designation of the city of Brantford as a distressed area, has the Prime Minister anything further to add on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I had the pleasure of an interview with the mayor of Guelph yesterday and I told the mayor, who brought this matter up in its particular reference to his city, that we were looking into the problem and I would be in touch with him before the end of the week.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time I will address my question tomorrow.



REPORTED ECONOMIC FORECAST RESPECTING WINTER UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has in its possession an economic forecast prepared by government economists which indicates that unemployment in the coming winter is going to be lower than for eight years. I ask the Prime Minister, because I have seen accounts in the press which indicate that this information has been released to some newspapers. I feel that if the government has this information in its possession it would be of interest to members of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no reports of that kind, and none have been brought to my attention. I do not believe they are completed yet, but I would be glad to look into the matter to see if they do exist.



REQUEST FOR LONGER APPLICATION OF HOUSING BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since the incentive program for housing

construction during the winter months is to be in force from December 1 to March 30, and considering that the northwestern area of Quebec, which includes the towns of Rouyn and Val d'Or, was designated as an underdeveloped area, and that the weather in the area is extremely severe, would it be possible to extend this period from November 1 to April 30 instead of December 1 to March 30?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall be glad to consider that point.



WINTER WORKS-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Is he prepared to accept the reasonable and logical request of Mr. Donald Summerville, the mayor of Toronto, requesting that the former period of duration of the municipal winter works program, which was inaugurated by the former government, be re-established so that it may be as effective as it has been in past winters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that matter of the reasonable request of the mayor of Toronto as described by my hon. friend.



CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING PAYMENTS TO OLDER WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question concerning the experimental program to pay a $75 monthly bonus to the employer of every worker 45 years of age or older. Could the minister tell the house whether the unions were consulted as regards the seniority clauses in a great many collective agreements?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not relate the question that is asked to the effect of the older workers' program.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the

minister advise the house if Northern Transportation Company now intends to refit for northern use the L.S.M. which it has brought into Vancouver, or has the minister instructed that crown corporation to get rid of this vessel in order to discourage further expansion of this crown company's competition with private enterprise?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that is a question for the order paper?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was prepared to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Then may I suggest to the minister that this is a question for the order paper.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, may I suggest the point is that the northern people have to make their plans well in advance, and this is the appropriate time. By the time a question on the order paper might be answered it would be a little too late to help private enterprise.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go contrary to your advice with regard to the answer to this question, but I do owe an answer to the hon. member which I think I perhaps should make now. He asked me the other day for some statement on general policy in this area and I should like to put this on record. I think it may go some way toward answering his question.
It is the government's intention that Northern Transportation Company Limited shall continue to function as a common carrier in the Mackenzie basin and along the Arctic coast, and in so doing help to provide these areas with an efficient and dependable transportation service. In performing this function the company will, as it has done in the past, operate as a normal business corporation. It will, for instance, continue to replace and improve its equipment when, from the viewpoint of service and economy, such action is justified, and will provide additional equipment if the volume of traffic or the development of the area indicates that such equipment is needed.
The Northern Transportation Company has for many years provided the Mackenzie basin with a dependable freighting service during the summer months and last year, at the request of the Hudson's Bay Company, took over the Hudson's Bay's freighting operation on the Arctic coast. A similar transaction took place between the Hudson's Bay Company and Northern Transportation in 1958 when Northern took over the Hudson's Bay's Mackenzie river transportation system.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As the hon. gentleman knows, one of Northern Transportation's functions is the delivery to the stations of the midsection of the D.E.W. line of the portion of the yearly resupply that cannot be delivered by air.
Private enterprise is also providing service and will probably continue to do so. It seems to me that under existing circumstances both Northern Transportation and the private companies operating in the north are needed to provide a dependable and efficient transportation system.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Following numerous representations from citizens in the province of Quebec, and though I disapprove the acts of terrorism of the F.L.Q., would the minister have an inquiry made to establish whether, in the admission of guilt of the members of the F.L.Q., the necessary measures were taken to abide by the Criminal Code, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the law?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the house on several occasions, the Department of Justice and the R.C.M.P. are particularly interested in the happenings in the province of Quebec, with regard to the F.L.Q. However, the maintenance of law and order, and the administration of justice as well, is under another administration, and I think that the hon. member should rather submit his questions to the latter.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I spoke of the Criminal Code, which is after all a federal act, and I asked the Minister of Justice whether he intended to investigate whether, in the admission of guilt of the F.L.Q. members, all Criminal Code provisions have been observed?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Criminal Code is under federal jurisdiction, but it does not define a subversive organization. On the other hand, the constitution clearly states that the administration of justice is under another jurisdiction.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yesterday I directed a question to the government which was left over because the

Maritime Transportation Unions Prime Minister was absent. I asked whether or not the government had given any indication it was prepared to provide some assistance to Haiti, Cuba and Jamaica which have suffered very serious damage because of the tornadoes of recent days?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter is under consideration. We are trying to ascertain the nature and extent of the damage and what can be done to help.


TOBACCO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he give the house the names of the members of the Canadian trade delegation which initiated last Monday in Moscow negotiations for the purchase of Canadian tobacco by Russia?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that question should be put on the order paper.


MARITIME TRANSPORTATION UNIONS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees; to provide for the establishment of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions consisting of a chairman and two other members; to provide for the payment of their remuneration and expenses and to authorize the employment and remuneration of such personnel as may be necessary for the carrying out of the duties and powers of the trustees under the said measure.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in introducing this resolution I would remind the members of the house of the statement I made on August 1, the day before adjournment. On that occasion I announced the decision of the government to establish a trusteeship to deal with the critical maritime shipping situation affecting trade, labour and other international relations between Canada and the United States.
It will be recalled that Mr. Justice Norris delivered his recommendations in mid July of this year, following what I described at the time as one of the most intensive inquiries
[Mr. Douglas.)
ever made in Canada in a labour relations situation. Justice Norris' report has received praise throughout Canada. There has been some criticism as well. In commenting on the latter, I have said the facts of the report speak for themselves, and that no detailed challenge has been made which goes to the basis of the facts as they were established before the commission.
When I announced the government's decision in respect of the trusteeship, as recommended by the commissioner, I said the government would proceed with legislation to provide for such a trusteeship when the house reconvened, unless an effective alternative were found in the meantime. I informed the house in August that the proposed action was supported by four of the five unions directly involved and by the Canadian Labour Congress. It is a matter of record also that spokesmen for all the other parties in the house strongly endorsed the decision of the government in this regard. Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to hon. members for this support.
Since August, and more particularly during the past three weeks, some criticism has been directed at a public trusteeship, and pressure has been generated both in Canada and the United States for a voluntary form of trusteeship. The latter has been urged as being in the best tradition of free unions, and as being consistent with the sound development of international unions in Canada and the United States over the past 100 years.
Everyone agrees a private arrangement, whereby union organizations themselves establish controls over their own members and institutions, is the desirable and preferable way to proceed, provided this would end the disruption of shipping and restore clean and democratic unionism where this is lacking in the water transportation industry.
In view of this position which we in the government have maintained throughout, and in view of the strong representations received in this connection, we have since August explored exhaustively and continuously the possibility of an effective alternative, while at the same time proceeding with the task of preparing trusteeship legislation so as to be ready for prompt action if all possibility of action by unions themselves failed.
Immediately after the house recessed on August 2, the deputy minister of my department, Mr. Haythorne, went to Washington to discuss the whole situation with Secretary of Labour, Willard Wirtz. This was followed by other direct discussions involving members of the government and departmental officers with members of the United States government and their officers. In addition there has been almost daily contact by telephone and

telegram with United States authorities, either directly or through our embassy in Washington.
Hon. members will also know that the United States Secretary of Labour came to Canada for a second time on September 11 following the deplorable dynamiting of the vessel, Howard L. Shaw, at Chicago.
There have, of course, been numerous discussions throughout the period with officials of the Canadian Labour Congress, and it is also well known that officials of the Canadian Labour Congress have visited Washington from time to time to establish a meeting of minds with U.S. labour officials.
More recently on September 28 I discussed the situation with the U.S. Secretary of Labour in Boston with representatives of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the C.L.C. and our respective officials. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has also discussed the matter with the U.S. secretary of state during a recent visit to Washington.
In all of these discussions a determined effort has been made to find an acceptable alternative approach to a public trusteeship which would restore union rights to thousands of Canadian seamen as well as ensure, along with that action, freedom of passage of Canadian vessels in United States waters and ports without fear of harassment and violence.
It has not proved possible to secure full agreement of the union leaders in our two countries to such an alternative approach. While it will be clear to all hon. members that the government has never wished to close the door to voluntary settlement, it must under the circumstances now proceed with the legislation.
There has been speculation as to the reception some union leaders in the United States might give to a trusteeship approved by parliament, and even a fear has been expressed in some quarters that a total boycott might be directed against all Canadian maritime shipping in United States ports. Any such reaction would be a grave concern to the government of Canada and all Canadians. It could only result in a serious disturbance to friendly relations between the peoples of our two countries, and I am sure no one wants that. But, no Canadian can accept a state of affairs whereby labour problems, subject to and settled under Canadian law, are exported to another country in an attempt to set aside due process of law in Canada.
The government of Canada can take action to deal with those matters which are under Canadian authority. With respect to violence or other acts of harassment in the United States, we must rely on the good offices and co-operation of the United States government and of responsible union leaders who believe
Maritime Transportation Unions in and are committed to the support of the civil rights of union members and the maintenance of clean and democratic unionism.
A labour union in Canada, whether it is national or international, is free to pursue all legal acts in conducting its business in Canada. It must, however, not seek to flout and disregard Canadian law through attempting to export or transfer Canadian problems, already settled in Canada, to another country for extra-legal determination.
There is a matter of the rights of Canada involved in this situation that transcends the desire of any organization to be dominant in an industry at all costs and regardless of all law.
I would ask hon. members of the committee to give their support to this resolution in the knowledge that we are facing, and may face in the future, a potentially dangerous situation, a difficult situation which cannot be allowed to persist. I ask them to realize with me that the situation may in fact grow worse before it gets better, and I would strongly urge all union members and others concerned with this situation, in both Canada and the United States, to lend their assistance and support to the action which the government, and I feel sure the committee, consider must be taken at this time.
It is my profound hope that through this action we shall see a return to the democratic, free and constructive unionism that is essential to the well-being of labour in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the remarks on behalf of this party will be made by the hon. member for Ontario, and I rise merely for the purpose of asking a question. Under all the circumstances, would the minister feel free at this time on the resolution stage to give the committee a preview of the bill itself-a general summary of it? Ordinarily that is not done but we are endeavouring to assist in passing this legislation, and it would be most helpful for the discussion and would reduce very considerably the time taken on this matter if the minister did feel constrained to give this information.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to co-operate in that suggestion. Maybe I cannot give the information as clearly as it is given in the bill itself, but, with the consent of the committee I will say, the purpose of the bill is to establish a trusteeship of three members to be entrusted with the management and control of the Canadian maritime transportation unions.
The schedule to the bill provides that all the five unions and their maritime locals will be covered by this trusteeship. The authority of the trustees will be the authority that is normally vested in the officers of these
3372	HOUSE OF
Maritime Transportation Unions trade unions by their constitutions and bylaws, except that certain additional powers are given to the trustees, including the appointment of advisory committees of seamen and joint committees of seamen and employers to advise the trustees; the appointment by the trustees of negotiating committees to bargain; advice to the members for prospective changes in the constitutions of the unions; and also authority to remove and suspend officers and employees of any union and provide alternatives in their place. Certain action is taken to place in the hands of the trusteeship the business affairs of the union, but I would rather leave that until we come to the details of the bill. We have placed a provision in the bill that this will be of a temporary character. It will be, I think, for a period of five years; this period has been selected for obvious reasons. There is also a provision that if it is advisable, in the opinion of the trustees, the unions may be removed from the trusteeship and the trusteeship may end before the expiry date. We made an effort to provide a terminal date and make it a temporary and not a permanent arrangement that would continue, once the situation had been cleared up. Those, in general terms, are the provisions of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some remarks in respect of this resolution. I do not intend to make any further remarks during the passage of the bill after I have concluded at this time, unless after careful perusal of the provisions of the bill it is thought necessary to deal with some of its provisions or lack of provisions. This situation on the great lakes is a struggle between Mr. Banks, his lieutenants, his aides, and the bona fide labour movement in this country. It is not a struggle, in effect, between the membership of the S.I.U. and others; it is a struggle between Hal Banks, his lieutenants, and the labour movement of this country. I say this because many of the members of the S.I.U. are good Canadians, but they have been held down and exploited by the leadership of the seafarers international union. There was also, and had been for some time ever since the entry of Mr. Banks into this country, an amiable situation existing between the Liberal government of that day and Mr. Banks. This was very forcefully pointed out by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in this house on Friday last. Evidence of this and the expectation of Mr. Banks that this prolonged amiable friendship with the former Liberal government would be projected to the present government has been set out very effectively.


I want to refer to a press clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail of recent date in which it was said:
Minutes filed before the Norris inquiry by the S.I.U. said the union got along well with former labour minister Milton Gregg, a Liberal, but not so well with the current minister, Michael Starr, a Conservative.
Mr. Banks was looking forward, as I pointed out, to the continuation of that amiable relationship, because in the speech in Washington after the federal election of 1963 he made a statement to the effect that he could not get along with the former minister of labour, meaning myself, but looked forward to more friendly relations with the present, the new Liberal administration. So much for this-


Lester Bowles Pearson: So much for politics.


Mr. Graffiey:: A terrible thing, politics.


Michael Starr: -friendship. That friendship has now come to an end with the introduction of this resolution and the bill that will follow. But let us look back for a brief moment to the events that have transpired up to the moment. The Norris commission was set up at the behest and the demand of the Canadian Labour Congress because the situation on the great lakes was intolerable. It is obvious to everyone that no government could impose such an inquiry on unions without great criticism from the labour movement in Canada unless it were done at their request. The labour movement is suspicious of moves of this kind, and unless and until they themselves feel the time is ripe for such an inquiry governments cannot move in this direction. It was the former government which moved in this direction. This inquiry was set up with Mr. Justice Norris as the commissioner. He did an excellent job after a long and careful study of the problems and after going into the various aspects of the trouble on the great lakes. Then he made his report. The revelations in that report were such that they shook the whole nation and demands for immediate action on his recommendations were pouring into Ottawa from every part of our country.
This was when the present government began to delay action on the report. The recess was called for parliament. No action was taken. At that time-and I repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said last Friday-we were given assurances that if anything untoward happened during that period of recess, parliament would be called to deal with the situation. The dynamiting of a ship took place. Well, it seemed to be of no consequence to this government. Parliament was not called. Then when we get back here

again we find we are in the second week of this parliament before the resolution is brought forward.
What has transpired in the meantime? One can probably contemplate on this and look into the crystal ball, because we have not been given the facts. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government was looking for a way out, other than implementing the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Norris. Also, they were trying to bring into their orbit help from wherever they could find it. They went to Washington. They may have suggested that Mr. Wirtz come to Canada and look for some other solution to the problem in this country. Mr. Wirtz came to Canada and, as reported in the newspapers, upon questioning as to what could be done in respect of this matter, he said:
I would rather answer that a little obliquely.
I am a great believer that in the free labour movement there are the elements for dealing with a situation of this kind. I hope very much that some way will be found whereby the assertion of this basic responsibility of free trade unions in this country and in the United States will produce an answer to this.
He also said, as reported in the New York Times, a clipping of which I have here:
I think we believe in both countries that whatever can be done privately is much better done privately than done publicly.
This seed was planted. Then the movement was made to try to find some solution other than that recommended. They even went so far in the last, dying moments as to send the under secretary of labor, Mr. Reynolds, here to see whether a last ditch stand could be taken to find a solution. But all in vain.
The government has now been forced to take the action that they should have taken last July. The Canadian Labour Congress, a responsible body of representatives of the free Canadian labour movement, were probably forced to look into the situation. They knew very well that they could not work out an agreement with the United States unions because of the attacks by the leaders of that movement in the United States upon the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress. They knew their attitude was such that would bring about no solution. In the release yesterday of the Canadian Labour Congress they advise the people of this country:
The executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress, meeting in Ottawa, today decided to inform the government that repeated efforts to effect a voluntary method of cleaning up the union situation on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway have been unsuccessful. We are therefore unable to make any recommendation regarding a private trusteeship.
Mr. Chairman, let us look to see what their attitude is with respect to this situation. They say:
Maritime Transportation Unions -the intolerable situation which currently exists has to be corrected. Everything humanly possible has been done by the congress and its affiliates to resolve the problem without government intervention. Unfortunately, the other trade unions could not be convinced to co-operate.
They mean those in the United States.
In view of this failure and the position of the affiliates involved, all four of which have indicated that they are prepared to accept temporary government trusteeship-
So that the government has eventually been forced to take action which they could have taken last July, because even then it was evident that no other solution could solve this problem.
However, when this trusteeship is set up and goes to work there remains a very difficult problem with respect to shipping on the great lakes. The harassment of Canadian ships which has been experienced in the past will be redoubled in the future, not only in United States ports but in other ports. The Minister of Labour mentioned that the Secretary of State for External Affairs took up this matter in Washington. I refer to a clipping from the Toronto Telegram dated September 9 which says:
The U.S. department of labour called on the F.B.I. to investigate this latest flare-up in the union war on the great lakes. But in Chicago the F.B.I. said "We're taking no action at present." Secretary of state Rusk labelled it "an unfortunate incident".
This refers to the dynamiting of a Canadian ship in a Chicago port. Secretary of state Rusk labels it "an unfortunate incident". No action was taken. The report goes on:
An official said the state department would want to hear the F.B.I.'s findings but added: "There is very little that this department can do."
Canada's external affairs minister Martin complained to Mr. Rusk over lunch here Saturday.
The minister did not ask or demand that something be done; he complained to Mr. Rusk over lunch. This is the method of approach of this government with respect to this very serious situation.
The timing was unfortunate. Minutes before the two statesmen had exchanged compliments about 150 years of peace along the U.S.-Canadian border. Mr. Rusk handed over an ugly big woodcarving to mark the anniversary of the last great lakes battle-lake Erie, 1813.
No action has been taken in the United States to deal with this matter. The courts there have issued injunctions. These injunctions have been completely ignored and no action taken to put them into effect. We must look at this situation seriously and not just go and discuss over lunch what happened on the great lakes in 1813. The happenings now on the great lakes are far more important and far more dangerous to Canada. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, as has been
3374	HOUSE OF
Maritime Transportation Unions stated, complained about the matter. I think that we should make strong demands, in order to bring about peace on the great lakes, that the United States government take some strong, effective measures to see that Canadian ships are able to arrive at United States ports and load and unload their cargoes without harassment such as that experienced in recent months.
I must point out that the setting up of a trusteeship is not something that a Canadian labour movement or any labour movement likes to have happen. It is very distasteful to the labour movement. But I think that all who are affected by this will realize that it is probably the only solution to the problem. I want to point out to the government that this trusteeship should be on a temporary basis. There should be some clear understanding that the trusteeship should have this matter cleaned up by spring, before the season on the great lakes opens again. It should certainly be underlined that this should not be taken as a precedent to sustain the present situation in the labour movement in Canada; that it will not be a practice of government to put unions under a trusteeship unless the situation warrants it, or the position is as serious as that which has been experienced recently on the great lakes. I fully realize the fear which the Canadian Labour Congress and other unions across this country have with respect to this action, and consequently I think their fears should be allayed by a statement from the government to the effect that it is not setting a precedent, and that this trusteeship is of a temporary nature.
We will look closely, Mr. Chairman, at the legislation when it comes before us, and we will examine it to see whether it is effective and workable. I hope the members of the house will find their way clear to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it being five o'clock, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the house would give consent to continuing in committee of the whole for the next hour and dispense temporarily with the private members' hour for today. The hon. member for Melville, who has a notice of motion for debate, might agree to postpone it to some future occasion. The subject matter now before the house is of such importance that I think we could more usefully spend our time for the next hour dealing with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, that course would be agreeable to the government, if it were agreeable to other members of the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think that would be agreeable to our members, Mr. Chairman, provided the debate terminated for this evening when the leaders have spoken.


An hon. Member:: That will save time.


The Chairman:: Actually, the rules should not be changed unless the Speaker is in the chair, but I presume the chairman of the committee can be blind to the clock. Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then it is agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be confined to the principles involved in this resolution, and to the situation which has existed for the past number of months on the great lakes as it concerns, in particular, the S.I.U. In approaching this legislation I believe it is the first duty of this house to grasp clearly the depth and the importance of the issues which are involved. The legislation is the last step in a long chain of events, a continuous story of violence, disruption of commerce, defiance of law and exploitation of seamen on the great lakes. This has continued for many years and it has culminated in the formation of the Canadian maritime union, numerous acts of violence against its members and, finally, a retaliatory boycott of S.I.U. ships on the Welland canal by members of the C.B.R.T. This is what precipitated the inquiry held by Mr. Justice Norris, and the recommendations which we are now asked to pass into law.
No one who has read the report of Mr. Justice Norris-and I believe this report gives us the true facts of the case as they would have been found had one judge or 50 sat on this royal commission-can have any doubt whatsoever as to the basic issues involved. We are dealing with the issue of the preservation of law and order as against mob violence. We are asked to restrain a man who, according to the commission's report, is lawless and prepared to use any weapon to gain his own ends. The commission has found a grisly tale of the exploitation of Canadian citizens, financially and economically, by the dictatorial legal and extra-legal powers assumed by the management of the S.I.U. There is not the least shadow of doubt that the management of this union has been directly responsible for instigating violence against the persons and property of those, particularly the members of the new Canadian maritime union, who threatened its monopoly of power.
There is not one law in this country for citizens who live inland, and another law for

the waterfront. It is the duty of this government-of this parliament, ultimately-to make sure that the Queen's justice and the Queen's peace extend to every part of this dominion and, yes, integrity and honesty in both labour and commercial operations. Dishonesty by consent, whether by the S.I.U. or the C.S.L. is wrong. Extraordinary situations arise, and extraordinary measures such as those proposed today are needed to deal with them. But unless we regard the maintenance of simple law and order within our nation as the first and the highest duty of government, we are failing the citizens of this country whom we represent, in the most elemental duties of government.
The second major issue with which we are dealing is that of the position of the Canadian workingman. There is not the least shadow of doubt, as one studies the Norris report, that it is the Canadian seaman who has been the real sufferer in this affair. It is he who has been charged the excessive initiation fees. It is his money that has gone into the welfare funds of the union, funds for which no proper accounting has been made. It is he who has found his bread and his livelihood taken away at the whim of a dictatorial union boss with a criminal record; it is he who has been beaten up, or has found himself on the infamous "do not ship" list, should he have dared to defy the power of this dictator. Let us remember that it is we ourselves-the parliament of Canada itself-who have approved the legislation under which the S.I.U. has been operating, and this includes the right to make collective bargaining agreements which compel all sailors employed on ships manned by the union to belong to it. When such abuses as these are found to exist, we must examine the legislation itself under which we have allowed the union to operate, to see if it is entirely free from blame.
The third issue that confronts us is the future of the labour movement itself in Canada, as a body independent of control from outside the country. This is raised squarely by the issues in this case, and we must face it squarely. The Canadian maritime union was created through efforts of the Canadian Labour Congress as a Canadian answer to the corruption of a foreign controlled international union. On its creation, something approaching open warfare broke out, a situation to which the government of the day appears to have turned a blind eye until compelled by the blocking of the Welland canal to take some action. Government inaction continued for too long, in spite of repeated protests to the Department of Labour, which placed the government of the day in full possession of the facts of the case. Unless the power of the S.I.U. is
Maritime Transportation Unions curbed; unless the principle is established that Canadians have the effective, practical right, fully guaranteed by effective enforcement of law, to form unions of their own and conduct their union affairs peaceably and without interference, we may as well confess that an independent Canadian labour movement is at an end, that from now on the activities of Canadian workers will be controlled from outside the country. We will be forced to confess that we can no longer control for ourselves the labour conditions of our own Canadian citizens, that we have allowed them to pass from our own control to that of gangster-dominated foreign unions, exploiting our workers for their own advantage. This is a situation that is perilously close, unless the government acts with decision at this time.
There are two key factors in deciding the course of action that the government proposes. The first of these is the element of time. The navigation season on the seaway can be expected to close in less than two months from now. The cost to ship owners of having their vessels tied up beyond that date is heavy. This is a fact well known to those concerned in this dispute. Time is on the side of the existing union management. The longer the delay in having the S.I.U. placed under effective control, the greater the bargaining power of that union in dictating its demands to ship owners. Two months have gone by while parliament has been in recess and this legislation has been in preparation. Freeze-up is approaching. There is no room for pussyfooting. Action, immediate action, is necessary now.
There is no ground for giving these powers to the government if, as some reports indicate, it is the government's intention to delay making use of the legislation once it has been obtained. Delay is only going to make matters worse. This situation has been deteriorating season after season and it will continue until resolute action is taken. We cannot waste any more time.
The second key quality which I demand be shown by the government here is courage. Let us keep our basic sense of what is right and what is wrong in such a situation as we are facing now. The law has been defied and the rights of Canadian citizens have been shamefully disregarded. A royal commission has put us in possession of the facts. It has made this key recommendation of trusteeship which has now been embodied in legislation. There is only one thing which remains to be done, and that can be spelled out in a single word-action. Are we going to enforce peace, honesty and the law in this matter or not? To say that we are not, to allow defiance of the law and the principles of justice to

Maritime Transportation Unions continue because of lack of courage on our part would certainly be an abandonment of the responsibilities we have to the Canadian people as their representatives in this house. Heaven knows, we follow the example of the United States in a lot of things, but for once let us have the courage to show that we in Canada can take action that will protect our citizens and maintain the law, about which we talk so much.
We have seen a Canadian ship, the Howard L. Shaw, tied up in a United States port for the whole of the summer. We have seen how this ship has been boycotted, abused, even dynamited. The Prime Minister has made complaints directly to the President of the United States in the matter. The owners of the ship have reported they have suffered a loss of something more than $3 million in endeavouring to assert their right to man their ships with crews belonging to a Canadian union. Court orders and court injunctions have been obtained and have proved to be not worth the paper on which they were written. The law and the executive have been defied. The word of the union boss on the Chicago waterfront is stronger than the word of the courts of the United States or its president. Perhaps this is good enough for the United States, but I believe it rests upon us as Canadians to insist on something better so far as our own country is concerned.
We as members of this House of Commons must realize that there is a great deal at stake, and certainly this is not an easy matter. The Banks problem would not be nearly so acute were it not for the key position that Banks himself holds as the man who controls a large block of Canadian votes, which are a matter of expediency to the international union in the United States. There is in the United States a conflict between the eastern and western elements of the S.I.U., and the leadership of the S.I.U. itself is an important factor in the control of other groups of unions in the United States. Banks through his Canadian votes as a non-citizen of this country holds this balance of power in the labour union struggle that is going on in the United States.
It is for this reason that I would point out to the Minister of Labour and the government that I believe the government would have been running an unwarranted risk if they had allowed any form of private trusteeship to take place. Perhaps it is not possible for us to say with any degree of supporting evidence that the very forces that have permitted this situation to develop and continue in Canada are responsible for the strike we

have on the St. Lawrence waterfront, but certainly the facts of the situation would indicate that they are.
We must have a guarantee that justice will be maintained and that the rights of Canadian citizens will be protected. We can only do that in this extreme situation on the basis of a government trusteeship. There must be a guarantee that Banks will not still be able to pull the wires and control affairs from the other side of the border. The only way we can be positively sure of complete integrity will be if the functions of the management of the Canadian branch of the S.I.U. are placed under the direction of a government trusteeship.
We in the Social Credit party are convinced that such action must be taken and taken quickly. Let us remember that the Canadian Labour Congress has willingly agreed to submit to such a government trusteeship, and even after the congress has been given the opportunity to try to work out something on a private basis it has come back and said that the situation is hopeless. Thus the Canadian Labour Congress is behind the trusteeship and is supporting it. At least, those unions in the congress that are not dictated to from the United States support it, because we know that pressure from across the border on the part of some other international unions has been brought to bear upon the Minister of Labour and the government to avoid taking the very action which is being recommended now. If a union that has nothing to hide expresses its willingness to be placed under trusteeship, why should we hesitate to impose this on a union whose record shows clearly that it is corrupt and completely gangster dominated.
Finally, I believe that this legislation is the necessary first step, but it is not the end of the affairs about which we are now talking because there are ramifications which go much farther. This legislation can and must be a temporary matter-we agree on that- because we must straighten out a situation that cannot otherwise be controlled. But after the trusteeship is imposed I believe it is of the utmost importance that a committee of the house go thoroughly into the legislation under which unions operate in this country at the present time, to make sure that the legislation is in the best interests of those it is designed to protect, Canadian workingmen.
It is quite plain that much of the excessive power that a union has over its members arises from a right that the union is given by federal statute law, the right to impose a closed shop agreement within a bargaining unit so that only union members can obtain employment. Let us recognize that, although the right of a workingman to strike against

his employer is always to be jealously defended as one of labour's precious rights, a closed shop such as the S.I.U. has imposed is in fact an effective device to remove all power from a worker to exercise his right to strike against his own union management.
This is a very fundamental point. The worker is treated not as an intelligent citizen with the power to make his own decisions but as a commodity for sale on the labour market. This is exactly what the S.I.U. has been doing through the right it apparently assumes under our existing legislation of hiring and firing workers on the great lakes ships.
The profit from the monopoly of labour that flows from such a position has been going, not to the workers themselves but to the corrupt labour boss who stands as a broker between the workingman and the employer who wants to make use of his services, charging each side the maximum that the market will bear for his own selfish interests. Such a monopoly is even able to force a company like The Canada Steamship Lines into dishonesty, by consent, which results in the perpetuation and expansion of the very thing against which the working people of Canada should have protection.
We, the parliament of Canada, have established the laws that permit such a situation. I suggest respectfully to the government that the next step they must take in this matter, when the trusteeship has been set up, is to refer the Canada Shipping Act and other federal legislation involving the rights and privileges of labour to the appropriate committee of the house so that the effective working of this legislation, in the light of the interests of Canadian citizens, can be thoroughly reviewed, particularly in the light of the events which have developed during the last couple of years.
I am also extremely concerned about one recommendation made by Mr. Justice Norris in his report, which appears to be that the trusteeship should be imposed for the purpose of integrating the unions on which the trusteeship is imposed. I should like to question whether the government considers it a legitimate fact that a government trusteeship should be used to influence the actual union organization that exists in this area. I do not think it is. I would suggest that this part of the Norris report be questioned very seriously because I am convinced this is an interference with the individual rights of the workingman.
A trade union is not an organization that should be started, directed or controlled by government, except in the case of most flagrant abuse, an example of which we now have in the case of the S.I.U. Both the government and members of the opposition
Maritime Transportation Unions should be well aware by now of the blunder they made in permitting Hal Banks to take charge of the Canadian waterfront. Directed labour and directed labour organizations, belong in Soviet Russia or communist China, not in a free country such as Canada.
The purpose of this legislation, then, is quite simply to ensure respect for Canadian law and to protect Canadian seamen from the abuses to which their union has subjected them. It is no more than that. It will only be making a bad situation worse if the trustees, themselves, begin to make organizational decisions which interfere with the free run of an association of Canadian citizens and union members.
These are the basic reasons, Mr. Chairman, for our support of this legislation. At the same time, we caution the government that their responsibility under this legislation is twofold. First of all, it is to protect the rights of our Canadian workingmen from a union which has become corrupt, which is oppressing them. The other responsibility is to maintain justice, which it is our responsibility to maintain for every Canadian citizen. Beyond that we must not interfere with individual rights which belong to each of us, whether or not we choose to belong to a union of workingmen.
When the legislation is introduced, I am confident that all of us in this house will face up to these responsibilities, and will not think in terms of five years, although five years may be necessary to make a blanket coverage for any eventuality that may occur. However, I am sure we will quickly once again permit normal operations to continue in the great lakes shipping area and on the St. Lawrence, and at the same time protect the Canadian workingman who works as a seaman on the various shipping lines operating in this area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, as one who has had a long association with trade unions, the idea of a public trusteeship is very naturally repugnant to me. But I propose to support this legislation because I deem it to be an extraordinary measure to meet an extraordinary situation. The question which the parliament of Canada faces is not whether we want a public trusteeship but rather what other alternative is there, in the light of the appalling situation which obtains in the maritime shipping industry of Canada?
In order to see the situation which does obtain, may I just briefly review a few of the facts. Hal C. Banks was brought to Canada in 1949 with the co-operation of the government, the trades and labour congress of Canada and the shipping companies on the great lakes in order to displace the Canadian
3378	HOUSE OF
Maritime Transportation Unions seamen's union which, it was claimed, was a communist dominated union. In 1952 Banks applied lor status as a landed immigrant. His application was rejected by the department of immigration on the grounds he had a criminal record in the United States. He appealed this decision to the minister of immigration, and in June, 1954, an order in council was passed giving him the status of a landed immigrant. In 1958 he applied for full citizenship. This application was rejected by Mr. Justice Lafon-taine.
Banks and the S.I.U. were not long in operation until it became apparent that Banks was building a hoodlum empire based on intimidation, extortion and lawlessness. First, he destroyed democratic control of the S.I.U. Second, he conspired with some of the shipping companies to illegally break the existing collective bargaining agreements which those companies had with properly certified trade unions. Third, Banks and the S.I.U. used lawless tactics in an attempt to destroy other unions in order to extend the membership of the S.I.U. I think a reading of the Norris report makes it quite clear that the blame for this intolerable situation falls on three separate groups.
It falls, first of all, of course on the S.I.U. and its president who instituted a reign of terror on the waterfront. There were the "do not ship" lists and the hiring halls by which Banks had control of whether or not any man would be able to get a job, and how long he would keep it. There was the control of the pension fund, which he mismanaged as the record will show. There was the fact that, with the consent of the Canadian government and the companies, the men's vacation pay was turned over to the S.I.U. and not to the men. I think the record shows that some $300,000 of that has never been distributed to the seamen. This gave him control of the union so that democracy was steadily destroyed. First, the blame lies with Banks and his organization.
The second share of blame lies with the shipping companies, at least the majority of them, and particularly Canada Steamship Lines who were in collusion with Banks and who, by working with Banks, sought to gain competitive advantage over the other shipping companies. I should say that credit should be given to the Upper Lakes Shipping Company and to its president Mr. Jack Leitch who, according to the Norris report, stood up almost alone against the depredations of Banks and the union. As a matter of fact, I probably should just document that by referring to page 41 of the report where the commissioner says:
The Canada Steamship Lines and its affiliates, with their diverse interests and integrated operation in many fields tributary to the business of


lake transport, found it easy to make accommodations with Hal C. Banks and his union

the S.I.U. of Canada-and did not suffer from union action. Other lake shipping companies, if they wished to survive, had to fall in line and accept the terms arranged between C.S.L. and Banks regardless of their own situation. The resulting tendency was to deprive the public of the benefit of real competition in the lake transport field and to strengthen the individual power of the president of the S.I.U. of Canada.
With the weapon of monopoly in his hands. Banks endeavoured to impose discriminatory terms on Upper Lakes Shipping Limited which alone stood out against him and this company was forced to turn to the C.B.R.T. and the C.M.U. to man its ships.
The record, I think, is clear. Canada Steamship Lines was every bit as guilty as Banks for the exploitation of workers and for the undemocratic conditions under which they worked. I shall have something to say about the companies later on.
The third share of blame certainly falls squarely on the Department of Labour. They were made aware of this situation, as is shown on pages 54 and 55 of Mr. Justice Norris' report, which I will not bother to read into the record unless someone wants to question it. It is apparent that a letter was sent on April 10, 1959, to Mr. Bernard Wilson, chief industrial relations officer, Department of Labour by Scott Misener Steamships Limited, pointing out that this company had a working agreement with a certified union, certified by the Canada labour relations board, and the company was breaking that agreement to enter into an agreement with Banks.
The Scott Misener company even had the audacity to enclose a copy of a letter from Banks guaranteeing them indemnification from any loss they might sustain as a result of having broken the law. As I say, this happened in 1959, and it is difficult to understand how a situation like this could have been left to fester without any action being taken by the Department of Labour at that time. Therefore I say the blame for the situation on the great lakes can be apportioned equally to the S.I.U., to the shipping companies who entered into these dubious arrangements with Banks, and to the failure on the part of the Department of Labour to act.
The situation got so bad that on May 23, 1962, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin, wrote to the Prime Minister. His letter will be found on page 404 of the schedules printed by the Norris commission. I will not take time to read the letter, but the president of the Canadian Labour Congress listed all the grievances, documented and dated the beatings, the violence, the lawlessness and intimidation that had gone on under the reign of terror initiated by Banks and the S.I.U.

No action apparently was forthcoming, and on July 6, 1962, the Canadian Labour Congress and the C.B.R.T. closed the St. Lawrence seaway in order to enforce the appointment of a commission to inquire into the situation, and Mr. Justice Norris was appointed by order in council on July 18, 1962.
At this stage I want to point out that the Canadian Labour Congress had itself expelled Banks back in 1959. Therefore there is no doubt about where the C.L.C. has stood throughout this entire period, beginning with its expulsions of the S.I.U. up until its demand for an investigation in 1962.
I quote now from the submission which the Canadian Labour Congress made to the Norris commission on March 13, 1963. I quote only three short statements and I put them on record because I want to make it abundantly clear that the one voice which has been raised most consistently against the evil doings of Mr. Banks has been that of the Canadian Labour Congress. On page 5 of their submission they say this:
The seafarers' international union of Canada on the record-on the abundant and incontroverted evidence before this commission-is not a free association of workers. It is a captive legion of dragooned and helpless individuals. It is a racket: it is not a union. Like the constitution of the U.S.S.R., the constitution of the seafarers' international union of Canada makes profuse reference to the principles of democracy and contains elaborate provisions designed to put the principles into effect. In both cases, behind the facade of the documents, there is the reality of totalitarian rule.
On page 33 of their submission they say this:
We have stated that the S.I.TJ. is not a part of the Canadian labour movement-it is a growth upon it. Equally, we submit that the S.I.U. is not a part of Canadian society-it is a growth upon it. We submit that your lordship should be prepared to recommend whatever social surgery is necessary to relieve both the trade union movement and society from this growth. There is no place in our social structure for a hoodlum empire which works hand in glove with certain shipping companies to the advantage of both, and to the disadvantage of the workers and the general public.
Then there is another short quotation from page 35 of the C.L.C. submission:
In formulating your report to the Minister of Labour, we ask Your Lordship to find and to advise the Minister of Labour that the S.I.U. is not a bona fide trade union and to recommend that such steps should be taken, as you may consider advisable, to ensure that legal and practical efficacy will be given to such a conclusion. We will not presume to submit to Your Lordship the precise steps which should be taken in the attainment of this end.
The result of the investigation was, of course, the Norris report, which has been in the hands of hon. members for some weeks. It shows several things. It shows first of all that the S.I.U. is not a legitimate, democratic trade union. It fully vindicates the demands of the Canadian Labour Congress for an
Maritime Transportation Unions investigation, and it fully corroborates the statements which I quoted that were contained in the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress.
I shall quote just two brief passages from the Norris report. On page 296 Mr. Justice Norris says the real issue-
-is not an effort to right any wrong nor to assist seamen, but Is part of an irresponsible campaign to maintain one rapacious and violent man, Banks, in power as a dictator.
He goes on to say:
Banks obtained his absolute control in his union through the misuse of union funds, the hiring halls, the D.N.S. and R.O.C. cards, and the welfare plan. This has been fully established. He and his union operated the vacation pay plan unlawfully and contrary to the directions of the minister of labour. The maritime appeal board set up by Banks is not useful for the purpose that it is alleged to serve.
Under Banks' control, the seafarers' international union of Canada becomes less and less a trade union and more and more of a mere hiring agency, operated by Banks through fees extracted from the wages of the crew members supplied through the hall.
He goes on to say at page 299, and I shall not bother the committee by reading it in detail, that there will never be peace on the great lakes and there will never be established a democratic, free trade union movement on the great lakes until Banks is removed.
I also want to point out that Mr. Justice Norris gives a clear bill of health to the other unions operating on the great lakes and in the ports. He says that-
-the Canadian unions, by establishing the C.M.U. have done a service to the country in bringing out into the open the lawlessness of Banks.
He says further:
This is not a private quarrel between Upper Lakes and the Canadian Labour Congress on the one hand and the S.I.U. on the other, but that it is a matter of grave public concern that there should be an attempt to force on Canada the rule of lawlessness in labour matters which exist in the Teamsters' and I.L.A. organizations in the United States and which is apparent in the combinations now operating against Canadian vessels in United States ports.
He goes on to say on page 302, referring to the boycott by the C.B.R.T. in 1962 to enforce an investigation:
The actual boycott of the seaway by the C.B.R.T., while it may be understood, cannot be condoned as it was in breach of the collective agreement. The C.L.C. and the C.B.R.T. are, however, to be commended for taking action to set up another union in order that there might be an end to the oppression and control by Banks.
He goes on to say at page 303:
The other labour organizations acting on behalf of employees engaged in work affecting shipping operations in the great lakes are operated democratically and their funds are protected. Their welfare plans are established on sound bases.

Maritime Transportation Unions
Having laid the blame squarely, first of all, on the S.I.U. and having given to the other trade unions a clean bill of health, Mr. Justice Norris recommended a public trusteeship which would have three functions: first to administer existing collective agreements with such amendments as are approved by the Canada labour relations board; second, to supervise the renegotiation of subsequent collective agreements by negotiating committees democratically elected by members of the unions; and third, to take steps to bring about an assurance of democracy in the unions.
Nobody who is interested in a free trade union movement likes the idea of a public trusteeship if it can be avoided. We prefer to have a free association of workers acting together through their democratically elected officers. But the S.I.U. has lost all semblance of democracy and its members have no control whatsoever over policy. A private trusteeship would of course be preferred, but the Canadian Labour Congress, who have been looking into this matter and seeking to find some such solution, issued a statement last night the last paragraph of which reads:
Our position with regard to an imposed trusteeship remains today as it was when we expressed objection to the original proposal advanced by Mr. Justice T. G. Norris. We have now reached a point where no alternative appears available. Responsibility for this rests squarely on those who have continually refused to support a reasonable and effective plan of voluntary control.
We therefore come reluctantly to the conclusion that no settlement is possible on the great lakes other than through legislative action. There is no alternative that would not leave Canadian seamen helpless captives of an industry-wide company union run by racketeers. Naturally public trusteeship is unpalatable, but it is less unpalatable than lawlessness, extortion and intimidation. And we have the fact that the other unions on the great lakes, those who have been declared by Mr. Justice Norris to be clean, democratic, legitimate unions, have indicated their willingness to come voluntarily under a public trusteeship.
There are some advantages in a public trusteeship over a private trusteeship even though the latter would have been preferable if it had been possible. First, under a private trusteeship you always have the danger that the S.I.U. could regroup under another name and continue to terrorize workers on the waterfront. By setting up a public trusteeship you prevent this possibility. The other advantage of a public trusteeship is that it will be able to deal with the boycotting and sabotaging of Canadian ships in United States ports. It is difficult to see how a private trusteeship could deal with this situation, unless you had the co-operation of the United

States government and the United States labour movement. The third advantage is that a public trusteeship will permit the adoption of policies which will apply not only to the unions but also to the shipping companies, some of whom must accept a very large share of the blame for the present situation. As a matter of fact, when we get into the legislation we in this group will want to know why the companies are not being brought under trusteeship.
The situation which we have on the waterfront today could not have deteriorated to its present state without the collusion and the connivance of companies like Canada Steamship Lines. Why we should be crying on the one hand for the removal of Mr. Banks but on the other hand leaving the officers of Canada Steamship Lines alone seems to me to be putting all the blame on one party and overlooking another party which is equally guilty. One of the advantages of a public trusteeship is that it will ensure that the companies will not flout the law in Canada as they did when they were dealing with the S.I.U. and breaking their collective bargaining agreements with democratic, bona fide trade unions. As I see it, the task of the public trusteeship when it is established will be:
(1)	To get rid of Banks and his high priced goons who masquerade as trade union officials.
(2)	To police existing agreements and if necessary negotiate new ones with the cooperation of the union membership.
(3)	To amend the constitution and bylaws of unions to bring them into line with democratic trade union practice.
(4)	To introduce democratic procedures for the election of new officers and to restore control of the union to its membership.
May I say here to the Minister of Labour that if this fourth objective of the trusteeship is to be realized there will have to be some person on that board of trustees who has a first hand knowledge of the trade union movement but one, of course, who is not involved in this dispute. I hope the minister, when the bill is being discussed, will give us some idea as to the kinds of persons he intends to appoint to this board. I think they will have to be selected with great care. This is not just a matter of appointing chartered accountants or business executives. If one of the functions of this board of trustees is to restore democracy in the unions on the great lakes, it cannot be done in an office. There will have to be someone on the board of trustees who can go down amongst the men,

talk to them and help them recover the control of their trade union. I hope some outstanding trade unionist will be appointed to this board.
I believe that if it is properly administered this trusteeship can be a victory for democratic trade unionism. But I point out first that the trustees will need the wholehearted support of the government and of this parliament. I want to point out, second, that we in this group shall insist that this legislation not be considered a precedent, but that it is extraordinary legislation to deal with a particularly odious situation. Third, we shall insist that this legislation be for a specific period of time. I was glad to hear the minister say he agreed with the idea of a specific period of time, though when he mentioned five years I was appalled. This parliament is going to turn over the union affairs of five unions to a board of trustees and give them complete control of the management of those unions, the drafting of their constitution, the negotiating of their collective bargaining agreements, the operation of their welfare plan, the election of their officers. To give them this authority for five years without there being any review in this period seems to me to be totally unwarranted. I think this should be for a very limited period of time. At the very most I think it should be until December 31, 1965. If at the end of that time the board of trustees can convince the Minister of Labour that their work is not finished and that they need an extension of time, the Minister of Labour can come into this house and ask for an extension. If his arguments persuade the members of parliament that an extension of time is warranted, I have no doubt that it will be granted. I for one will take very strong exception to giving the board of trustees a five year period of almost complete domination and dictatorship over the affairs of these maritime trade unions. I hope that before the legislation is brought down the minister will give serious thought to a much more limited and shorter period of time. I believe the people of Canada and most trade unions will support this legislation if it is recognized that it is not a precedent and that it is a temporary measure for a limited period of time, with the understanding that the board must come back to parliament for a renewal of its responsibilities.
I should also like to say that we need not think that passing this legislation will solve all the problems. A reading of the Norris report concerning the serious situation which has developed over the years on the great lakes indicates that our federal labour legislation is badly in need of an overhaul. A lot of
Maritime Transportation Unions it is completely antiquated. Otherwise this situation would never have come about, the federal Department of Labour and the Canada labour relations board should have intervened long ago. It should not have required a strike by the C.B.R.T. to tie up the St. Lawrence seaway and force the government to look into something it had known about for three years; at least, its officials had known about it for three years. Something is wrong with the basic machinery of our labour administration and legislation, and I hope the minister will set himself the task of bringing it up to date and submitting legislation to the house for that purpose.
In supporting this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that one of the reasons I am glad to support it is because it will make possible the settlement of an important labour dispute in Canada by Canadians, with the control vested in Canadians. As a Canadian I resented the intervention of U.S. labour secretary Willard Wirtz. It seemed to me that it was none of his business to express opinions against a public trusteeship, and certainly none of his business to try to exercise influence through the United States labour trade union movement on the Canadian labour trade union movement and on the Canadian public. As a matter of fact, if secretary Wirtz has spare time on his hands, one of the things he might do is to see that Canadian shipping in U.S. ports is free from harassment and sabotage. One of the reasons why, in my opinion, we have no choice but to agree to this public trusteeship is because this is a clear struggle to decide whether or not labour matters affecting Canadian workmen are going to be settled in Canada under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, and because we think that this is the only alternative there is to clean up a situation which has been neglected far too long, I am prepared to support this legislation, with the restrictions and modifications which I have already outlined.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should proceed, Mr. Chairman, with all the time and dispatch there is. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind allowing us to pass the resolution, and he can speak on the bill?


William Arnold Peters: I also should like to say something, Mr. Chairman.


David Orlikow: As far as I am concerned I have no objection, but a number of members in our group have signified their intention of speaking on this matter. I know that



Maritime Transportation Unions the house leader is interested in speed, but I suggest that if this legislation had been brought forward sooner it would have been passed long ago.
The labour movement of Canada, Mr. Chairman, has almost from its inception faced opposition from all sides. It has faced determined and violent opposition on the part of management on many occasions. It has been harassed by laws and by governments. Labour leaders through the years have gone to prison on more than one occasion because they fought to improve the conditions of the workers they represent. The labour movement has reached a final impasse in Canada with regard to working for the improvement of working conditions of the people they represent and helping to educate the public with reference to the need for the improvement of social legislation. We in this group realize why labour people have expressed themselves as doubtful about the imposition of a government trusteeship and about interference on the part of any government with the internal affairs of trade unions. It is with a good deal of doubt that we face this question of the great lakes shipping problem and the unions involved. It is with a good deal of soul-searching that we have come to the conclusion that we will have to support the recommendation of Justice Norris that a public trusteeship be imposed on the shipping unions on the great lakes. In taking this action and in proposing the resolution today, we feel that the minister has really moved in to control only one evil; he has moved in to control the evil brought to this country by the head of the S.I.U., Mr. Banks.
But, Mr. Chairman, we also find it strange that having done this the minister had little, in fact nothing, to say about the fact that Mr. Justice Norris indicated in his report that Mr. Banks could not have done the things he did except for the fact that he had the active co-operation of the steamship companies. Indeed, I do not think it would be too strong a term to say that he had their collusion, particularly so far as the largest company in the field, Canada Steamship Lines, is concerned. I want to say both for myself and other members of this group that I find it strange that there is no proposal by the minister that the government will take the same stern, drastic action with Canada Steamship Lines which it is proposing to take with the unions in the lakes shipping industry. We think this step is necessary, Mr. Chairman. We think it is long overdue and that the government should have acted before on the matter. We are going to support this legislation, but I suggest that it should be
[Mr. Orlikow.l
strengthened; and I will point out in what way the government should move before the legislation is passed.
I should like to call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
house leader if we may assume that progress will be made tomorrow with this particular debate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Once we reach the orders of the day tomorrow-and one can only pray that that may be soon-we shall proceed with the committee stage of this resolution and I hope the discussion will be concluded fairly early in the afternoon. Then we would take the two bills about the territories in connection with which, as hon. members know, there is also a certain urgency, and the vocational training resolution. During this time, if we should conclude the resolution stage reasonably early and the bill could be distributed, hon. members would have had the opportunity to peruse it and, if there were a disposition, say, at eight o'clock, to go on with the second reading of the bill-the government realizes it is completely in the hands of the house- we should be very glad to get on with what I feel is an urgent matter and one which, having been started, should be pursued with dispatch.
If not, I will reserve the right, when the other business has been completed, either to call any other government business or to call supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is very convenient for the house, should the resolution have been completed and the bill distributed, to have a short interval, at least, in which to study the measure before proceeding further. That would suit us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly think there should be at least a couple of hours during which hon. members would have the opportunity of looking at the bill before it is proceeded with. We certainly do not think that a bill of the extraordinary character of this one should be rushed through without receiving the most careful consideration. However, debate on second reading is a debate on the principle, and the bill would still have to go before a committee of the house where every clause would be scrutinized.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are anxious to expedite the passage of this bill, but we think it is of such far reaching importance that we would not

care to telescope any of the stages. In short, we wish to study it carefully and if we could have copies of the bill early it would help.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will make every effort to see that, once the resolution stage is completed and the measure has been given first reading, copies will be distributed to hon. members as early as possible. In view of the statement just made by the hon. member for
Business of the House
Burnaby-Coquitlam I think I can say that if we finish the resolution stage tomorrow we would, unless some extraordinary circumstance forced us to change our plans, go ahead with the second reading as the first item of business on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 10, 1963