1964-10-13

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
Mr. Olson (acting for the special committee on procedure and organization):: That the eleventh report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to the house on October 7, 1964, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this motion could stand, due to a very reasonable request that has been made. Some hon. members are not ready to debate this report, the concurrence of which has been moved, but hope they will be in a position to take it under consideration on Thursday.
Motion stands.



TOBACCO


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex Soufh) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-130, respecting the inspection of tobacco and tobacco products entering into international and interprovincial trade (tobacco inspection act).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide standards of quality for tobacco and tobacco products in the export-import and interprovincial tobacco industry in order to protect the financial interest of the tobacco farmers and the physical health of the consumers. This bill is similar in principle, substance and form to the Meat Inspection Act.
I believe we all realize that for a great many people of the nation the habit of smoking will continue for a long time to come. I believe it is the duty of parliament to make sure that tobacco products used for human consumption, whether manufactured here in Canada or in some other nation, should be made as safe as possible, and should have some form of government inspection. We
know at one time tobacco stems were not used in manufactured tobacco, but in some instances today this is not the case and they are being used to the extent of several million pounds, creating a large tobacco surplus and marketing problem.
This bill gives similar powers to the Minister of Agriculture as does the Meat Inspection Act, in respect of labelling the product so as to identify the ingredients and additives which may be in the manufactured tobacco product. This bill also allows standards to be made from time to time, as prescribed by regulation of the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege concerning the Minister of Agriculture and hon. members of this house. On September 10, in answer to a question posed by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, the minister stated, as recorded at page 7826 of Hansard:
In the last two weeks there have been no Importations of turkeys from the United States-
On October 7 a question was posed by the hon. member for Huron, and a supplementary question by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, which the minister said he would take as notice. On the following day, October 8, the minister said in part:
During the week ending September 5, 185,892 pounds; week ending September 12, 135,500 pounds: week ending September 19, 83,752 pounds and the week ending September 26, 45,112 pounds, making a total for the month of September of 450,256 pounds, bringing the total imports to that date to 8,214,159 pounds.
The point is that on September 10 we were told that there were no importations in the two weeks covering August 29 to September 5 and September 5 to September 10; then we were later advised there were importations in the poundages I have just quoted. So I think the house was misinformed in this respect. In the same statement the minister also said,

Question of Privilege
as found on page 8870 of Hansard, with reference to the turkey producers and his request for suggestions from them:
As yet I have received no reply.
I have here price information release No. 231 of the Ontario turkey association which contains this statement:
It was agreed the industry still considers import controls are what we need, but short of achieving this the O.T.A. fully endorses the C.T.F.'s efforts to have the government step the live tariff up another 2 cents, to 4 cents per pound, as recommended by the Manitoba association with C.T.F. approval. This request crossed a letter from Mr. Hays a week ago Monday.
That was September 21.
In this, the minister asked for specific data on our tariff position, which the Manitoba brief gave concisely. The next move is up to Mr. Hays.
I know the minister did not want to misrepresent the facts nor did he wish to mislead the house, but I think the record should be kept straight.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as you and all hon. members will recall, there was a great deal of turkey talk in the house.
I would not want to mislead hon. members of the house in so far as the turkey situation is concerned. Until I check Hansard I am not admitting that I said there were no importations of turkeys whatsoever in those two weeks although I am not saying I did not say so. But it seems to me that on every occasion I said that imports of turkeys had practically dried up with the exception of one plant where they were still coming in.
I have written three letters to the turkey federation. The letter to which the hon. member for Wellington South has referred was one from the Ontario turkey federation. I have received correspondence from the British Columbia turkey people and the Alberta turkey people, and I have asked them all to get together and send me a resolution from the turkey federation of Canada with the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and possibly also the farm unions, because this would give me something to consider and take to the proper authorities in order that we might resolve the problem.
I must repeat with regard to the turkey situation in Canada that there is tariff protection of 5 cents a pound, along with li cents a pound because of the discounted dollar and something in connection with freight rates, adding up to a total of about 7 cents a pound. In view of the fact this is about 20 per cent

more protection than most of our meat products receive it seems to me that in considering any change we must look at the situation very carefully.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada been made aware of the fact that the United States is taking the stand that the U.S.S.R. and other defaulting members of the United Nations must make good their assessments as a condition to the right to vote at the next general assembly of the United Nations? If so, does Canada intend to follow a similar course in this regard? Now that the stand of the United States has been made unequivocally plain, I think the house should be made aware of Canada's stand.


Hon. Paul  Mariin@Secreiary of Stale for Exiernal Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I need not remind the right hon. gentleman, of course, that the stand Canada takes in these matters is not necessarily the stand that is taken by any other country. The foreign policy of Canada has always been determined by the government of this country, and that is the way it will continue to be.
The position made known by the government of the United States through Mr. Stevenson was stated in a committee of which Canada is one of the 21 members. The interpretation that Canada places on the default of certain countries, including the Soviet union, with regard to peace keeping financial obligations, is that under article 19 of the charter of the United Nations, a country that is deficient in payment to an amount greater than its assessed contribution for the two previous years renders itself automatically liable to loss of vote.
This is the position as Canada understands it and as the Canadian representative stated it to be in the working group of 21. I hope, however, that this problem will be resolved without invoking the automatic application of this clause. I hope the Soviet union, and any other country that owes money to the United Nations, will find it possible to make payment and thus not render operative this particular provision of the charter.


John George Diefenbaker: In order to bring about the realization of that hope, is Canada going to support the postponement of the opening of the United Nations for a month or two so the secretary general may be able to continue his negotiations to the end that the default of the U.S.S.R., and other nations may be met?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There has been no formal proposal that the opening of the assembly be postponed beyond November 10. There are some pressing matters which, in the judgment of the government, make it desirable that the meeting take place on the tenth.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I did not quite understand the explanations given by the hon. minister a while ago concerning the reasons advanced by Russia for not fulfilling its commitments toward the UN.
Did Russia state the reasons why it will not fulfil or why it refuses to fulfil its commitments toward the United Nations, where it has a right of veto, although nothing has been paid by Russia for several months.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the U.S.S.R. has given some reasons which, in the opinion of the government, are not acceptable. When the estimates of my department come before the house I shall be in a position to discuss more fully the reasons why we do not accept the position taken by the Soviet union.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Speaker, arising from the publication in the Toronto Star of what seemed to be facsimiles of documents from his departmental files in relation to the Hal Banks case. I should like to ask the minister what co-operation was given to the Toronto Star in obtaining this material, and if none was given can he give us the explanation, according to his officials, of how these private papers from departmental files were obtained by that newspaper and published?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper; then, the officials of my department will be able to give it the necessary attention and provide the required information.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I appreciate the minister's attempt to have this question placed on the order paper, but it is current and it is very lively. Certainly I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that Hal Banks has been considered a matter of urgency, and if at the present time the minister has been co-operating in leaking information that is not available to us as members of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a statement,
not a question.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the letter was published in the Toronto Star, I wonder if the Prime Minister would reconsider his position and have an inquiry into the whole sordid mess.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate this question at ten o'clock.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the publication of this letter in the Toronto Star will the minister table the letter and other relevant correspondence?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It is of national significance, and the circumstances are of great importance to many Canadians. Has the minister's attention been directed to the report of a speech made by Mr. Gus Norwood, executive secretary of the United States northwestern public power association, to the Alaska chamber of commerce? If so, would the minister inform the house of his reaction to these proposals and projections and their effect on the future development of Canadian water resources?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of this question, and may I suggest it is an excellent question for the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity to discuss this further at ten o'clock.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Secretary of State. Is the government going to tolerate plays like the one that appeared on the C.B.C. television program "Festival" last Wednesday, October 7, which to say the least was revolting?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see this program, but I would like to remind the hon. member that it has always been understood that the government has nothing to do and should not interfere with the programming of the C.B.C. or of the private broadcasters.


Percy Verner Noble: As a supplementary question, to whom would the people of this country report and ask for some guidance as to who would take care of such programs?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the management of the C.B.C. will take note of the views of the hon. member.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister indicate whether changes in fair standards legislation being considered by his department will include changes affecting the so-called prevailing rate employees?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the proposals embodied in the Canada labour code will have effect both on the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and upon the prevailing rate policy of the government. When it is possible to have second reading of this bill I shall indicate the matters under consideration with respect to both these other two matters.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the interest shown in the work and research done by the Economic Council of Canada, could the minister tell the house and the people of Canada whether we can soon expect a report from that body?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Economic Council of Canada will submit its annual report as required by law. Indeed, I shall be most happy to report to the house myself in that connection when my estimates are taken up.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF FEDERAL POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. As Premier Lesage has already announced, before the forthcoming federal-provincial meetings, the basic minimums acceptable to the province of Quebec, will the Prime Minister, on behalf of the federal government, announce before or during the forthcoming meetings with the provinces an outline of the federal government's position in the face of these minimum demands from the province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure to what my hon. friend is referring when he talks about minimum demands, but I do know it is not wise to give your case publicity on the eve of an important negotiation.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At any of these meetings with the provinces will there be any definite proposals emanating from the federal government relating to the immediate improvement of permanent consultative machinery between Ottawa and the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, this matter has been considered at

previous meetings in the course of the last year. It has been felt by most of the provinces that the present machinery is satisfactory, and that the institution of the federal committee in question dealing with federal-provincial relations has been working well and no further changes are necessary at this time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question relating to the one which was posed to him on Wednesday last by the hon. member for Northwest Territories relating to the hunting, fishing and trapping rights of the Indian people and the royal proclamation in relation thereto. The Prime Minister indicated on Thursday, I believe it was, that he would be able to answer that question on Friday or Monday at the latest. Not having had a chance yesterday, I wonder whether he could answer it today.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question deals with the conviction of a man named Michael Sikyea, an Indian, for shooting a wild duck. It was a very interesting case; on one occasion in the case it was suggested the duck was probably not wild. I think the Prime Minister stated the other day in reply to this question that the judgment of the court will have to be reviewed, and that is the stand we take at the present time.
There is a wish on the part of the wildlife authorities to limit the destruction of game birds because of the efficiency of modern firearms. At the same time there is the law in respect of the rights of Indians under treaty. We are aware of these things, and until the judgment is studied I do not think we would care to make a further statement about the matter.


Frank Howard: If I may suggest, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is perhaps in error with regard to the purport of the question. It did not have to do with the shooting of a wild or any other kind of duck, but to a decision of Chief Justice McRuer of Ontario on May 30, 1963, upholding the royal proclamation of King George III. I inquired about this matter on May 31 and asked the Prime Minister then whether he would communicate 20220-568i
Inquiries of the Ministry the results of that court decision to all government agencies, provincial governments and the like, so that in their dealings with the native Indian people they could have their full interests at heart. The question of the hon. member for Northwest Territories was whether the Prime Minister had indicated to the various government departments and provincial governments the effect of that court decision, which he promised to do on May 31. That was also my question. What has the Prime Minister done to put into effect that which he promised he would do on May 31 of last year?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in our view there is a demarcation between game control under the migratory birds act and other wildlife on the ground. The law in relation to the treaty that we have with the United States in respect of migratory birds places that particular section of game in a different position than wildlife on the ground.


Frank Howard: Why don't you answer the question?



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. In view of the interest in and the representations now being made in respect of the federal prison for women now located at Kingston, has the government reached any decision as yet with regard to whether it should remain where it is or should be moved to another location?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to bring this matter to the minister's attention when he returns.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS JURISDICTION RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and concerns a statement which appeared in a Canadian Press dispatch of last week. I think in order to refresh the minister's

Inquiries of the Ministry mind I will read part of what he said, which appears in the dispatch in quotation marks:
"If we can't come to an agreement next week, the federal government plans to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask for a decision".
The minister was referring at that time to the jurisdiction in respect of offshore mineral rights. My question is this. What are the plans of the federal government vis-a-vis the provinces on the question of mineral rights in these offshore mineral areas?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussions with the province of British Columbia, and it was agreed with their minister of mines that he would make a recommendation to his cabinet that .a reference be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision. We on our part undertook to suggest a similar move to our cabinet. Now I believe the provinces have asked that the matter of offshore mineral rights be discussed at the conference beginning on Wednesday, and that will be done.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker. The statement here is "If we can't come to an agreement". My question is, if the policy of the government is to take this matter to the supreme court, that is one thing. If they talk of agreement, they must have some concessions to offer in order to reach agreement. What are those concessions?


Arthur Laing: I would not like to say I was misquoted, but I did not say "If we can't come to an agreement".



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coaies (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. Have negotiations been initiated by his department with provincial governments related to the roads to resources program which will result in an extension of that program, which is rapidly drawing to a conclusion in many of the provinces?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker; but we have been in touch with the provinces asking them to review their position and advise us of their assessment of the program, and to tell us when it will be completed in their respective provinces.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is any consideration being given to
[Mr. Hamilton.!

reinitiating this program for a further period of time?


Arthur Laing: Not in this form, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Inasmuch as preparation of the new national park in western Nova Scotia appears to be behind schedule, can the minister indicate whether the province of Nova Scotia has transferred the land involved to the federal government so that construction can be started? If not, can the minister say what is delaying the government of Nova Scotia in this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate the matter at ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in regard to the business of the house for this week. Could he assure the house that the undertaking given by the Minister of Justice with regard to a resumption of the debate on the minister's estimates will be carried out this Wednesday, as indicated by the Minister of Justice last Wednesday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, irrespective of whether or not there was a formal undertaking with regard to this matter, I should point out that tomorrow the Minister of Justice will be attending a provincial conference on constitutional matters, and it will not be possible for him to be in the house.


Erik Nielsen: He knew that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May
I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister, then, advise the house when the estimates of the Department of Justice

will be brought before the house, if that undertaking cannot be kept?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be announced in due course, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. Is the Minister of Justice considering convening a meeting of judges similar to the meeting of probation officers which he addressed, at which he would outline to the judges his ideas on the need for shorter sentences and more probation?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



POSSIBLE ACTION RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice-in his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary can take the question as notice- whether the federal government is considering taking any action under the Judges Act with respect to Mr. Justice Landreville.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to accept the hon. gentleman's suggestion and bring this question to the attention of the minister.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can he please advise the house whether the second portion of the Suttie report on the militia has been considered, whether a decision has been reached, and when does he anticipate making an announcement with regard to this matter?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, consideration of this matter has been taking place for some time, and I would hope that announcements could be made within a few days.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Churchill:: Inside the house or outside?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Anywhere you like.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Acting Minister of Transport and ask him whether the government is in a position now to report on the negotiations that have been carried on between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines relative to international and domestic route sharing?


Mr. Speaker:: I really do not see any pressing urgency for an immediate reply. Perhaps this is a question for the order paper.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Then may I discuss this at ten o'clock.



REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF INQUIRY INTO T.C.A. CRASH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of my understanding that a release was given the press advising that a public hearing would be held in respect to the tragic Trans-Canada Air Lines crash near Montreal, can the Acting Minister of Transport give this house the details of the setting up of this inquiry?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take this question as notice and to bring in an answer later.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the reported statement by Dr. Herbert Graham, director of the United States bureau of commercial fisheries, that regulation of the size of fish nets for international trawlers will not serve as an adequate conservation measure in preserving north Atlantic stocks of fish, will the minister inform the house of the nature of any proposals which may be advanced for limiting our fishing efforts off our
8976	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry offshore banks when the northeast Atlantic fisheries committee next meets in Halifax?
Kon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is being reviewed by the international convention of the north Atlantic fisheries, whose responsibility it is to recommend regulations applicable in that particular area.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. Has any thought been given to proposing the adoption of closed seasons or quotas in certain periods of the year in some of the known heavy spawning areas, such as Georges bank, Browns bank and Sable island?


Mr. Robichaud:: Not to my knowledge.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State; I think he is the proper minister in this particular regard. Because the concluding date for the acceptance of centennial projects is rapidly drawing nigh-I believe it is November 9 but I am not certain of that-can the minister say whether there will be any exten-tion of this time limit?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that that date has been fixed by the Ontario government.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport concerning a very important and urgent matter. Will the minister make immediate representations to the board of transport commissioners against the proposed reduction in dayliner service on the Dominion and Atlantic Railway between Yarmouth and Halifax in view of growing public protest, including the protests of Acadia University students?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put this on the order paper.



CROP INSURANCE ACT


Harry William Hays: the second reading of Bill No. C-129, to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I go into a detailed explanation of the government's reasons for bringing in these amendments to the crop insurance program I would like to make a few general comments about the purposes of this program. I would like to point out, for example, that this is part of the government's whole economic policy, a policy intended to strengthen the whole economy of Canada by strengthening its individual segments.
While this particular program applies directly to our agricultural economy, we believe that because of the importance of agriculture to our whole economy this will have the broader effect of adding further stability to the economy of the country as a whole. In other words, this is a program that will benefit the people in our cities indirectly, while giving direct help to our farmers. We believe that with the protection afforded by this legislation the provinces will be able to expand their crop insurance programs as quickly as they feel it is warranted. We hope this will encourage every province to participate eventually, because of the obvious advantage, in a Canada-wide program. By spreading the risks in any one year over wide areas and a variety of crops, good crops in one section of the country will offset the effect on the federal reinsurance fund of poor crops in other areas.
As I have already indicated, while the main purpose is to provide protection for our farmers, wide crop insurance coverage will provide a new economic buffer against the effects of wide variations in farm income on the economy of the country as a whole. Crop failure in one section of Canada has its initial economic impact in the immediate area of the crop failure. But we all know that a chain reaction sets in as well, a chain reaction that eventually spreads through the whole economy by reducing purchasing power and often affecting employment in other industries. It should be obvious that anything that can be done to level out the great variations in farm income, variations which are due to natural causes beyond human control, will have a beneficial effect on all parts of our economy.

I should like to point out another aspect of this program which we believe is of as much importance to the taxpayers in our cities as to our farmers. In fact, since there are so many more taxpayers in our cities these days than there are in the country, maybe this aspect of the program is of even greater importance to our city people than to our farmers.
I am referring to the fact that this is not a subsidy program. Like the farm credit programs which this government has either expanded or initiated at this session, this program is designed to give our farmers the kind of essential help they need while at the same time costing our taxpayers virtually nothing in the long run. This government is not afraid to provide subsidies where they are needed, but we believe that wherever assistance required by our people can be provided on a self sustaining basis this is the approach that should be taken. We believe that the role of government should be as an instrument through which our people cooperate to help each other improve their living standards, and we believe the program envisaged by this legislation supports that kind of government role.
As early as 1959, even before the first crop insurance agreement was signed, there were clear indications that the provinces were not satisfied with the original federal role in this program. The minister of agriculture for Manitoba, Hon. George Hutton, indicated that without some provision for federal reinsurance of provincial risks he could not see how his province could make crop insurance available to a large percentage of insurable farmers. Other provinces also indicated that despite the provision in the existing legislation for emergency federal loans they could not risk the tremendous impact which a disaster year might have on their over-all fiscal positions. Their big worry was that large loans from the federal government to cover crop insurance indemnities to farmers in a disaster year would have a bad effect on their borrowing powers for all other government purposes. They also pointed out that in times of widespread crop failure provincial revenues for all purposes were sharply reduced, making it that much harder to contend with the demands of heavy crop insurance payments.
From the beginning the provinces operating crop insurance programs have been careful to limit the amount of insurance sold in any year, either by applying their programs to limited areas or by placing a ceiling on
Crop Insurance Act
the total liability to be accepted, so that in the event of heavy losses they would not be financially embarrassed. Crop insurance rates have been calculated on a basis considered actuarially sound, not only by provincial officials but by my department and the department of insurance.
I should also point out that these amendments will mean no change in premiums now paid by the farmers. The existing premium rate was set on a sound insurance basis; therefore the present premiums will provide provincial insurance funds with the capital necessary to pay reinsurance premiums to the federal government.
The provincial reinsurance premiums paid to the federal government will, over the long pull, equal what the federal government pays the provinces to help pay crop insurance indemnities in high loss years. Under the proposed amendments, provincial involvement in any year will be limited to about 25 per cent of the total amount of insurance in force in any year. As an example, suppose a province sells $10 million worth of insurance, and that premiums, including the federal contribution, are 10 per cent of the total liability, or $1 million. While federal reinsurance rates have not as yet been established, let us consider the rate in this case to be 2J per cent of the total liability, or $250,000. The province pays the federal government a $250,000 premium for reinsurance coverage, leaving $750,000 in the provincial fund for the payments of indemnities.
Now let us suppose the worst possible thing happens; a complete failure occurs on all insured farms and $10 million has to be paid to the farmers. The province would pay out the $175,000 left in the provincial insurance fund first and assume responsibility for the deductible 2J per cent of the total liability, or $250,000. This would leave $9 million in indemnities still to be paid, of which the federal government would pay 75 per cent, or $6,750,000, and the province 25 per cent, or $2,250,000. The total provincial involvement would be the 2J- per cent deductible of $250,000, plus $2,250,000 paid in indemnities or a total of $2,500,000 or 25 per cent of the face value of all policies of insurance.
This is the maximum possible involvement of the province, assuming that every insured farmer has a complete crop failure. However, even in the prairie provinces where, because of peculiar and extreme climatic conditions, a great variation of year to year yields is experienced, there has only been one year,

Crop Insurance Act
1937, when provincial average yields fell below 30 per cent of long term average yields. As insurance coverage is limited to 60 per cent of long term average yields, it can be reasonably assumed that indemnities will never exceed one half of the total liabilities, and provincial involvement never more than 12J per cent of such liabilities.
The legislation permits provinces to protect themselves even further, if they want to. The legislation provides that a province may, if it so desires, reinsure its remaining 25 per cent involvement with agencies other than the federal government, and that these additional reinsurance premiums, provided they are approved by the federal government, may be paid from provincial crop insurance funds; that is, from premiums paid to the province by the insured farmers.
As I said earlier, we intend this in the long run to be a self supporting program, but to be honest it is hard to say at this early stage just what it might cost the federal government in any given year. However, as I have indicated, the federal reinsurance premiums will be most carefully calculated on a sound insurance basis. The legislation provides that the reinsurance premiums may be adjusted upward or downward if experience indicates such action to be necessary, and the premiums will be designed to equal, over a period of years, the amount of payments made to any province under a reinsurance agreement.
All our expectations in this, of course, as in all other agricultural programs, depend very greatly on the weather. Obviously if we have a lot of crop failures early in the scheme federal payments will exceed federal income from premiums. But if enough provinces enter the scheme and the weather is kind during the first few years, income from premiums will exceed insurance payments.
For an example we can consider what could happen in Manitoba if the crop experience of the last 35 years were to be repeated in the next 35 years. If disaster years like those experienced in the 1930's came early in the program, a $25 million insurance program in Manitoba could cost the federal government $400,000 a year in carrying charges for the interest free advances which would have to be made to the crop reinsurance fund from consolidated federal revenues. On the other hand, if the good crop experience of the 1940's in Manitoba should be repeated before disaster years like those of the 1930's, then the federal government would gain more than $100,000 a year in interest on credit balances

in the reinsurance fund. And if the entire weather and crop experience of Manitoba over the past 35 years were to be reversed in the next 35 years, the federal government would have a revenue of $350,000 a year from these credit balances. I think this example should show how hard it is to estimate the probable cost of this program in its early stages, but let me repeat that over the long haul we expect it to be self supporting.
Aside from requests for reinsurance, there has been very little provincial criticism of the present act. The question of the level of coverage provided by the Crop Insurance Act is not before us today because these amendments have no reference to that aspect of the program. However, there have been some suggestions that the 60 per cent coverage provided by the act is not high enough for certain crops. In this connection I should explain that the policy governing the amount of coverage provided is that we want to guarantee production costs only, and no attempt is to be made to cover the profit portion of crop returns by crop insurance.
We are quite prepared to consider any concrete proposals from the provinces for higher coverage of certain crops, provided of course that such proposals are in line with this policy. I should point out that the federal government has no authority to initiate any crop insurance program in any province. The right to help our farmers in this way is the privilege of the provinces. But we are confident that with these amendments the federal reinsurance program will be in a position to fit into any crop insurance program any province cares to develop for its farmers.
If experience should prove this assumption wrong, or if a need to raise the level of coverage should develop in the future, I will be prepared to recommend to this house whatever further amendments are necessary.
During the resolution stage of this debate certain hon. members argued that these amendments are a threat to the P.F.A.A. They saw this threat in the provision that grain growers, whose lands are insured under this program, may be entitled to a rebate of their P.F.A.A. deductions. I reject these arguments as completely unfounded. In the first place, if they were true of these amendments then they would also be true of the original act passed in 1959 with the support of all members of this house.
The provision exempting farmers who insure their crops from the P.F.A.A. levy was included in the original Crop Insurance Act,

and the provisions in these amendments are only intended to give that exemption a more rational application. Section 9 of the Crop Insurance Act, passed in 1959, provides that the cultivated land of a farmer is not eligible for P.F.A.A. payments if the crops on any part of his land are insured. It also provides that the initial payment made when he delivers his grain to the elevator should be exempt from the 1 per cent P.F.A.A. levy. However, apparently because the previous government was unable to solve the administrative problems involved, the original legislation did not exempt any interim payments or the final payment from the Canadian wheat board from the P.F.A.A. levy. We believe we have now worked out those problems of administration, and that is why we now propose to extend the exemptions as we believe they should have been extended in the first place.
Farmers who insured their crops in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been provided at the beginning of each crop year with cards issued by the crop insurance agencies. When presented to elevator agents, at the time of delivery of their grain, these cards exempted them from payment of the P.F.A.A. levy on the initial payment received at the elevator. These exemption cards were good only for the current crop year, and if a farmer dropped out of a crop insurance in any subsequent year he again became eligible for P.F.A.A. benefits and subject to the levy.
When the Crop Insurance Act was before the house in 1959 the then minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Calgary North, is reported at page 5231 of Hansard of June 29, 1959 as having said:
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River also asked why the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be ruled out. If a man has his crop insured under this scheme he will be getting a considerable return if he loses his crop and therefore he does not need P.F.A.A. payments. Hon. members must bear in mind that P.F.A.A payments are a form of drought relief. This has been extended to loss of crops from other causes but it is not an insurance scheme. It is essentially a relief scheme.
He went on:
If a farmer receives payment under the crop insurance scheme to which the dominion government has made a very considerable contribution there seems to be no good reason why he should also receive a form of relief under P.F.A.A. to which the federal government also makes a substantial contribution.
That is what the minister said in 1959 when piloting the act through the house, and certainly there was no indication then that he was trying to do away with P.F.A.A.
Crop Insurance Act
However, Mr. Speaker, the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have contended that we should exempt insured farmers from payment of the levy on interim and final payments as well as on the initial payments. They told us they found it difficult to sell insurance to some farmers because insured farmers still pay the levy on part of their returns from grain but could not benefit from P.F.A.A. in the event of crop loss. Under section 4 of this bill we are meeting the request of the provinces by providing that insured farmers will receive a rebate of any levy paid from time to time by way of deductions from interim and final payments.
In all fairness to the previous government, I think the minister had in mind exempting all the insured farmers' grain payments from the levy. In fact at one stage of the debate on the original bill he said:
At the same time, the farmer who comes in under the crop insurance scheme will not be required to pay the 1 per cent levy for Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments. In other words, he will neither pay into the prairie farm assistance fund nor will he be eligible to take money out.
However, I understand some difficulties were experienced because the P.F.A.A. levy on interim and final payments made by the wheat board is deducted from the net total amount of the pool before arriving at the price per bushel to be paid to farmers, and is not calculated individually for each farmer as is the case when the initial payment is made at the elevator. For this reason wheat board officials indicated it would be difficult to make adjustments for insured farmers when they were attempting to issue thousands of cheques with the least possible delay. As a result the original act when presented to the house only provided for exemption from the levy on initial payments.
We propose now to rebate to insured farmers at the end of each crop year the total amount of any levy which it is calculated was paid by each insured farmer on amounts received from time to time through the crop year from the wheat board. We propose that the wheat board, with the farmers' consent, will advise us at the end of each crop year of the total amount paid to each insured farmer. We will then calculate the amount of levy paid and refund this to the farmers concerned. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act at present only permits payment of awards to farmers to be made from the prairie farm emergency fund, This amendment will permit the rebates to insured farmers also to be made from the fund.

Crop Insurance Act
I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that any province establishing an area in which crop insurance is to be sold does not mean that all farmers in the area are denied P.F.A.A. Only insured farmers will be out of P.F.A.A. The others will still continue to pay the levy and be eligible for P.F.A.A. benefits as they have been in the past.
I would further point out that crop insurance will in no way affect the method of determining the eligibility of an area for P.F.A.A. payments. Even in an area where some farmers are insured, if P.F.A.A. payments are to be made to other farmers in that area the crop yields of the insured farmers will continue to be included in the calculation on which the P.F.A.A. payments are made. Yields from all farms, those insured as well as those not insured, will determine the average yield for the area just as is done at present under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
We believe this program will give our farmers a choice they have every right to enjoy. The farmers themselves can decide under which program they want to operate, the P.F.A.A. or crop insurance.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, having looked at the amendment to the Crop Insurance Act proposed by the minister I should like to say it meets the minimum requirement asked for by the province of Manitoba in particular, to afford some degree of protection against the possibility of substantial crop losses in any one given year. The success of the measure, of course, will depend largely on the type of agreement that will be entered into between the federal government and the provincial government in question. Since the actual amounts involved are not contained in the provisions of the bill, other than in broad outline, we will have to wait and see what type of agreement will be arrived at before we can determine the full effect of the proposed amendment.
However, this is not to say that we are not in favour of the amendment now before us. As I said at the resolution stage preceding the bill, I am looking forward to its implementation; because in my own province of Manitoba, where crop insurance has been in effect for several years, we have gained sufficient experience in the implementation of the crop insurance program to convince us that the program will and can be successful in insuring farmers against crop losses in any given year.

I am happy to see that Hon. George Hutton, who is largely responsible for the introduction of this measure in the province of Manitoba, is sitting in the gallery this afternoon, and I am sure he must be very happy that this bill is before the house. In the test areas that have been set up the province of Manitoba has been successful in covering about 35 per cent of the crops, and with the passage of this amendment the province will now be able to proceed further and within a period of two or three years should have the entire province covered, resulting in a total liability of something like $40 million. This is a considerable amount of money that is involved, and hon. members will appreciate the need for some assurance that in the event of a total crop loss the burden of responsibility will not fall entirely on the shoulders of the provincial government.
However, in saying that I feel quite certain we can take an attitude of optimism in predicting crop yields on the prairies in particular in the next number of years. As I said at the resolution stage, I feel that using P.F.A.A. records of crop yields in the past 35 years does not provide a useful guide. It is a very pessimistic approach to the crop yields that we can anticipate in the future because of the many advances that have been made in crop production techniques through the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and so on. It seems to me that in considering the application of this particular amendment we can take into consideration these factors which have affected crop yields.
I am glad to see that the minister is prepared to continue to look at the crop insurance program with a view to introducing further amendments if they are necessary in the light of experience gained. In the province of Manitoba a considerable amount of experience has been gained in the implementation of crop insurance. The Manitoba government has proceeded apace with the training of inspectors, field staff and administrative officers. I think one can appreciate the difficulty that is involved and the amount of time that is consumed in attempting to develop the type of organization that can effectively administer and carry out a crop insurance program. For example, I would mention the calculation of loss and the payment of indemnities. The suggested program did meet the requirements of the majority of the farmers within a province in the past.
During the debate on the resolution I was distressed to hear some of the comments made by members of the Social Credit party and

the New Democratic party intimating that the crop insurance program has not proven successful. I want to assure them that in the province of Manitoba the program has proven successful. When you take into consideration the administrative responsibilities, the task that is involved in training people to carry out a program, I think it is a credit to the province that they have been able to develop a program to the stage it is today.
There was some suggestion that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be amended so it could cover farmers on an individual basis. I hesitate to suggest that this could possibly have been done because, as the minister has pointed out, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was based on the principle of relief. It is difficult if not impossible to change a program that has as its basis the concept of relief, into one that is an actuarially sound group insurance program such as this is. This legislation is available also-and I should like to point this out to the members of the Social Credit party who have been complaining about this particular piece of legislation being applicable only to the western provinces-to any province within Canada that is willing to take advantage of it. I see no reason in the world why the farmers in those province which are not now covered by crop insurance cannot make representations to their governments to have this measure made applicable to their provinces so they may receive the benefits therefrom.
There was some suggestion also that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should not be discontinued. I am sure most farmers will realize that under this measure it is not being discontinued. As a matter of fact they have the best of two worlds. They are able to insure themselves under the crop insurance program and, at the same time, if they do not choose to become involved in the crop insurance scheme they are able to take advantage of what little assistance is available to them under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It is interesting to note that in some of the better crop areas in Manitoba the amount of money paid into the Prairie Farm Assistance Act by some farmers would cover a crop insurance program, and the benefits to be derived thereunder would be much greater. Instead of the $800 that is available under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act there would be a greatly increased amount available under the crop insurance program.
As the minister indicated, the intention under this legislation is to provide for reinsurance so the provinces will not bear the
Crop Insurance Act
brunt of responsibility for this program in the event of a severe crop loss. This responsibility will be shared by the federal government. On this basis we support the legislation and look for its early passage.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I was
not really sure what the attitude of the New Democratic party was, and perhaps this is true of members of the Social Credit party, until the hon. member for Provencher told us. This may or may not be the attitude of the New Democratic party, but I would advise the minister to be very careful of his assessment of the information supplied him by the establishment, because he will never have a better spokesman for the establishment than the hon. member who has just spoken. Perhaps this is something the minister should keep in mind.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is not going to apply to a great section of agriculture. It is discriminatory, like some other legislation, in that it will apply mainly to the large producers of a specific product. I believe the former government knew this, and I think the present government knows that this is a restriction in connection with this legislation. It will be applicable to a very small segment of agriculture. I should like to ask the minister, when he replies, to tell me the number of farmers to whom this crop insurance program applies now, and how much money will be represented by this provision relating to 75 per cent reinsurance.
I had an opportunity of meeting with a number of farmers and the minister of agriculture for Ontario in my own area last fall when we discussed the problem of crop insurance in northern Ontario. After the pros and cons had been discussed, it was interesting to note that it was felt impossible to apply crop insurance to the area because the farmers grew four or five different crops. If you are unsuccessful with your hay crop you will likely get a bumper grain crop. If you insure the potato crop the potatoes will probably turn out very well but you will lose some of your other root crops. It is very difficult, under those conditions to apply this type of legislation; and these conditions exist in most agricultural areas in Ontario.
Surely the minister was aware of this problem. He must have known that less than 10,000 farmers in Canada are insured under the federal crop insurance program, and that this crop insurance program was a failure. He must have known that there were many complaints by the provinces that changes


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, from the explanations which have been given to us by the minister respecting this reinsurance scheme it becomes all the more obvious that it is simply a measure to try to encourage provincial governments to expand their crop insurance schemes. During the course of the debate on the resolution stage many hon. members said that there seems to be a gap in the evolving of a crop insurance scheme that would be workable and acceptable to farmers all over Canada. As has been pointed out, only three provinces have experimented with crop insurance schemes, and this on a very limited scale.

I shall not repeat the debate we already had, because one or two further explanations which the minister gave this afternoon have set our minds at ease in some respects. He has said that this legislation, particularly that part of it which deals with the P.F.A.A. levy, will not in any way spur the withdrawal of P.F.A.A. from certain areas where it is now applicable. We understand, of course, that it does not provide for reimbursement of the levy to those farmers who are on insured land, particularly with respect to subsequent payments for grain. We realize the 1 per cent levy has already been exempted from their interim payments, and further than that I do not believe there is much more can be said at this time.
I hope all members of the house realize that until a workable program is evolved, based on the experiences the provinces have had, we will not reach the stage of having a comprehensive crop insurance scheme for farmers all over Canada. We shall need more experience from the expansion of the pilot projects already in effect. Even though only three provinces have made crop insurance available to some of their farmers on a limited scale, all the provinces have had the opportunity to set up pilot projects, with assistance from the federal government. I am not critical of the provinces for being timid or reluctant to go ahead with wide ranging schemes, because the risks, and the amount of money involved to meet those risks, would be beyond their resources in certain disaster years.
This bill will encourage the provinces to expand their schemes to some extent, and I hope with the experience gained in doing so it will not be too long before we have a comprehensive crop insurance scheme that will satisfy farmers all over the country.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to make a few comments on Bill No. C-129, which has just been brought before us.
I see that the purpose of the bill is to authorize the establishment of a crop reinsurance plan whereby those provinces operating a crop insurance plan may, if they so desire, reinsure part of their risks.
I merely want to point out to the house that if that reinsurance applies mostly to those few provinces already taking part in the crop insurance scheme, then I do not think the bill is worth much, if anything, to the province of Quebec, for its minister of agriculture
Crop Insurance Act
himself did not see fit to take part in the previous crop reinsurance plan, probably because the conditions set by the central government did not suit him. As regards the purpose the central government had in mind, and the same thing applies to several joint programs, it did not consult the provinces sufficiently or did not even consult them at all, since I find that only three of them availed themselves of this crop insurance.
In my opinion, it would have been advisable for this government to present a crop reinsurance plan more consistent with the needs of the whole province-if it is so intent in establishing joint plans-since it was asked to do away with this particular plan among several others. If we had wanted to keep on taking part in joint plans, it would have been necessary to request a report from every province to know at least the opinion of every provincial department of agriculture, in order to have uniformity of implementation, and therefore all the provinces would have probably been interested in these programs.
Looking at the report on joint programs for 1962, I wonder why the province of Quebec has never been interested in the crop insurance program.
I have gone through the list of products insured under this bill and I see that many Quebec products, such as maple sugar and other specific products have been left out. That is probably the reason why Quebec does not seem interested. This scheme has probably been thought out by people from the west who may be fine administrators but who always think of their own interests first.
As I said a moment ago, if the provinces had been consulted, perhaps Quebec would have suggested amendments which would have made the former crop insurance program more interesting for the province.
It is often said that the province of Quebec does not get its fair share. Once again, it can be seen in this bill, because if we figure out the benefits, we come out to zero because it is the same report as in 1962.
I think that at this stage of the discussion of this bill, we should look for some formula which would be acceptable to the province of Quebec while protecting the situation of the other provinces and even improving it. But the needs of agriculture in Quebec should not be overlooked. Our farmers could get assistance when all kinds of disasters hit the province of Quebec. Once their sowing is done, the farmers confide in divine Providence, but they still have to put up with the

Crop Insurance Act
poor weather conditions without any protection from provincial or federal government bodies.
We are more or less interested in Bill C-129. In its present form it would certainly be of no interest to the department of agriculture of the province of Quebec because it is said in black and white that this bill is of particular benefit to the provinces where the old crop insurance plan is in force.
Honestly, I wonder why the government asks us to discuss such a bill when they know very well that only three provinces received any benefit from this crop insurance scheme. As regards claims made by the province of Quebec when disaster strikes its crops, I think our province would have more regard for the federal government if it had an opportunity to put forward opinions and to propose conditions of participation in those schemes.
I should like to suggest to the present Minister of Agriculture that he should reconsider his bill, with a view to asking each province to submit a report on the possibilities of adopting a national program, if a type of national crop insurance is really to be established to protect the crops of all farmers. In my opinion, the Minister of Agriculture stands to lose nothing by asking the various departments of agriculture to submit a report, so that we, in parliament, may draw up an over-all program, instead of setting up a project which interests only a small number of provinces.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion on these amendments so far has really not been on them to any extent but on the merits or otherwise of the Crop Insurance Act to which these amendments apply. I think all of us interested in agriculture have been disappointed that greater advantage has not been taken of the Crop Insurance Act than has been the case. We have had complaints from two of the members who have spoken that there are only three provinces which have taken advantage of the act. It was understood at the time, and the minister has again pointed this out this afternoon, that any system of crop insurance must of necessity be run by the province because it comes within provincial jurisdiction. This federal Crop Insurance Act was put on the statute books for the specific purpose of encouraging the provinces, and providing help to any province that wished to do so, to set up a crop insurance act.

There had been for many years a demand on the part of farmers all over Canada for some type of crop insurance, and none of the provinces had been prepared to meet that need because of the possible large losses involved. Therefore we thought the only way it was possible to get a crop insurance scheme instituted in each of the provinces was to provide some form of federal assistance by which the federal government would provide part of the cost of such a scheme, and would provide the framework of a scheme into which the provinces could fit any individual scheme which would apply in their own province. This was done because it was realized-quite contrary to what the last speaker has just said.-that the agricultural conditions in the different provinces of Canada differed very widely indeed, and that a crop insurance scheme which would be satisfactory in Alberta, for example, would not be satisfactory in Quebec, and vice versa.
Therefore the scheme was drawn up very carefully so that it would be possible for each province to draw up a scheme of their own which would fit into the general provisions of the federal crop insurance scheme. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, statements along the line that have been made, that this crop insurance legislation is discriminatory, that it will only apply in certain provinces, that it will only apply to large farmers and not to small farmers, are not in accordance with the fact. The crop insurance scheme can be made to apply, if any particular province wants to do so, to any crop which is grown in that province, and the size of a man's farm is not the determining factor. It was hoped, as a matter of fact, when the scheme was introduced that a good many of the farmers in Quebec and Ontario growing specialty crops of various sorts-potatoes, apples, wheat, and so on-would come in under this scheme or that the provinces would set up schemes which would make it possible for them to participate.
I think there are two reasons in particular why the scheme has not been adopted more widely than it has. One is the fact that any new scheme takes a considerable amount of time to get into operation, for people to become accustomed to and willing to participate in. Particularly is this the case as far as agricultural plans of one kind and another are concerned. The second is that in all the provinces there was a considerable amount of fear that the provincial revenues might be very seriously and adversely affected if a widespread crop insurance scheme were

put into operation and a very disastrous crop year occurred in the first two, three, four or five years. The scheme was drawn up in a way which would make it actuarially sound over a long period of years, say 30 years, and I think everyone who has examined it is agreed that the scheme would carry itself. However, the provinces were naturally afraid that if they put it into operation and they had a bad year right off the bat they would incur large losses which would make their whole provincial financing difficult. The reinsurance provisions which are before us at the present time are designed to remove that fear in large measure, and I hope that the passage of this legislation will induce some of the provinces which have not gone into a crop insurance scheme so far to do so, and will encourage others who have to expand their operations considerably.
There is only one point I am wondering about in connection with the reinsurance provisions and that is the amount to which this legislation will increase the premiums which farmers will be required to pay. I have not yet heard anything which has made clear what that will be. There is no doubt that there will be some increased cost to the farmer in order to cover reinsurance on the part of the provincial government with the dominion government; I think the minister said there would be a premium of 2J per cent. However, I hope as I say that the increased cost involved will be very small, because undoubtedly just as with all insurance one of the reasons people hesitate to insure is frequently the cost involved. A large number of people in farming operations find this is true as far as hail insurance is concerned. Most of the farmers in areas subjected to hail have carried it for many years, but in areas not subjected fairly regularly to hail a large proportion of the farmers do not carry hail insurance, but take the gamble. The higher premium is of course a temptation to do that, and that is one of the ways these amendments might work against themselves if it means the cost will be increased to any appreciable extent.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see these reinsurance amendments provided and I trust they will produce the result it is hoped -a larger crop insurance coverage for farmers across Canada generally.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Crop Insurance Act
On clause 1-Agreements.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on clause 1 will be brief and to the point. I think the minister should be congratulated and I hope that he will carry the congratulations of the official opposition to his officials for the drafting of this legislation. It is understandable and it is clear. There is no necessity for us to ask that it go to committee and I think the experience of the officials concerned in this particular instance is well demonstrated in the bill.
The second point I wish to make is that so far as the general principle of crop insurance and these amendments are concerned, I regret very much that the previous administration was not able to complete its plans and bring this legislation before the parliament of 1962-63; but I am glad to say we welcome the legislation. I would add my words to those of the hon. member for Calgary North and the minister in saying that this is good legislation. It is designed to help the farmer who wants to put his farming operations on a business basis. Naturally, in the early years few farmers would want to use it; but as more and more become aware of its advantages more and more farmers will use it.
I think these amendments may make it possible in western Canada and the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular, for something between 50 to 70 per cent of the farmers to embark on this type of operation in the handling of their farming business. I hope the province of Alberta will realize there is some merit in this legislation and give the farmers there the opportunity of saying yes or no to it. It is not the job of the provincial government to decide what is good for the farmer individually. This legislation is aimed at the individual, and if the provincial government give the farmers the opportunity to use it it is up to the farmer as an individual to decide whether or not it is to his advantage to use it.
I hope that other provinces, including British Columbia with its fruits and small vegetables, will consider arranging plans to make this act help the farmers there who wish to take advantage of it; and I hope that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec may look even harder at their specialized and diversified farmers to see whether they too cannot find some protection under this act. In the maritime provinces, the province of Prince Edward Island is now using the legislation, and has shown aggressiveness in using it to help stabilize the incomes of their

Crop Insurance Act
farmers; I think the farmers in the potato industry recognize this now.
Therefore I would complete my remarks by saying that we have been over the legislation; we think it is well drafted; and outside of a few questions I think we can take the clauses of the bill fairly rapidly. I know they are hard to understand at first reading but after the explanation of the minister they make sense, and I thank the minister for his clear explanation on second reading, which has made it much easier for us in examining the bill at the committee stage.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of questions to ask the minister. The first one arises from the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval in which he criticized the bill in so far as it did not provide for the other provinces. The explanatory notes to the bill read as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the establishment of a crop reinsurance plan whereby those provinces operating a crop insurance plan may, if they so desire, reinsure part of their risks under such plan.
My first question, Mr. Chairman, is this: In view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval, would the minister inform the committee whether this bill covers any province which later establishes a crop insurance plan? My second question is: Can he give the committee any information as to the number of farmers who have crop insurance in each province which is now operating a crop insurance plan?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, Nova Scotia has enabling legislation. Prince Edward Island is using the act; also Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and I believe Alberta has just recently passed enabling legislation. There are some 8,600 farmers in Canada who have taken advantage of this legislation and the total value of crops insured amounted to $18 million. So far as other provinces are concerned, earlier this year a conference was held with representatives of the provinces, including Quebec, to discuss all aspects of crop insurance, and in particular any changes which might be made to improve the federal role in this program. No concrete crop insurance proposals have been received from the province of Quebec. The representatives attending that meeting indicated that the province is studying the development of a program which would meet the particular needs of the farmers in Quebec. We will be pleased, of course, to give immediate consideration to any provincial proposals placed before us. Perhaps that

answers the question raised by the hon. member for Roberval.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answer. Do I understand correctly from that answer, that if you reach agreement with any province in respect of crop insurance plans it will be covered by this act?


Harry William Hays: That is so. We have discussed this with the officials of all the provincial departments of agriculture in Canada, who had rough drafts of what we are now proposing. We invited their interest and suggestions in so far as drafting this legislation was concerned.
I do not think I would be saying something out of school if I indicated that the minister of agriculture for the province of Manitoba is here this afternoon and has sent me a note saying that it was a pleasure to be here during my speech on this bill. He pointed out that crop insurance is the cornerstone of Manitoba agricultural policy, and that he would have to wait until his experts had studied this bill. He felt, however, that we had given to Manitoba exactly what they were asking for.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to clarify one point before concurring in the complimentary remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval. As I understand the amendment to the act in respect of reinsurance, there will be a premium paid by the province. What will the rate be in this regard, and will it be subject to negotiations with each province?


Harry William Hays: I did not quite understand the first part of the hon. member's question. Would you repeat it please?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: What will be the premium payable by the provinces in respect of this reinsurance scheme?


Harry William Hays: It will be difficult to determine just exactly what the rate will be. I suppose over the long haul only experience will indicate the proper amount. In the statement I made during the second reading stage I used a figure of 2J per cent as an example, but I suppose it will be something less than that.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Was the figure of 2\ per cent arrived at by negotiation?


Harry William Hays: No, I just used that figure as an example.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: In other words, the rate could vary upwards or downwards from 2\ per cent?


Harry William Hays: That is right.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The success of this arrangement then is dependant upon agreements being reached between the province and the government, is that right?


Harry William Hays: That is correct. I could go back over that part of my statement, if you wish.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: That will not be necessary, Mr. Chairman. I remember the statement made by the minister. I presume the rate would have to be set at the beginning of each crop year, and that it could not be set during or after harvest at a time when the amount of losses or claims would be known, is that right? Or are you going to follow some other method of setting the rate?


Harry William Hays: It is very difficult to indicate exactly what the cost will be. I am unable to give the hon. member an accurate answer in that regard. I must say that the rate will be set as a result of experience. At this time I do not know exactly what the amount will be, although I used the 2J per cent figure in my example.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think it is customary, during our consideration of a bill clause by clause, for the minister to have his officials in front of him in order that they may give the technical information required to answer the type of question that is being asked. Those officials should be asked to come down.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could put this to the minister. As I understand the situation, there is not going to be a standard agreement, but an agreement with each province which decides to come under the scheme, is that right? The agreements may be basically the same, but they will vary by reason of the conditions which prevail in each province, as a result of the different types of agricultural activity engaged in by the provinces. The agreements will be tailored to fit the requirements of the different provinces, is that correct?


Harry William Hays: That is correct. The agreements will of course have to be determined on an actuarial basis.


Gerald William Baldwin: I assume the premiums are subject to change, so the agreements may well be changed year by year on an actuarial basis, computed on the actual experience
Crop Insurance Act
year by year. There will be trials and errors and the premiums may be changed from one year to the next, am I correct in that assumption?


Harry William Hays: The premiums would have to be established on an actuarial basis, so what you have said does follow.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, why was the figure of 2J per cent contained in the bill if there was no intention of actually using that figure?


Harry William Hays: To which clause are you referring?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The figure is referred to in 4B (1) (c).


The Chairman:: Order. I should like to remind hon. members of the fact that we are now considering clause 1. Perhaps the point raised by the hon. member for Proven-cher might be raised when we are considering clause 2.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) has had the opportunity, since last February, to get in touch with the provincial authorities regarding the amendment to the Crop Insurance Act, is he now in a position to tell us how many provinces, apart from those which are already subscribing to it, will take part in the federal program a year from now? Has the minister had any indications and can he supply us with information on the matter?
Mr. Chairman, hon. members are aware of the fact that the Crop Insurance Act will have to be proclaimed by the provincial authorities, and that the federal government is providing the provinces with the possibility of setting up their own crop insurance plans under the proposed amendment. But what we would like to know, so that we can tell our farmers, is whether the minister is now in a position to tell us how many provinces are likely to be taking part in the crop insurance program within a year.


Harry William Hays: It would be very difficult for me to say at this point, although some indication has been given in respect of three, and two have passed enabling legislation. The hon. member for Calgary North pointed out that fact, and we are quite prepared to consider any suggestion the provinces make in so far as this legislation is concerned. Your question is rather difficult to answer. We hope that more of them will participate.

Crop Insurance Act


Clément Vincent: So, Mr. Chairman, we may say that before long at least five Canadian provinces will participate in that crop insurance program.
Have the other provinces, however, Quebec included-and I am told that Quebec does not intend to participate immediately, even if the proposed amendment is carried-asked for other amendments or requested from the Minister of Agriculture or from the federal government additional assistance so as to be able to participate in that program, or have they preferred to maintain the status quo and do nothing in that connection?


Harry William Hays: So far as Quebec is concerned, their representative at the meeting indicated that the province is studying the development of a program. I dealt with the second question in speaking on second reading. The only question that was raised was the 60 per cent level of assistance, which I dealt with at some length in the remarks I made on second reading.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us if the province of Quebec, which is now considering the possibility of establishing its own crop insurance program, intends to participate in the federal-provincial program or if it prefers to receive a fiscal compensation and establish its own scheme?


Harry William Hays: I could not answer that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Crop reinsurance fund.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, would the minister now be prepared to answer the question I posed to him on clause 1 with respect to the reason why the 2J per cent figure was inserted in the bill, if it is not actually to be followed?


Harry William Hays: The 2J per cent figure to which the hon. member refers is the liability to the province, but it has nothing to do with the premium cost.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the question of this scheme being founded on sound actuarial tables. In view of the great diversity of conditions that exist across Canada from one province to another, and even within short distances within provinces, and the great diversification of crops

with circumstances varying from one crop to another, is there any research work being done by the department in order, as the result of the research and the experience gained, to establish finally a crop insurance scheme on what are considered sound actuarial tables?


Harry William Hays: I think I can definitely say yes to that. The economics division is studying the matter and we are working with the provinces. We hope to be able to improve the program from time to time and we are anxiously awaiting their findings in so far as this matter is concerned.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, now that the minister has his officials before him I feel I should come back to my original question. Is it not good business practice to set the rate that we in Ottawa are going to charge each province for reinsurance? Each province, and I am thinking particularly of Manitoba, sets its rate annually in advance. The farm test areas in the scheme are given that figure. Of course it is on a voluntary basis. Does it not seem reasonable to the minister that the province likewise should know it has to pay a certain percentage of the total premiums or total coverage? I agree with the hon. member for Provencher who said it might vary from year to year, but I think that good business practice would require that it be established in the spring. We would naturally like to have that information because the provincial governments would like to have it in order to see how much protection they are going to get under the reinsurance scheme. Has the minister any comment?


Harry William Hays: My officials tell me that it will be worked out on an actuarially sound basis, and that it will be worked out with the officials of the provinces. They will determine how much insurance is going to be sold and on this basis the premium will be indicated before the particular crop year begins.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The rate we are going to charge the provinces will be set in advance?


Harry William Hays: Yes.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Will this rate be based on the volume of insurance coverage for which the province subscribes, or will it be set on the basis of the premiums that the province collects? The volume of insurance might be $4 or $5 million and the premiums collected would be considerably smaller. I should like to know on which basis the rate will be set.


Harry William Hays: It would be based on the same principle on which their rates are based.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On the volume.


Harry William Hays: However they do it.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: It is on the volume.


Harry William Hays: Then this is the way they would do it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it is reasonably satisfactory for the minister to say they are going to set the rates on a basis that will be actuarially sound, but to do this of course they will first of all have to have some experience to find out what the rate will be. In the initial stages there must be a rate that they anticipate charging the provinces. Perhaps the minister could clear up this matter by giving us some indication of what they intend to charge when the scheme gets under way.


Harry William Hays: I should like very much to be able to give the figure but the figure has not yet been arrived at.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to pose a question to the minister based on figures which might be taken out of the new section 4B. Let us take the case of any one province where the total liability for which the province may be responsible to all farmers or all groups of farmers under the scheme in force in that province might be $10 million. I think the minister took that figure by way of example. Consequently, under subsection 1(c) of section 4B the amount to be deducted would be $250,000. To proceed, if the actual losses sustained in that province for that year were of the order of $1 million you would then take the $250,000 under paragraph (c) and add to it the premiums received by the province from the farmers, which for purposes of this illustration we can take as being $100,000. Then you add to that the reserve for the payment of indemnities. I am going to ask the minister when he replies to indicate if he has had any discussion in this regard with the provinces and to suggest what the contemplated reserve figure is, but let us assume for purposes of my illustration that it is $50,000. You will take the $250,000, the $100,000 and the $50,000, which makes a total of $400,000, and deduct this sum from the loss of $1 million, which leaves a net of $600,000. Under the scheme of insurance in effect the federal government would then repay to the province 75 per cent of $600,000. Is that hypothetical case correct?


Harry William Hays: That is correct.
Crop Insurance Act


Gerald William Baldwin: So in effect I suppose the 2J per cent is a rough figure arrived at as a sort of premium between the province and the federal government. It acts as a premium to that extent between the two governments.


Harry William Hays: I do not know just how to explain it, but it would be comparable to the deductible provision in an automobile policy.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Forbes:: Before you proceed I should like to ask a supplementary question on the same subject. Let us assume that the farmer is paying $1.25 per acre for crop insurance to the province of Manitoba, on which the federal government contributes 20 per cent and half the administration charges. What percentage of that premium is the federal government going to charge for reinsurance? That is the question.


Harry William Hays: We do not know the answer. I am not sure I understand your question.


Richard Elmer Forbes: I am using the actual figures that have been submitted from my own area in Manitoba. If the cost of crop insurance were $1.25 per acre, and you already contribute 20 per cent of that as well as paying half of the administrative costs, what the farmer wants to know is, that he is paying the province $1.25 per acre and what percentage of that is the federal government getting for reinsurance? I think this is important, if we are going to sell crop insurance to the farmers across the country. They want to know what it will cost provincially and federally.


Harry William Hays: Our officials say their best estimate would be probably 25 per cent.


Richard Elmer Forbes: I would say that I feel your officials should be able to estimate the cost because crop insurance has been in effect in Manitoba for four years. It covers 35 per cent of the farmers. Based on that experience, you should be able to tell what it is going to cost and be able to spell it out in the agreement with the provinces, so people will know where they are.


Harry William Hays: It will be.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Did I understand the minister correctly that the officials estimate the cost of reinsurance will be 25 per cent to the individual farmer? This is the inference I took out of the answer.


Harry William Hays: Not more, no; there will be no increase in cost at all.

Crop Insurance Act


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Does that mean there is no increase in the premiums paid by the farmers?


Harry William Hays: That is right.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: This reinsurance is a protection of the funds of the province. It is intended that the rates the farmers will pay will be the same. It is the same as the hail insurance companies because they always reinsure their risks for their own protection but that does not affect the original cost of the insurance. Is that correct, sir?


Harry William Hays: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the answer we just received I want to get a clarification because I feel there maj be some misunderstanding, particularly in view of the question asked by the hon. member for Dauphin. The hon. member for Dauphin asked what the farmer would have to pay by way of increase and the answer was 25 per cent. We all know this would really slap down the whole concept of crop insurance.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: It would kill it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Marquette says that it would kill it. I am simply pointing out that the second answer given by the minister was there would be no increased cost to the farmer because the province of Manitoba plans to pay it. Is that correct?


Harry William Hays: Out of the premium fund, with no change in the premium rates.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This puts us into the soup again. Either the province is going to pay it direct and not charge it to the fund, or the province is going to charge this reinsurance payment to the fund. I am speaking now to clause 3. If you look at clause 3, paragraph (C), you will find that you can now use these premium rates for reinsurance of the liability. The province is permitted to take the cost of this reinsurance out of the fund. I am concerned about not letting any unfortunate impression go from this committee. The minister says the individual farmer will pay no more. This means, then, that the province has plans to pay this premium because it is the provincial credit you are trying to protect. If the province takes advantage of this paragraph (C), then it will cost the farmer more,

but certainly not 25 per cent. This is the point I was trying to get cleared up.


Richard Elmer Forbes: My understanding is that out of the premiums the farmers pay to the province, the province would in turn contribute 25 per cent of the premium to the federal government for reinsurance.


Harry William Hays: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
(a)	to reduce the length of time a seaman must be disabled before compensation is payable to him;
(b)	to increase the maximum amount payable as burial expenses for a seaman who dies from an injury;
(c)	to provide that the compensation payable for or to dependant children of a seaman who dies from an injury may, with the approval of the merchant seamen compensation board, be paid to each such child under the age of 21 years who is attending school;
(d)	to increase the minimum rate of compensation required to be paid to an injured seaman for temporary or permanent total disability; and
(e)	to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of additional compensation to the widows and dependant children of seamen who died prior to 1st June, 1957 from injuries; and to make certain other amendments for the better administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act was first passed by parliament in 1946. Its purpose was to provide compensation to seamen who were not entitled to coverage under provincial workmen's compensation acts or under the federal Government Employees Compensation Act. This act has been amended on two occasions since that time, in 1952 and 1957. The purpose of these former amendments was to bring the level of benefits under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act in line with the level of benefits available under the workmen's compensation acts, particularly in the

maritime provinces. At the present time it is found desirable also to amend the act for the purpose of bringing the present benefits in line with those contained in the benefit provisions of legislation in the maritime provinces. This is the first purpose of these amendments.
The second is to apply retroactively the present provisions of the act to widows of deceased seamen and their dependants and, in a number of cases, to orphans who were in receipt of benefits established under the amendments made prior to 1957. What we are seeking to do, as will be noted in the resolution, under this particular aspect is to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of additional compensation to widows and dependant children of seamen who died from injuries prior to June 1, 1957.
It might illustrate that particular aspect of this resolution to indicate that there are 16 widows at present in receipt of pensions of $45 to $50 a month, established under old awards, when at the same time the provisions of the present act provide for pensions of $75 a month. Our purpose is to bring these old awards in line with the present provisions. This will affect 16 widows, principally located in the Atlantic provinces.
There are also involved 20 dependants of these particular widows, currently in receipt of $15 a month. On behalf of each of these dependants the retroactive provision would bring this to $25 a month. There are 20 dependants and there are also five orphans, and the purpose is to apply a similar provision to them.
We intend to pay for these retroactive payments out of the consolidated revenue fund because there is no special fund available under the administration of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, and we do this in accord with the practice of the provinces which, when retroactive payments are sought, pay them out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Possibly I should provide a little more detail with respect to raising the level of benefits to the comparable levels prevailing in the provinces. In order that certain benefits payable under the act may compare more favourably with current rates and trends in workmen's compensation provisions, we propose that the following changes be made:
(a)	That the allowance of $25 per month for a child be extended to age 21 from age 18, if attending school.
(b)	That the allowance of $35 per month for an orphan child be extended to age 21
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act from age 18, if attending school. These two provisions are to bring our benefits in line with those prevailing in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
(c)	That the allowance for funeral expenses be increased from $200 to $300.
(d)	That the maximum amount of earnings to be used for the purposes of computing compensation be raised from $4,500 to $5,000 per year so that the amount of compensation for total temporary disability or for total permanent disability be increased from $15 to $25 per week, except where earnings have been less than this amount.
(e)	That the waiting period be reduced from four days to three days for the purpose of paying compensation to disabled seamen.
In essence, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is twofold; to raise the level of benefits under the present act and bring them in line with the trends and standards in the Atlantic provinces, which was a stated principle when the act was first introduced, second, to apply the present provisions to old awards to widows and dependants in receipt of benefits less than the present awards, and finally, to pay these retroactive payments out of the consolidated revenue fund.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Was any consideration given to bringing the levels of these payments up to the levels paid in the other maritime province of Canada, the province of British Columbia? I notice the minister has confined it entirely to the Atlantic provinces. Is there some discrepancy between what is paid in B.C. and what is paid in the other maritime provinces?


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe the province of British Columbia is going to extend to the Atlantic very shortly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The number of claims
arising on behalf of seamen from B.C. is very small under this particular act, and that is so because the compensation act in B.C. applies to seamen from that province. Because of the very limited number of claims the practice has been to relate the benefits to the benefits applicable in the provinces from which the bulk of the claims arises.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, we in the official opposition appreciate the minister's concise and informative explanation on resolution stage of these amendments to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. As he has stated, this is simply a matter of bringing the act into line with the present conditions, and
8992	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act of raising the benefits paid to seamen, particularly in the maritime provinces of the dominion.
In keeping with our policy in the official opposition of not holding up the proceedings of the house on resolution stage we are quite prepared to move on at this particular juncture.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to join with the hon. member for Wellington South in congratulating the minister for introducing these amendments, but I believe it would have been to the advantage of seamen if the west coast had been taken into consideration when the rates were being calculated. However, I am sure this would cause the other maritime provinces to put some strain on the minister, if there were equalizing of the two areas.
This is the type of legislation which the province of Ontario has needed for many years, but which it has not seen fit to introduce, in order to bring compensation rates up to date for dependants of deceased employees. In certain cases the rate of benefit was originally calculated when wages were not high and this has resulted in discrepancies between the payments made to two benefactors suffering the same type of accident, solely because of the time factor. From my own experience I know of a person in Ontario receiving total disability pension of only $80 a month, while a fellow workman engaged in the same type of employment, and suffering an accident at a later date, receives $240 to $250 a month for exactly the same injury.
The fact that the minister has introduced this legislation is a good thing because we believe it will extend the principle of equalizing the amounts paid to those who are injured in similar circumstances. It is also good to note that this measure increases funeral benefits and raises children's allowances, the latter because children stay at school longer nowadays.
The minister is to be congratulated on introducing these amendments because this gives labour across the country an opportunity of saying to provincial governments that the federal government, which has some jurisdiction in this field, has produced more progressive legislation than they have. I would like to ask him whether this will result in the re-evaluation of pensions previously granted to disabled seamen?
There must be a calculable amount of money to provide a minimum standard for a seaman with 100 per cent disability, and


this will change as we increase the amount we allow as permissible income. Will this result in a re-evaluation of previous pensions, and will this also be paid from the general treasury? I believe it should, and I would like to know if the idea is being carried to the extent of re-evaluation of pensions in terms of present day costs of living.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One principal effect of these amendments is to adjust upwards the pensions received by widows, their dependants and orphans, in a number of cases- five cases, to be exact. No provision had been made in the previous amendment to scale upwards, in accord with an improved level of benefits, the awards granted previously. So really the upward revaluation in this case with respect to these categories is to bring them in line with other provisions.
Second, of course, we have not changed the actual rates of current benefits under the present act, but are proposing to make various improvements; for example, an increase of $100 in the payment to be made for funeral expenses on behalf of a deceased seaman.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister whether it is his intention to revalue awards; because I think he will agree that when you see fit to revalue the amount paid to a widow or to the children, and lengthen the period of time a child may attend school with compensation, you have really taken a forward look in the whole pension structure and have brought up to date certain sections of it.
Does the minister contemplate revaluing, in the near future, past claims? I do not know how many people this applies to in terms of seamen, because I am not familiar with the number that would be involved; but I am thinking of the case where a man, for example, may have lost a leg when he was earning $100 a month, and receives perhaps a $25 pension. If he were working now and his wages amounted to $200, the pension benefit would today be $50, obviously. I think if we are bringing up to date some of these benefits, the minister should be prepared to say that he hopes to consider, if not now, then later, the revaluation of the whole pension structure; because I believe the need is very great for those living on pension today. This has been done in the case of the Minister of Veterans Affairs; there has been an adjustment in this regard. I wonder whether the minister is contemplating doing this in the very near future as far as the workmen's compensation act is concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the basic principle underlying this act is that the benefits should in general conform to those prevailing in the workmen's compensation laws in the maritime provinces, because we are really picking up the individuals who are not normally covered by the provincial compensation acts. I stated to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that there had been a limited number of claims. I find that the correct expression would be that there have been virtually no claims from British Columbia. Whether these statements are synonymous or not, I do not know; but certainly we have not been obliged to take into account the level of benefits prevailing in British Columbia because there have been virtually no claims from that province. I am advised that there are no disabled seamen now in receipt of pensions, and for this reason no adjustment would be necessary in this regard.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time only to express support for the resolution that is now before the committee. I believe it is gratifying to have a measure come along every once in a while with regard to which it appears there will be unanimity of opinion and support. I am sure it is because of the nature of this particular resolution that it is gaining that support today. The minister referred to the fact that it is just a limited number who will be affected by this particular legislation, but I am sure we all realize that although there may be just a limited number, yet it is of vital importance to that limited number that they receive benefits sufficient to enable them to live in decency and in a measure of comfort. I believe it is a good thing to relate all these pensions to the cost of living index, because naturally when there is an increase in the cost of living the amount a person may be receiving is decreased in value in relation to its purchasing power. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise only to support this resolution that is now before us.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to congratulate the minister on behalf of our group for having increased or readjusted the amount of the pension as proposed, which is the object of the resolution now under consideration.
He pointed out to us that he used provincial standards as a basis, but there is one item about which I wonder if he really con-
Labour Conditions
sidered the standards of each province, and that is the one about funeral expenses.
The minister feels that the increase of $100 is monstrous, but I think that it is very little, unless the provinces concerned have extremely low standards with regard to funeral expenses, for we in Quebec have a $500 standard to defray the actual burial expenses.
Considering the cost of burial and the expenses incurred following the death of a seaman, it is obvious that the sum of $300 is not enough.
I am not familiar with costs in the other provinces, but if the minister reconsidered the question, he would understand that an amount of $500 would be quite reasonable in Quebec.
As far as that clause is concerned, I do not see why a veteran would not benefit from the same advantages. As for the other provisions, I suppose the minister felt the amount in question is proportionate to the cost of living in the other provinces.
I do not intend to speak too long about this resolution. I merely wished to draw the attention of the house to the cost of burial, because I know something about that.
On the whole, we are quite satisfied with the proposed adjustment and I am sure that those concerned will appreciate the change.

Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacEachen thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-131, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve of convention No. Ill concerning discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, which was adopted by the international labour conference on the 25th of June 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to recommend to the house that it approve this important international labour convention. Following its approval by parliament we propose to proceed to ratify the convention immediately thereafter.

Labour Conditions
This convention was adopted by the international labour conference in 1958 and since then it has been ratified by 45 member countries. The convention seeks to promote efforts throughout the world to remove discrimination in employment and occupation based on grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, and to promote equality of opportunity. When a member country ratifies this convention it assumes an obligation to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect to employment and occupation with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof. In ratifying the convention a member country must also report to the I.L.O. regularly on the manner in which the policy is being observed.
The subject matter of this convention is partly within federal and partly within provincial jurisdiction. The obligation imposed by this convention, however, unlike some other I.L.O. conventions, rests essentially on the federal government. An I.L.O. committee of experts which has reviewed this convention states that it is possible for the federal authorities in federal states to give effect to this convention by, and I quote, "declaring a national policy and by pursuing it through methods appropriate to existing constitutional practice; for example, by taking direct legislative or other action in areas which are within the competence of the federal authorities, and by exercising their influence in other areas through educational measures, co-operation between employers and workers organizations, and other appropriate agencies as envisaged by the convention."
Clearly an anti-discrimination policy has been and is being pursued in Canada at the national level. It is implemented through a number of federal statutes. The Canada Fair Employment Practices Act has the expressed purpose of preventing discrimination in employment in the industries under federal jurisdiction, and the fair wages order in council sets forth a similar policy as regards work on federal government contracts. The Female Employees Equal Pay Act applicable to industries under federal jurisdiction prohibits differences in rates of pay based solely on the sex of the employee. The principle of non-discrimination in the placement operations of the national employment service is set out in the Unemployment Insurance Act. The federal-provincial agreements under both

the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act contain clauses providing that assistance will be available without discrimination because of the racial origin or religious views of the person seeking such service. The Civil Service Act specifically expresses a non-discrimination policy in public employment in that the provisions authorizing the civil service commission to prescribe qualifications states that in so doing it shall not discriminate against any person by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion. The Department of Labour undertakes educational measures aimed against discrimination in employment with the advice and co-operation of employers, workers and other organizations.
So much for the position at the federal level. To ascertain the position within the provinces the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) wrote to each provincial premier to ask for confirmation that the province is pursuing by methods considered appropriate within the province a policy of promotion of equality of opportunity and treatment in respect to employment and occupation within the spirit of the convention. Hon. members will be pleased to learn that the response to the Prime Minister's communication to the provincial premiers was positive. We have received confirmation from all the provinces that they are pursuing policies to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation.
Having received this assurance hon. members will, I am sure, agree that the time is now ripe for Canada to support this international effort to remove all forms of discrimination in the field of employment. Ratification of this convention has been recommended by a number of voluntary organizations interested in human rights. In particular the Canadian Labour Congress has made a substantial contribution toward the objectives of this convention and I want to express appreciation for this.
I am pleased to be able to remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian employer, worker and government representatives all played a significant part in framing the text of the discrimination convention at the 1958 I.L.O. conference. The text was developed by a conference committee, the chairman of which was Mr. Arthur H. Brown, then deputy minister of labour for Canada. The committee was tripartite, and the leader of the workers' group and vice chairman of the committee was Mr. Kalmen Kaplansky, director of international affairs for the Cana-

dian Labour Congress. Mr. Kaplansky was thus the principal spokesman for labour in the I.L.O. member countries on this subject. In the previous year, 1957, when the conference committee gave first discussion to the proposed convention, Mr. Kaplansky was also vice chairman of the committee for the workers' group, and the employers' vice chairman was Mr. Allan Campbell, vice president in charge of industrial relations of Canadian Westinghouse, the Canadian employer delegate at the 1957 conference. Thus Canadian representatives were spokesmen for the workers and employers of the world in framing the convention against discrimination in employment and occupation. Canadians having been so active in the drafting of this international instrument, I am glad the time has come for us to take the steps leading to its ratification.
At last year's I.L.O. conference, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that one of the reports described the progress being made within I.L.O. member countries, in accordance with the provisions of the convention, to eliminate the evil of discrimination in employment. The conference approached the subject in an atmosphere of some considerable tension, since the newly-independent African states had chosen this particular session as the occasion to demonstrate vigorously their disapproval of the racial policy practised by the South African government. The report contained a significant and sobering statement to the effect that no member country is entirely free of the evil of discrimination in employment.
The struggle against discrimination, then, must be a continuing one. The legislation which has been enacted in Canada must be seen as part of this continuing struggle, and not as evidence that the struggle has been finally won. As part of this continuing struggle the government of Canada, using every media at its disposal, has conducted a continually expanding program of educational publicity, to assist in removing the attitudes of mind that give rise to acts of discrimination.
Ratification of this convention does not constitute a declaration that we in Canada are entirely free of the evil of discrimination in employment, but it is an affirmation that the policy of Canada, at the federal level and and at the provincial level, is directed against discrimination in employment. Ratification of the convention will act as a spur to greater efforts to eliminate any discrimination which exists within Canada, and it will demonstrate 20220-569
Labour Conditions
our support of the international campaign to achieve this same objective in other parts of the world.
I	hope, and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will have the unanimous support of the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed that the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the government have been successful in obtaining the approval of the provinces to ratify this convention passed by the I.L.O. in June of 1958, and that they have voiced their opinions against discrimination in employment and occupation which may occur from time to time in the federal field of jurisdiction.
I too wish to join the Minister of Labour in commending the human rights committee of the Canadian Labour Congress who worked diligently, and its very effective members who, on many occasions, having had discriminations in this field brought to their attention, have referred them to the government. In Canada, as the Minister of Labour has pointed out, we have very few cases under federal jurisdiction where discrimination is practised in employment. During my term of office I experienced only two or three cases of this kind in approximately six years. However, in each case we certainly brought to the attention of the employers the fact that here in Canada we will not tolerate any discrimination in this area whatsoever.
It is to be noted that we have a peculiar situation in Canada in that we have provincial jurisdictions. Consequently we have to obtain provincial approval in respect of any of these conventions passed by the I.L.O. There may be criticisms that we have not approved as many of these conventions as we should have over the past years, but because of the peculiar circumstances here, because of provincial jurisdiction, and because many of these conventions which are put forward do not apply in practice in Canada, we have not approved as many as perhaps some people feel we should have.
A great many more countries which participate in the I.L.O. should adopt some of these conventions, which apply in practice to their countries; however, they have failed to do so. When one looks over the schedule of what has been done in the past he will note that some of these things which have been condemned by the I.L.O. are being practised in many countries. It is significant to me that many of the countries where the practice of discrimination, as condemned by the I.L.O. convention, is to be found, have failed to adopt

Labour Conditions
the principles recommended by the conventions. I am sure that all of us in Canada who do not wish to tolerate any discrimination in this area at all will be glad to support this resolution and give it our blessing.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we too should like to join with the present Minister of Labour (Mr. (MacEachen), and the former minister of labour, in expressing our pleasure that the house is being given the opportunity to approve the ratification of the convention of the I.L.O. against discrimination in employment and occupation. I am sure we are all aware of how important in the world today is the issue of discrimination, and particularly discrimination on the ground of race. I am sure we are all aware that the chances of holding our world together might well depend on the capacity of mankind to eliminate all of the practices of discrimination that have been so black on the pages of human history. We were delighted that the I.L.O. conferences of 1957 and 1958 approved of the convention now before us, and we are pleased that a recommendation for its ratification is now being made to parliament.
In a way that is partly personal I should like to express my pleasure at the tribute paid by the present Minister of Labour and the former minister of labour to those of the Canadian Labour Congress who worked very hard for the adoption of this convention at the international labour organization conferences in 1957 and 1958. I am delighted that the Minister of Labour made special mention of the name of Mr. Kalmen Kaplansky, who was the leader of the workers' group that dealt with this matter in 1957 and again in 1958 and who, along with Mr. Arthur Brown and others, played a very active part in promoting this convention and piloting it through the various stages at the two conferences. We mention these two conferences of 1957 and 1958 because, as most hon. members are aware, an I.L.O. convention does not come into effect until it has been approved at two of the conferences of that international body.
Behind the efforts of the representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress at the I.L.O. conferences of 1957 and 1958 lie a number of years of very diligent work in this field. As the present and former ministers, and other hon. members of the house who have relations with labour will know, both the congresses which in 1956 united to form the Canadian Labour Congress, formed human rights committees a number of years ago. These committees worked very hard to get

legislation in the provinces and at the federal level which would outlaw discrimination. They also worked very hard to have steps taken which would lead to the passing of conventions and recommendations by the I.L.O.
Since names are being mentioned, I think it might be appropriate for me to remind hon. members that Mr. Claude Jodoin, who is now president of the Canadian Labour Congress, some years before he attained the high position in the labour movement he has now attained, was the first chairman of the human rights committee set up by the former trades and labour congress of Canada. Frank Hall is another individual whose name has been very closely linked to human rights efforts over the years. There are many others who were members of the former congresses and who have made very outstanding contributions since the Canadian Labour Congress was brought into being in 1956.
It was quite significant therefore that Mr. Kaplansky, who had played a very important part in these committees and in co-ordinating the work of the committees of the two former congresses, should have found himself in the position of being the chairman of the workers section of the tripartite committee at Geneva in 1957 and 1958. As a matter of fact, even since the convention was brought into being I believe a small committee has been appointed by the governing body of the I.L.O. to see to it that the practical results that could flow from this convention are achieved, and Mr. Kaplansky, who is the Canadian workers' member of the governing body of the I.L.O., is a member of the special committee that is working on this matter. So I hope the house does not mind my taking these few minutes to spell out in some greater detail what the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) have both already done, namely to pay tribute to the part played by leading labour spokesmen in Canada to achieve this convention with which we are concerned at the present time.
I join with the Minister of Labour also in expressing pleasure that when this convention came up for approval at Geneva in 1957 and in 1958 it had the support of all three sections representing Canada at those conferences, namely workers, employers and government. It is a bit strange, of course, that it has taken quite this long, from 1958 to 1964, to reach the point where we are being given the chance to approve of this convention in parliament. I know that the same story has been given with respect to it that is so often

given, namely that it is because of our federal situation. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the International Labour Organization takes into account the fact that there are states with federal forms of government such as ours, and I submit that our record in Canada is one that could be improved.
If my information is correct I believe this will be the 21st of the I.L.O. conventions that Canada will have ratified and I believe that there are over 100 I.L.O. conventions which Canada has not yet ratified. We have been a member of the I.L.O. since it was established in 1919. We have paid tribute across the years to the significant role the I.L.O. has played in raising living standards around the world and in doing something to improve the dignity of those who work. We think that Canada could have done a lot better in all those years than ratifying only 21 conventions of that organization while leaving over 100 that have not yet been ratified. So we hope that the action we are taking today will not be so isolated, as indeed these occasions have been. Here we are 45 years since the I.L.O. was set up, and we are ratifying today only the 21st of the conventions passed by that extremely important international body.
May I conclude by repeating in a sentence or two what I said in my opening remarks. In this whole question of discrimination we are dealing with one of the most important problems facing our world today. If we are going to do something effective about this problem we must not only pass resolutions, pass conventions and put things on paper but we must have the legislation, we must have the means of enforcement and we must diligently set out to see to it that so far as Canada is concerned, and so far as any lead we can give to the world is concerned, there must not be discrimination in employment or in occupation or in any other area or aspect of human life. We are terribly aware of the problems in this field that are experienced in some other countries but we are not a people who can throw any stones. We still have quite a piece to go to make it quite clear that in no respect in this country, in terms of race, religion, sex or any other differences, is there discrimination. We welcome, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity that is being given to parliament to endorse ratification of this convention and we hope we will take other steps to demonstrate the significance of what we are doing today.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I referred to the fact it was rather encouraging to find that 20220-569J
Labour Conditions
some measures brought before the house were receiving unanimous support and agreement. It is rather significant that this is the second one in succession and it appears that the house is of one mind regarding the measure now before us.
I want to assure the minister that we support fully the resolution now before the house. I believe that discrimination against people in any segment of our society because of these various factors that have been mentioned is to be deplored. It is a denial of the principle of the dignity of the human personality and a repudiation of that which is highest and best in human life and experience.
Reference has been made to the fact that we have looked with disfavour upon discriminatory practices in other nations but we must be sure that these same practices, though perhaps to a lesser degree, are not countenanced in our own nation. I have noted this statement in the international labour conference resolution:
Considering that the declaration of Philadelphia affirms that all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity-
I do not believe anyone in this chamber would disagree with that pronouncement. I should also like to join in commending those who have worked so diligently to promote the principle of non-discrimination and the abolition of discrimination in various spheres. It is our sincere hope that the convention will achieve universal acceptance.
I believe we must go farther than just passing resolutions or legislation. I believe it is important to promote understanding and good will among all peoples of the world, including those of our own nation, and if we fail to promote that attitude of mind and heart which recognizes the equality of mankind we are not going to achieve our objectives merely by passing resolutions. It was heartening to hear the minister state that there has been a unanimous response from the provinces assuring him that everything is being done to promote this type of measure and to ensure that no discrimination exists so far as it is possible to eliminate it. So, Mr. Speaker, we give full support to the resolution now before us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Labour Conditions LABOUR CONDITIONS

Allan Joseph MacEachen: the second reading of Bill No. C-126, respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-126 is an act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses. The two preceding items of legislation in the labour field that were proposed to the house were received with enthusiasm and unanimity by members. I am sure I speak with a certain amount of certainty in saying that the principle underlying this bill will be received with similar enthusiasm and unanimity by members. The second reading of this bill is a notable occasion in the history of labour in Canada. It is a notable event in the history of the labour department and in the evolution of labour legislation in Canada. In so far as the federal government is concerned, it breaks new ground because for the first time the federal parliament is being asked to enact standards in several important fields hitherto unoccupied-at least, it is being asked with assurance of success.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister saying this is the first time parliament has been asked to do this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With assurance of success that the request will be accepted, parliament is being asked to take steps in this important field. The enactment of this bill therefore will fill a conspicuous gap in the field of labour standards in Canada.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that provinces in the past, in their jurisdictions, have established standards in the field of wages and hours which course has not been followed by the federal parliament. This measure establishes a record. It breaks new ground in that sense. I think in a second sense it breaks new ground also because it brings together within one bill at least four major areas of work standards, hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay. This bill brings all these together in a single enactment. I know of no enactment, certainly on this continent or elsewhere, that is so comprehensive in its coverage as this particular bill.
May I say that the short title of the bill is the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The

conception of this bill, in its short title, will enable the house on future occasions in taking action in other fields of labour to use this main title. For example, if future modifications or amendments are desired to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the amended act might be entitled the Canada labour (relations) code. Likewise, if at some future time action is taken in the field of safety, the caption might be the Canada labour (safety in employment) code. It would be possible therefore to bring together in a single labour code all the enactments by the parliament of Canada affecting the rights and obligations of the Canadian labour force under federal jurisdiction.
The first reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report to the house, was received with approval both by the Canadian Labour Congress and the confederation of national trade unions. I had the privilege earlier in the year of addressing the national convention of the Canadian Labour Congress. At that time I told the members of the congress that it was the intention of the government at this session to introduce legislation in this field. This announcement, of course, was received warmly by members of the congress in convention. Later, I had a similar privilege of attending a convention in Quebec city of the confederation of national trade unions and the announcement made in the same vein was received at that convention in a similar spirit of enthusiasm. It is pleasant to know now that both congresses have approved the principle of this particular bill.
The objective, of course, of Bill No. C-126 now before the House of Commons for second reading is the establishment of minimum labour conditions for employees in undertakings within the legislative authority of parliament. The bill, incidentally, and more than incidentally, expressly implements the undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in the city of Hamilton on March 25, 1963, outlining the labour policy of the present government. As a matter of fact, a comparison between the labour policy of the Liberal party as set out by the Prime Minister, with the present bill and the important consequences following from this bill, will indicate that what we are hoping to do goes considerably beyond the policy announcement made by the Prime Minister in Hamilton in March of 1963. It fulfils also the promise I made in the house on my estimates, notably to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to bring in a compre-

hensive labour standards bill at this session. Judging by the interest that has been shown both in and outside of the house, and by private members' bills which have been debated on numerous occasions on this same subject matter, I think the house will welcome the introduction of this bill.
If at this time, Mr. Speaker, I fail to point out the regularity with which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has espoused this cause and the numerous occasions on which he has introduced private bills, I am sure that omission will be pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he rises to speak on second reading of this particular bill. I know his interest has been shared by members of this house and his private bills, in this session and past sessions, have been debated vigorously and supported generously on the understanding that the government itself would be introducing a measure along these lines.
The fact that the intention of the government to proceed with this bill has been known for some time made it possible for me, as minister, and the officials of the Department of Labour to discuss the general effects of the legislation with some of those who will be affected by it and with representatives from labour and management groups. We have taken advantage of these meetings to discuss the general objectives of this legislation, and this consultation and discussion have enabled us to take account of some of the concerns expressed by making the provisions flexible enough to take care of unusual situations without affecting the essential standards or excuding any classes of employee.
There have also been discussions with the provinces. At a conference of labour ministers last March we discussed the proposed legislation in general terms. There was, I believe, general agreement on the need for progressive labour standards in Canada as a whole, and recognition of the gap that existed because of the lack of federal legislation. An examination of the statement issued at the end of this conference, bearing the approval of the provincial ministers, will justify that there was at this conference general agreement on the need for progressive labour standards, the acknowledgement of the existence of a gap in the federal field.
The problems of the setting of minimum standards are somewhat different in the provincial field jurisdiction, and we have to recognize it is the responsibility of each government to determine what standard it
Labour Conditions
can put into effect. Excellent co-operation has existed for many years between provincial and federal departments of labour in Canada, and we will avail ourselves of it for useful consultation on the implementation of both federal and provincial legislation in the labour standards field. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed legislation, not just as a matter of convenience, that the bill combines provisions dealing with four basic labour conditions as well as related matters. This has been done so that all employees within our jurisdiction will be ensured, as a matter of right, of as high a standard in these basic labour conditions as is within present reach.
The standards we proposed for the code are a minimum wage rate of $1.25 an hour, a standard eight hour day and 40-hour week, overtime hours paid at time and a half and limited to eight a week, seven general holidays with pay, and two weeks annual vacations with pay. As hon. members will have observed, the proposed labour code will cover employment on or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. The coverage is the same as in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Hon. members will recall and realize that this includes mainly the transportation and communications industry, banking, uranium mining, grain elevators and certain work carried on by federal corporations.
The bill does not apply directly to employees of government departments or of departmental corporations. However, when parliament adopts this legislation covering national industries under federal jurisdiction, which I trust will be soon, the government will adopt as a matter of policy similar standards for its own employees, so that while the employees of government departments or employees of departmental corporations are not directly included within this act, the government will apply these standards to these employees.
In many cases of course working conditions of federal civil servants and prevailing rate employees are more favourable than the standards set forth in this bill, but where they fall short, my colleague the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) will indicate in due course the action that will be taken.
In the case of work on government contracts, changes will be proposed in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act later in the session, in order that those covered by this legislation will also be brought into conformity with the hours of work and minimum wage
9000	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion standards of the Canada labour code. So in effect, flowing from the enactment of this particular bill applicable to employees within federal jurisdiction, there will come consequential improvements applying these standards to government employees, and consequential amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
At present we have under consideration the amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act that will appropriately, and can appropriately, reflect the standards embodied in the Canada labour code. In my judgment it is a very significant step to apply these standards to the kind of contracts that are governed by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, and indeed to classes of contracts that are not presently covered by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, and I think in this respect that the proposals I am putting forward go beyond possible earlier expectations as to what might be contained in this proposed legislation.
In the first part of the bill standards relating to hours of work are established. The number of working hours is not to exceed eight hours a day and 40 hours a week, and where overtime of an additional eight hours a week is permitted, time and one half the regular rate is to be paid. Work in excess of 48 hours in a week is to be allowed only under permit, where the applicant has established the existence of special circumstances sufficient to justify working additional hours.
The officials of the department have accumulated considerable experience in the extending of permits in certain instances in the operation of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, and we believe that this can be a workable system under the Canada labour code.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions are to be raised at ten o'clock this evening: first, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) national parks-meeting with council respecting motel construction at Banff; second,


The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girou-ard), transportation, Quebec-proposed reduction in C.P.R. train service;

third, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)-natural resources-magazine article alleging plundering by U.S. sportsmen.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) for the second reading of Bill No. C-126, respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was referring to the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code with respect to hours of work. In the first part of the bill, standards relating to hours of work are established. Although the great majority of employees under federal jurisdiction are on a 40-hour or shorter work week, there are still a number of instances where longer or even excessive hours are worked in establishments that are subject to federal regulations. It is generally recognized that excessive hours worked over long periods of time do not contribute to industrial efficiency, are injurious to health and can be an important factor contributing to industrial accidents.
Technological advances and gains in productivity have already brought substantial benefits to most workers in the form of shorter hours as well as in other ways, and will no doubt produce more and more leisure time in the future. We must seek means of absorbing this leisure by providing for a more equitable sharing of it. The enactment of the 40-hour standard is thus intended not only to benefit those employees under federal jurisdiction who still work long hours, but also to help spread employment among the work force.

Without knowing the full extent to which overtime is worked in federal industries, the reasons for it, and its distribution throughout the year, we have not considered it practical at this time to propose limiting overtime hours more drastically but overtime work will be kept under scrutiny and we have made provision for reducing the number of overtime hours permitted by regulation. Such regulations could apply to the whole or part of any industry.
A recent I.L.O. instrument on hours of work, recommendation No. 116 concerning reduction of hours of work, adopted at the 1962 international labour conference, was tabled in this house by the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario, (Mr. Starr), on January 22, 1963. At that time he stated that study was being given in the department to the instrument, with a view to action. The basic provision of this recommendation, the implementation, by gradual steps if necessary, of a 40-hour standard work week, retaining the 48-hour maximum limit set by an earlier convention which Canada had previously ratified, is essentially being implemented by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the second part of the bill, namely minimum wages. It has I think been accepted by all advocates of a minimum standard for wages in federal industries that the only practical approach is to fix a minimum hourly rate by statute, and that is what this bill provides. We propose an hourly rate of $1.25 applicable throughout the country. The minimum rate applies to men and women of the age of 17 and over. The charges or deductions that may be made for board, lodging, uniforms, tools or equipment may be prescribed by regulation. This provision is necessary to see that the effect of the minimum wage is not evaded.
A special provision is also included to cover the employment of young people under 17 years of age. In this case the appropriate wage rate for the occupation is to be determined by regulation. There are fewer and fewer jobs that can absorb young people with limited training and there is general agreement that it is now more desirable than at any time in the past that young people should remain in school to become as well prepared as possible for the more complex and technical world of work they will later be entering. Continuing studies are needed to determine what is and what is not suitable employment in these industries for those young people who for one reason or another do leave school at 15 or 16, and to fix an appropriate minimum
Labour Conditions
wage rate and other conditions of employment.
In order to ensure that the requirement to pay the $1.25 minimum rate does not stand in the way of bona fide training programs in industry, which should be encouraged, an employer who is providing a suitable training program for employees may be exempted from paying the minimum rate to them during the training period. I believe that members of this house will consider that the $1.25 hourly rate is a reasonable rate at the present time. We have to bear in mind that if, in an effort to raise workers' incomes, too high a minimum rate is fixed, it may defeat its purpose by making costs so high that employment opportunities for the workers it is intended to help may be curtailed as a consequence. I suggest that we should try to achieve a sound balance at our present stage of development, and to the best of our knowledge we have done so in the proposed rate.
Part III establishes two weeks as the minimum annual vacation with pay. It incorporates most of the provisions of the Annual Vacations Act passed in 1958, and repeals that act. The essential change is that the period of continuous employment necessary to qualify for the two-week vacation has been shortened to one year. This minimum standard will not impose an excessive burden upon federal industries at this time since the practice of giving two weeks for the first year of employment is now accepted in many cases. An important impact will probably be with respect to employees who do not complete a years' employment, who will now receive 4 per cent of their wages upon termination instead of 2 per cent. The provision requiring continuous employment for 30 days in order to qualify for vacation pay on termination of employment has been retained.
The fourth part of the bill sets out the general rule that an employee is entitled to a holiday with pay on at least seven general holidays in a year. He is to receive his regular pay for these days. If a general holiday falls on a day that is a non-working day for the employee-that is, a Saturday or Sunday when the establishment is closed-or on a week day that is a scheduled day off for him, he is to have another day off in lieu of the holiday. The principle of the bill in this part is to ensure seven days off with pay. It does not prohibit work on a holiday. Many of the employees to whom the act will apply are employed in continuous operations and normally have to work on some of the general holidays. Such an employee may be

Labour Conditions
granted an alternative day off with pay, which may be a day added to his annual vacation or granted at another time convenient to him and the employer. In other than continuous operations, where the establishment will normally be closed, if an employee is required to work on a holiday he is to be paid at a rate at least equal to one and one half times his regular rate of wages for the time worked on the holiday, in addition to his regular pay for the day.
The seven general holidays named in the bill are those which are most commonly observed as paid holidays in the federal industries. To take account of local custom in the observance of holidays, the bill provides that an alternative holiday may be substituted in any industrial establishment for any of the specified days. An employee is not entitled to holiday pay for a general holiday that occurs in his first 30 days of employment with an employer.
For most workers in Canada, particularly workers governed by collective agreement, paid public holidays are now a customary part of conditions of work. However, there is great variation in the number of holidays granted per year, the conditions surrounding the right to pay for the holiday, and the remuneration paid for work on a holiday. This code will standardize conditions regarding paid general holidays in the federal industries to the extent of guaranteeing seven days with pay. It leaves to collective bargaining the question of additional days as the circumstances may warrant.
The legislation will place a positive obligation upon the Minister of Labour to see that there is compliance with the provisions of the act and it will be necessary to have a system of inspection to see that the standards laid down by the act are observed. The furnishing of pay statements to employees is generally accepted good practice and will be required of employers under the act. A number of questions are anticipated in the administration of the legislation which will require consultation with the parties affected. Provision is therefore made for the setting up of ad hoc advisory committees to advise the minister on any matter relating to the administration of the act. There is also a provision permitting an inquiry to be made concerning employment in any industrial establishment, and a person appointed to undertake such an investigation will have the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
Parts I to IV will come into effect January 1, 1965. This is to allow the Department of

Labour to make the necessary arrangements for administration and to allow the employers who will need to change some of their practices time to work out the changes in an orderly way. Special transitional provisions, it will be noted, are included at the end of the bill to allow a longer period of adjustment to the prescribed hours standard and the minimum wage, where it can be shown that compliance with these requirements would prejudice the interests of the employees or would be seriously detrimental to the operation of the undertaking. In each case a deferment may be permitted up to July 1, 1966. The opportunity for a deferment of the application of the minimum wage rate is limited to those businesses that are organized and operated in one local area. The purpose of this provision is to help lessen any hardship where the rates of employees would have to be adjusted.
Problems may arise in reducing hours of work in those operations which are now working substantially longer hours than 40 in a week at regular rates of pay. The principal problem that will be met here, of course, is a possible rapid reduction in weekly take home pay if the standard work week were applied immediately. For that reason this particular transitional provision is put into the bill. This particular deferment aspect is not confined to industries operating on a local basis but is applied to industries in general.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of members the relatively simple and straightforward nature of this bill. An effort has been made to avoid unnecessary complexity in administration and to minimize inconvenience. The provisions permitting the averaging of hours over a longer period than a week, permitting another general holiday to be substituted for one of those listed, and the recognition of the special circumstances of continuous operations in regard to holidays, and indeed the provision whereby the application of part I dealing with hours of work, or section 11, part II, dealing with minimum wages, may be deferred during a period of adjustment-all these make not only for flexibility and simplicity but are also designed to keep any disturbance to existing operations to a minimum, taking into account the major social objectives that are embodied in the Canada labour code.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the second reading of Bill No. C-126 I want to say to the minister that I rather like this what I might call one

package deal legislation, which combines four aspects of jurisdiction in the federal labour field. When the minister said that these pieces of legislation which are embodied in the bill were breaking new ground I am sure that he did not mean they broke new ground entirely, because we have had on our statute books legislation dealing with hours of work and fair wages. This legislation provided that fair wages must be paid both on construction and on manufacturing contracts. Maximum hours on construction contracts were to be eight hours per day with a 44-hour week, and hours of work on manufacturing contracts were to be those current with comparable work in the area. Therefore, as far as hours of work are concerned it is not correct to say that this legislation is entirely new, but it does present a modification in that the bill provides a 40-hour week with the possibility of an additional eight hours upon application to the minister, and payable at the rate of time and a half. So in fact that is a modification of what we now have on the statute books.
We have had in this area many problems, particularly in the construction field, and I was wondering whether the minister should not have thought of making a division between some of the industries and making some things applicable to certain of the industries under federal jurisdiction with an entirely different set of rules for an industry not comparable to others vis-a-vis its work operations. For example, the construction industry is at all times uncertain as to the number of hours to be worked, depending on the season of the year, whereas other industries under federal jurisdiction are fairly stable in this regard. In this connection I wonder whether the minister considered applying a 35-hour week to certain industries which could operate under it. As we all know, in the United States there is now a trend toward collective bargaining so as to obtain a 35-hour week and thereby create more employment. This is a means that is supported by many people in their endeavour to reduce unemployment in this country.
In the area of annual vacations, legislation has been on the statute books since October 1, 1958. The proposal contained in this bill represents a modification. The legislation now provides for a one-week vacation after the first year of employment, or 2 per cent of gross wages, and two weeks after the second year, or 4 per cent of gross wages. This bill proposes that an employee will receive two weeks annual vacation with pay 20220-570
Labour Conditions
after the first year of employment, or 4 per cent of gross wages. I am wondering whether this proposal has been included to satisfy the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, I remember very well when I introduced this legislation for the first time, fought strongly for the proposition that two weeks be provided after the first year of employment.
The holidays with pay provision in this proposal provides for seven days. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that the committee on rules and procedure in its recommendations presented last week suggested that members of parliament should be entitled to nine days, and that was done without any collective bargaining whatsoever. I think that was done for another purpose. However, this is a basis upon which collective bargaining can take place. The bill itself provides for seven statutory holidays.
We now come to the other provision in the bill which is entirely new to the federal field of jurisdiction, and I refer to minimum wages in Canada. This bill provides for $1.25 per hour as a minimum wage. Even now organized labour is asking for a minimum wage of $1.50 per hour. I am very happy to note that this minimum wage is to apply to the young people, 17 years and over. However, I am wondering whether it should not have been applicable to those young people entering the labour force at 16 years of age and over, because it is compulsory that children attend school until age 16, and many of them leave at that age to go to work. Consequently we have many young people entering the labour force who are not covered by this act. A great many of them must make overtures to the minister in order to obtain a fair wage.
The release for June of this year by the dominion bureau of statistics reporting on the labour force, indicates conclusively that young people, particularly those leaving school between the ages of 14 and 19 years, untrained and not having skills and trades required by industry, increased in number as compared with last year. Perhaps the minister would look at this situation to ascertain whether it would be practical to have these young people entering the labour force covered by this legislation when they reach the age of 16 years. It would also be interesting to know how many of them are employed within the federal field of jurisdiction and receive wages below $1.25 per hour. The minister did not indicate how many employees in this field

Labour Conditions
would be affected by this minimum wage proposal.
As a result of what I have heard I am sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) received a great deal of opposition from his colleagues in the cabinet, but that his perseverance overrode the objections of those individuals who felt this was not good legislation. This is good legislation which I think will do a great deal for the economy of this country.
I was rather surprised that the minister in his opening statement on second reading said that federal employees would not be covered immediately by this legislation. I hope I am correct in that statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are not covered because they are covered by other acts such as the Civil Service Act, and prevailing rates regulation. Such changes would require special legislation. It would not be proper to make those changes by a bill such as the one now before us.


Michael Starr: There is no necessity for including those employees if they are now receiving a minimum of $1.25 per hour under the Civil Service Act.
I think this legislation is timely for several reasons, and I refer particularly to the minimum wage portion of the bill. I feel this will constitute a major addition to the existing pattern of progressive national labour standards, and I have in mind fair employment practices, equal pay for equal work, annual vacations, fair wages and hours of labour. The federal government in setting desirable goals or objectives in this regard can and does give leadership and guidance to the provinces, thereby tending toward higher and more uniform standards.
The area of federal jurisdiction in the field of minimum wages represents a gap in so far as regulation of minimum wages in this country is concerned. Though the provinces have minimum wage laws they vary widely in rates and coverages. I might point out that Canada is one of the few advanced industrial nations in this world which does not have national minimum wage legislation.
I do not know how accurate I will be, but I intend to list some minimum wage legislation that now exists in different provinces. If I misstate the facts in this regard I stand to be corrected. I understand in Newfoundland the minimum wage covering the general order for male employees is 50 cents an hour, and the general order for female employees is 35 cents an hour. In Nova Scotia the

general order for female employees is $21.60 per week in cities and towns with over 8,000 people, $19.20 per week in incorporated towns with a population of under 8,000 and $14.40 per week in the rest of the province. In New Brunswick the general order for female employees is 50 cents per hour. In Quebec the general order for male and female employees is 70 cents per hour in metropolitan Montreal, and 64 cents per hour in the rest of the province.
In Ontario just recently the minimum wage regulations were modified so that in some areas the minimum wage is $1 per hour while in other areas the minimum wage is $1.25 per hour. In Manitoba the general order for male and female employees is 66 cents per hour in urban areas and 61 cents per hour in rural areas. In Saskatchewan the general order for male and female employees is $32 a week based on a 40-hour week. In Alberta the general order for male and female employees in cities and towns with a population of over 5,000 is $34 per week, and in the rest of the province $30 per week.
In British Columbia the minimum rates are set on an industrial basis and there are 38 orders, most of which in fact set the same rate for both men and women. The manufacturing order sets a rate of 75 cents per hour for males and 60 cents per hour for females. In the mercantile, hotel and catering area the minimum rate is 65 cents per hour for both men and women. The rates in other orders range from $2 an hour, for qualified tradesmen in the construction industry, to 40 cents an hour for female employees in the fish processing industry.
We can readily see that this legislation will set a pattern or standard, and that provincial governments will be pressured in many ways to bring the present rates now on the statute books close to or equal to the federal standard that is being set in Bill C-126.
There is also a growing interest in the subject of minimum wages in Canada. Over the years that I have been in the house I have noticed that statements by members of the house have revealed support for a national minimum wage. This has also been urged by many groups, particularly labour groups, and over the years many members of the House of Commons have sponsored minimum wage proposals which have been discussed during private members' hours.
I feel that the greatest interest in this subject was created by what was done in the United States when a federal minimum wage was introduced in two stages. The first stage

was $1.15 an hour which came into effect on September 3, 1961, and this was followed by an increase to $1.25 an hour on September 3, 1963. This had very extensive publicity not only in the United States but in Canada and I think it did more than anything else to focus attention on the situation in Canada. I do not think there is anything to suggest that the widespread support of the federal minimum wage principle which was evident in the United States would not be forthcoming here in Canada also, especially on the part of the general working population.
Although some thousands of workers will receive wage increases directly or indirectly as a result of Bill No. C-126, which has as a consequence the establishing of a national minimum wage, I think there should be little adverse effect on the functioning of the economy generally or on most of the industries involved. I am sure that no serious employment dislocation will follow, nor would I anticipate that there would be price increases directly attributable to the minimum wage. On the contrary, I think that the resultant increase in purchasing power would stimulate production in other sectors of the country.
I might point out that it is noteworthy that almost all of the employment that will be affected in Canada is to be found in service and other domestic industries so that the effect of a minimum wage in those industries should not have any direct bearing upon Canada's international trade. I feel that this legislation is consistent with the present fair wages policy which applies to certain government contracts. In addition, as has been mentioned earlier with regard to another part of the bill, it will enable fuller implementation by Canada to I.L.O. convention No. 26 which has been ratified by Canada and which deals with the establishment of minimum wage setting machinery.
In some places in Canada the wage rates now being paid by the affected industries are below what are required by the law of the province in which they are located, and the continuation of this condition is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. This proposed minimum wage will admittedly add substantial amounts to the payroll costs of some industries, particularly banks, railways and telephone companies, but this should be kept in perspective. It would be interesting to know whether the minister has any figures on the cost that may be involved in those affected industries and services under federal jurisdiction.
20220-570J
Labour Conditions
Although this legislation covers a very small percentage of the labour force, I feel that its beneficial effects will be recognized by a markedly larger group and its ramifications in the future may be considerable if, as is to be expected, the provinces over a period of time bring their standards more into conformity with what this legislation will provide. The minister said in his remarks that the provinces were consulted and I remember when the ministers of labour were here in Ottawa. I am sure the minister made his intentions known to them, and if they agreed to this proposed legislation they certainly must have had in mind the consequences that would flow so far as they were concerned; and certainly they must have thought at the time they agreed to this legislation that in time they would have to bring their own legislation up to what the federal government is placing on the statute books.
From the human and more broadly social point of view the benefits of this legislation are very clear. Economically the country will gain in both the short and the long run. We welcome this legislation which comprises two new measures and the modification of two pieces of legislation now on the statute books, and I am sure it will be of benefit to the working force of our country. It will set standards up to which the provinces will try to bring their own legislation. I want to repeat again that I like this package deal respecting labour legislation which has been introduced in the house in Bill No. C-126.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill to be known as the Canada labour standards code. It is a good piece of legislation and we heartily welcome its introduction. I know that on occasion it has happened that an opposition member has pleaded with the government to bring in certain legislation, and then when the government at long last brings it in the opposition member rises and says that the government did not do it the right way. I do not wish to start off in that vein. Rather I wish at the start to say that we are pleased that this important piece of legislation is at long last before parliament.
There are several things about the legislation that are particularly good to which I should like to refer briefly. In the first place I agree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) that it is good to have the various elements of a labour code wrapped up in one package. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Labour say when he made his

Labour Conditions
speech on second reading that it was possible that the other aspects of labour legislation might, after some amending of other bits of legislation has been effected, be put into a companion piece to be known as the Canada labour relations code. I think that if we could get all of the legislation respecting labour into one or two acts to be known as the Canada labour code, that would be a very good step for us to take.
My second observation in commendation of this legislation is that I am glad it deals with the four or five main elements which we have been asking the government to include in a federal labour code. We are talking about four or five elements, depending upon whether or not we regard hours per day and days per week as one element or two. I have asked for five things to be in a labour code and they have been: maximum number of hours per day, maximum number of days per week, a minimum wage, statutory holidays with pay and annual vacations with pay. The minister in his bill has combined the first two of those elements into one, so he talks about four elements when I talk about five. However, at least we are talking about all the major elements that had been either lacking or inadequately covered in legislation previously on the statute books.
When I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have waited a long time for this legislation, there was the fear that it might be a disappointment, that some elements would be left out. I am prepared to say, however, that most of the elements for which we had hoped are in it. There was one that was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he spoke on February 20 of this year which is not in it. I will come to that in a few minutes.
The third word of commendation I should like to offer concerning this piece of legislation relates to the fact that it does fix certain minimum standards right in the legislation itself. As the member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has pointed out, the tendency, particularly with regard to minimum wages, in provincial legislation is to leave the minimum wage rate to be determined by order in council or by regulation. The result of its being left that way is to have different rates in different parts of a province and various other anomalies. I congratulate the minister-I congratulate him all the more if he had the battle with his colleagues to which the hon. member for Ontario referred in getting these minimum standards-on getting the various minimums actually written into the legislation itself. This goes not only for the amount

determined as a minimum wage but it also goes for the determination of holidays with pay each year, to the number of statutory holidays allowed per year, the hours of work per week, and so on. I shall have something to say later about those standards in quantitative terms. But it is a forward step to have these things actually covered in the legislation as passed by parliament.
The fourth observation I want to make about this legislation, which I regard as good, is that it does seem to me to have the appearance-and I do not see anything wrong with the appearance-of giving a lead to the provinces in this field. Some of us have had the feeling, in recent months at any rate, that things have been going the other way in this country, that the federal government has been dragging its feet and allowing the provinces to determine things. Some of us have the feeling that there is a place for a strong voice at the centre, and even though this legislation will apply, legally and specifically, only to employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction, nevertheless it does give a lead to the provinces. The very fact that we have federal minimum labour standards will, I am sure, be good for labour right across Canada, including those workers who come under federal jurisdiction and those who come under provincial jurisdiction.
There are in fact, Mr. Speaker, other things that one might say about this legislation that are good, but I think I have established that I meant what I said a while ago when I indicated I do not want to be the kind of opposition member who is disappointed because the government has done what he has been asking it to do. Even so, I am sure the minister would not think I was really myself if I did not at least draw attention to the fact we have waited quite a while for this measure. I enjoyed the way in which the minister said this was an implementation, and even more so, of what the present Prime Minister promised in a speech he made in 1963. Well, 1963 is only last year. I cannot help thinking of the position the Liberal party took two years before the present minister was born; so some of us have been waiting a long while for this implementation by the Liberal party of its promise to bring in a national labour code, and of its promise in 1919 to implement in Canada the things that were called for by the international labour organization of which Canada became a member in that opening year of 1919.
Across the years many voices have been raised in parliament and throughout the

country for this kind of legislation. In another speech this afternoon I had occasion to pay tribute to those who had contributed in another field. I should like to pay tribute, as I have done on occasions in the past, even after all these years, to my distinguished predecessor and former member for Winnipeg North Centre, the late J. S. Woodsworth. He was a member of this house from 1921 to 1942. Mr. Woodsworth had many interests and he worked for the good of all the people of Canada. One of the things he fought hard for during the years he was here was the implementation of labour legislation, a national labour code. He came to this house shortly after the 1919 convention of the Liberal party. He was an idealist, a man who believed in people. He assumed that what the Liberals had promised in 1919 was some-think to ask for in 1922 and 1923. He did ask for it. It is the efforts of men like J. S. Woodsworth, the efforts of men in the trade unions and others across the years, that have finally resulted in our getting this piece of legislation that is before us. As the minister pointed out, both of the main labour centres in Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress and the confederation of national trade unions, have indicated their approval of this legislation, in principle at any rate. As we all know, it does represent, in principle, the kind of thing that labour has been seeking. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we heartily welcome this legislation.
Now, let me comment briefly on the actual provisions to which the minister has made reference. I hope I might be pardoned if I make the kind of comment it would be expected I would make. First of all, provision has been made for a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour. I do not detract by one iota from my pleasure that the actual rate has been put in the legislation and that we are not left waiting for a decision by order in council so far as this matter is concerned. But the minister himself pointed out, as did the hon. member for Ontario, that the labour movement is now asking for a higher figure as a minimum wage rate. It is quite true that it was only at its convention this year that the Canadian Labour Congress changed its official position from $1.25 per hour to $1.50 per hour. But the fact is that the labour movement in this country has felt for some time that, conditions being what they are, $1.50 should be the minimum wage rate to be incorporated in this legislation. Therefore, though we welcome the fact that this is getting started, and while it is true that I am ready to commend the gov-
Labour Conditions
ernment for what it is doing, I am not going to stand up and say, "Let now thy servant depart in peace," because we have not really seen everything yet.
There are those of course who complain about minimum wage rates and argue that if they are too high they will work against the interests of the workers and the public generally, that prices will be increased, and that all sorts of dire consequences will result. All I can say is that this has always been the story. When legislation was first introduced into the parliament of the United Kingdom to try to put a stop to the practice of exploiting young boys as chimney-sweeps, it was said that that legislation would ruin the economy of England and would be to the detriment of the boys themselves. Perhaps it is a far cry from that to what we are doing now, but social legislation for the good of the workers has always had to meet this kind of argument. However, when we get social legislation that improves the conditions of the workers of the country, it improves the economy of the country and the well-being of all the people.
That part of the bill which deals with hours of work per day and the maximum number of hours per week, like the other provisions in the bill, is good, but there are one or two things to which I would like to direct the minister's attention. We are not satisfied with the amount that he has set as an overtime rate of pay, namely time and a half for the period of overtime worked, and we do not think he has yet grappled with the problem of excessive overtime work.
I did note in the minister's remarks that it is the intention of the department to study this matter as it goes along, but I suggest to him that if he is going to achieve real progress in shortening the work week for our workers-and this becomes more and more necessary as we move into more automation, more cybernetics, and more intelectron-ics, all of these things which will take work away from us completely-he will have to-take into account that as these things come about the 40-hour week is going to seem a long period of time in the kind of economy we now have. This aspect of the minister's bill will have to be reviewed. I shall have something else to say in relation to that, but I will come back to it later.
I now move on the question of annual vacations with pay. I welcome the fact that the minister has accepted the principle of one of my bills, a principle which the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) could have

Labour Conditions
accepted away back in 1958, in that he has made the two weeks vacation with pay applicable alter one year. This is good. In my view it was wrong in the first place to make workers wait for two years before getting it. We are glad to see this improvement; but again this afternoon the minister reminded us that he was a guest of the Canadian Labour Congress at its conference in Montreal last April, and he was present when the congress presented its last brief. The minister knows the position of the trade union movement. Surely he knows it urges that, just as in other areas of life, other areas of endeavour, people in many instances do get a longer vacation than two weeks, we think this should apply also to industrial workers. The Canadian Labour Congress in April this year passed a resolution urging that at the end of three years employment the annual vacation should be three weeks, and there were other requests for even longer vacations following lengthier periods of employment. But perhaps this is enough for the minister to aim at now. I beleve that, having given us a bill that provides two weeks vacation at the end of one year, he should go one further step and provide three weeks vacation after three years employment.
The statutory number of holidays provided in this bill is seven, and the minister indicated that the holidays are named in the bill. I believe the bill calls them "general holidays" instead of statutory holidays, but the minister went on to indicate that it is possible to substitute other holidays for some of these seven. That is a good provision, taking into account regional and provincial practices, but I would like to suggest that the number of holdays stipulated should be nine rather than seven. I do not base that claim, as did the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), on what we did in this house last week. After all, this house did not declare any days to be national holidays. We just made a decision that the house would not sit on certain days; but I would remind the minister that in the Civil Service Act there are nine statutory holidays provided for all civil servants. These are the seven that are in this bill, plus two others, Easter Monday and Remembrance day. I am sorry the minister has not included these two in his bill. I do not wish to make any distinction between them, but if I were making one I would say I am particularly sorry that Remembrance day is not included as a holiday in this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be quite clear that even to one who is pleased to see this bill, after waiting for it for a lifetime, there are some things in it which could be improved, and I hope we get some of these improvements while the bill is going through the house. We shall have the committee stage next, and there are quite a few clauses in the bill. That stage may take a little time, but I hope not too long. At least, Mr. Speaker, we will not lose any time on clause 1, and I hope as we get to the other clauses we can make improvements with respect to some of the matters I have mentioned.
I now invite the minister's attention to two or three things, apart from my references until now to specific enactments in the legislation, which I think he should look at. This afternoon he made reference to the question of safety, and said that maybe some day arrangements for the safety of workers could be included in the federal labour code. May I remind him that "some day" ought to be right now. As a matter of fact on February 20 of this year, as recorded at page 57 of Hansard, speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) referred to this labour code as one of the most important measures the government was going to bring before parliament this session, and in the course of describing what it was going to do he said:
Now we will be proposing at this session a minimum wage, maximum working hours, standards for holidays and for occupational safety.
There were other references to that, both this year and last year, and I thought that was a pretty clear promise from the Prime Minister. Now we get this bill from the minister and all of the things that the Prime Minister promised on February 20 are there, except the one regarding occupational safety. I think the minister should get his helpers upstairs to work on this and incorporate it in this legislation, unless he can make the commitment that it will be introduced in some other piece of legislation this session. In line with the minister's own statement that he hoped to have this all in one package, I ask why not have it now?
If memory serves me correctly, in 1962-63 the last government prepared a piece of legislation affecting safety, so the people in the department must have this material; and if they have not got it I refer them again to the Canadian Labour Congress which can produce it for them. As I say, I hope safety

'provisions will be incorporated in this piece of legislation.
Another shortcoming in the bill is that it does not extend its provisions to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I notice that my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was over talking to the minister, and maybe he was talking about this. I know both he and the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) are interested in this legislation, and I cannot see why these areas, which are so distinctly federal, should be excluded. If there were any possibility that they were to become provinces the week after next, or if there were any danger Premier Bennett was going to take them over and make them part of British Columbia, I suppose we would have to leave them aside for a while; but the likelihood is that they will continue to be territories coming under federal jurisdiction and, that being the case, I suggest that whatever labour standards we set up as a federal parliament should apply to the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Another comment that I wish to make has to do with something to which the minister alluded, but I am afraid that is all he gave us, just an allusion-or maybe it was an illusion, if I may play on the word.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was not a delusion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says it was not a delusion. We will have to wait and see. In his speech he did face up to the fact that a sudden application of a maximum number of hours per week could have the effect of causing many workers to suffer a reduction in take-home pay. If people who are now working 46, 48, 50, 52 or 54 hours a week- and there are such-can suddenly work only 40 hours a week at the same hourly rate they will, of course, have a considerable reduction in take-home pay.
The minister said this was one of the reasons for permitting some employers to delay the implementation of this maximum hours per week section of the bill. I understand that, but I think he has to go further than just allowing time for that kind of thing; I think he has to find a way whereby, with the reduction of the number of hours these people work-especially those who are anywhere down toward the $1.25 rate-there will not be any reduction in take-home pay. I am fully aware of the problems involved in this. I can see the minister suggesting that this should be the subject of collective bargaining, and so on. But we need not go over that
Labour Conditions
argument; we know the whole problem of how much has to be done by legislation and how much has to be done by collective bargaining. I suggest that when the minister is bringing in legislation for which the labour movement has been asking for half a century or more, he must see to it that the result is that it will not be seriously damaging to some people. This is one thing that some people who do come under federal labour jurisdiction are worried about.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as something for the minister to think about pretty seriously I mention the word enforcement. He mentioned it in his speech; he said this has been taken into account and that there must be in the legislation and in any regulations passed under this act all that is necessary by way of inspection to make sure that the terms of this legislation are carried out. The minister expressed some pleasure in the relative simplicity of the bill, and we like to see legislation that is not too complex. But having in mind the amount of examination and inspection that has to go on in the provinces in connection with this kind of legislation, having in mind the problems that are involved in enforcement, I am not too sanguine that the enforcement provisions contained in this legislation are sufficient. I am prepared to give the minister time on this, but I think he must make up his mind that, having won the battle this far, having brought before parliament a piece of legislation that implements something his party promised two years before he was born, having won the battle in the cabinet, having got the provincial governments to agree that this is a good idea, he must go all the way and make sure that this legislation is going to be enforced.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of those of us who sit in this part of the house, and speaking if I may on behalf of the trade union movement, with which I am happy to be associated, I want to say that we do regard this as a good piece of legislation; we regard it as an important day in Canada's history that this legislation is being introduced-but there is room for improvement in it. The specific things I have suggested should be carefully examined before this legislation is finally dealt with and put through the house. I hope that serious attention will be paid to the improvements I have suggested when we are dealing with the bill in committee and I hope that as a result, when we get to third reading this good bill will be an even better piece of labour legislation.

Labour Conditions


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words in relation to Bill No. C-126, which is a bill that working people across the country have looked forward to for a long time, in that it will standardize Canada's labour code. It is not my intention to speak at length this evening, except to give my own statement of commendation to the minister, make a few remarks about the legislation and draw his attention to one or two points that go even beyond the scope of this piece of legislation. My own view is that this is a workmanlike, well drafted piece of legislation and that it will do a great deal to develop acceptable standards of employment across our country. No one can legitimately disagree with the objective of this legislation. Certainly it is desirable, it is essential, and we are grateful that it is before us.
Looking briefly at its different parts we find that it deals with four basic items of standardization. The first one relates to hours of work. I think this is commendable, and the way it endeavours to cover the entire field is likewise good, in that it sets out maximum hours of work as well. I note that in clause 7 of part I it specifically states that one day a week shall be reserved as a day of rest, and that in so far as possible that day shall be Sunday. This is good. Turning to part III, which is the section dealing with annual vacations with pay, this is likewise a very substantial and commendable part of the legislation.
In part IV the bill deals with general holidays. I would agree with the hon. member who has just spoken, that in view of the fact there are nine statutory holidays there can hardly be reason why only seven should be mentioned in this bill. I would hope that nine would be included, because I believe that certainly the workingman is entitled to those holidays as much as the rest of the public. In part V the bill deals with regulations and the administration of this measure, and in some detail goes into the specific aspects of this phase of the bill. This section of the bill is as necessary as any other part, because unless it is possible to enforce these regulations and make them effective, the bill will not really accomplish very much.
I do not intend to go into the details of this last section tonight, because we can do that a little later in the debate. I do wish to make a few remarks to the minister in relation to the second part of the bill that relates to a minimum hourly wage. I think that basically, to set a minimum hourly wage is essential. I think it is good that this legis-

lation comes to grips with this problem and states what that minimum wage should be. But it does raise a very serious question of policy that is involved in the matter of a basic, over-all, maximum wage which is set out in this legislation to be $1.25 an hour. Everyone knows that, particularly as a result of higher rentals and higher living costs in the urban areas, the cost of living to the worker is much higher in the urban areas than it is in some of the rural areas. This is true not only in rural centres but in provinces which are basically rural and do not have the industrial economy associated with the larger urban centres.
Basic wage rates, then, should be geared to accommodate this problem. In other words, with living costs higher in certain areas of the country than in other areas, we are endeavouring through a set minimum wage to establish a minimum living standard and are going to find ourselves in trouble in those areas where living costs are so much higher than they are in others. Therefore, if a person happens to be a resident in an area where the basic standard of living costs many more dollars than a worker living in another area actually what is happening is that we are doing nothing to set a minimum living standard, rather than just a minimum wage.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you think this will force every province to adopt that?


Robert Norman Thompson: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) refers to the different provinces and the problems which will result in those provinces through the establishment of such a wage. Again I think it has been clearly stated that it is hoped this legislation will set a standard and will be an incentive for all provinces, and not only provincial governments but municipal and local governments as well-not to mention industry-to bring their standards of pay up to something comparable and equivalent to this. Perhaps in this regard we will be working a hardship on these other governments, nevertheless I agree that in defining a standard you are setting an example for them, and certainly establishing a precedent which is nothing more than what is desired. However, I come back briefly to the fact that what is going to happen as a result of this situation I have just mentioned is that we are going further to drive our population to the urban centres, and I am not sure that this is going to meet the overall intention of this legislation. If a basic minimum wage is to be established it should also guarantee a minimum living standard.

Labour Conditions
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal of difficulty involved in how this can be done. Perhaps it would mean the zoning of the country into areas which would set a norm for cost of living. But certainly let us not be so optimistic as to think that just because we pass a piece of legislation here which sets a minimum wage at $1.25 an hour we have solved the problem of raising our living standard so that everyone can enjoy or be assured of that basic living standard. As I said before, $1.25 might be a very realistic basic wage in urban centres like Montreal and Toronto. It would be quite unrealistic in other areas-in the rural parts of Quebec for example, or in the maritimes. Perhaps in these areas $1 an hour would provide as satisfactory a basic minimum living standard as $1.50 would provide in urban centres such as the two largest cities in Canada. However, I understand that the government, and rightly so, wishes the code to set an example for all parts of the country, and to this end we can but give our agreement to it. But I suggest it will fail in this objective if the standards it sets are not practical ones, which is why I refer to this question of a basic living standard.
On another more general note, Mr. Speaker, I suggest a word of caution to the minister in relation to what we can hope to achieve, if such minimum wage standards are not practical, in the way of putting into the hands of workers enough dollars earned as a result of their own labours to maintain for themselves a reasonable living standard. I suggest there are three factors in our over-all economy which are required in the process of the production of wealth and fair reward. I am thinking specifically of land, capital and labour. One hundred and fifty years ago the economic situation of labour was such that it received only a very small share of the rewards from this process, and as a result the working man lived at a bare sustenance level. Gradually people began to realize that labour was in a monopoly position and that unless the owners of capital and land treated labour in a more equitable fashion they would be powerless to make any profit for themselves. So developed the trade union movement, which has done a great deal in the intervening years to raise standards of pay and improve working conditions for the working man.
Through the weapon of the strike, and through the power which labour holds in collective bargaining we find that labour has secured for itself a much more favourable
position than it had not so very many years ago. But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that labour today faces a problem which is far more serious and of much greater magnitude than ever before, a problem which makes even the gains it has made during these years entirely inadequate for the problem it is going to face in the future and which it is actually facing in many respects today.
We are now coming to the time when investment in the shape of labour saving machines is reaching such a high developed form of monopoly bargaining that labour is being jeopardized. Through the development of the machine and the automation which comes along with it we find labour is rapidly being displaced, and with its displacement the money with which labour used to earn its living is no longer available to it. Supposing we were able to enforce a $1.25 basic wage rate across Canada; or for that matter, supposing it was raised to $2.50 per hour: In the long run what is going to happen is that the worker who is not worth that much on the open market is going to be dispensed with and replaced by a machine. That is the real problem which labour faces today. This is going to aggravate the problem of the unemployable, unskilled labourer. When we are talking of basic minimum wage standards of $1.25, we are really talking about that type of labour. Already as a result of that situation this problem to which I have referred is before us to a large extent. There is a real limit on how much good a compulsory raise in basic pay can achieve for any worker, and I believe we are approaching this limit at this time. Indeed we may already have passed it.
I suggest to the minister and his departmental officials, who I know are very concerned indeed about this problem, that the question of an adequate basic wage for the less skilled citizens of this country cannot simply be solved through legislation by means of a minimum wage standard of this type. Although we expect this legislation to pass the house and become law, and while we approve of the objectives it sets and the standards it lays out before us, on the other hand we must look beyond to the problem which is much greater than that. What must be ensured is that every citizen of this country in addition to his wages receives a fair share of the unearned income which is derived from the control of land, credit or capital as a result of the productive processes of the Canadian economy. What I am asking for is of course what we have been talking



S012 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Labour Conditions
about in our party for a long time, and that is simply a policy that will obtain a fair market return for every citizen's share in the wealth of our country, whether it be in respect of the natural resources of our country, or in the development of the means of processing these resources. I believe that our working people recognize this fact. I believe our friends in the New Democratic party recognize this.
The traditional means of improving the lot of the working man through the pressure of the trade union movement and minimum wage legislation, of the kind about which we are talking, are reaching the extent of their usefulness. We must therefore look in a new direction to accomplish the revolutionary new world cybernation, because even automation does not adequately today express the progress that is being made and with which we are living at the present time.
I suggest, as I have just briefly indicated, the economic direction in which hope actually lies for the working man, which will bring to him a share of those earnings and profits that are derived from the land and capital, and the direction that must be followed so that in addition to the wages that he receives he will be able to receive that income which is necessary to give him a respectable standard of living.
There is no reason why this problem cannot be solved, but many of our newspapers and economists in Canada seem always anxious to criticize any answer to this problem. They infer that this is a problem which we cannot solve, so we should be willing to let it pass by until we are in the position of being forced to do something about it. Certainly with the tremendous wealth we have in our country, and with our past record of ingenuity and enterprise, the standard of living we can make available for every citizen in Canada is something greater than we at the present time, or that this minimum wage legislation, will provide.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the minister that I hope he will give the leadership necessary to this house, as he carries out the responsibilities of the minister of labour, so that we may work toward something which is beyond this legislation, accepting the fact that this is good in so far as it goes, but recognizing the fact that we must do something far greater than this if we are going to give a guarantee of a basic living standard to every working man in this country.
[Mr. Thompson.}
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) introduced this legislation members of the opposition have been heaping praises on him. Up to now the minister has not been criticized, but I think that in spite of the fact that he is highly regarded by all members he certainly deserves such praise. I hope that, in the present case, they will not be short-lived.
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-126 deals with several points designed to improve labour legislation in Canada and more especially with hours of work, minimum wage, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Personally, I feel that the legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour certainly augurs well for the future. That it is a good start. If legislation of this type is improved every year before long Canadian workers will enjoy better working conditions.
As to the 40-hour week for the workers, it seems to me that we have been hearing about it for years; as a matter of fact such talk must go back 35 or 40 years. In addition, over the past ten years already mention has even been made of the 36 or 32 hour week.
The minister proposes a minimum hourly wage of $1.25. A moment ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to a $1.50 hourly wage.
It must be considered, however, that 40 working hours a week, at $1.25 per hour, only adds up to $50 per week.
But $50 a week, taking into consideration the present standard of living in Canada, certainly is not very much.
Besides, if the father of a family who worked for ten or 12 years becomes unemployed he will receive an unemployment insurance benefit amounting to about $36 a week. And if he can find a part-time job, he is entitled to earn another $18, which is half the amount of the benefit he receives.
This means that by working part-time he may earn $18 a week for 20 working hours; if he already receives a benefit of $36, he will then get $54 a week, and this to work how long? About 20 hours, at an average of $2.50 an hour, while under this legislation with the 40-hour work week, at $1.25 an hour, a worker earns less money than an unemployed person might make. Not that I think the income of the unemployed is too high. Far from it, for everyone agrees that they do not get enough.

A minimum wage of $1.25 an hour is at least something; previously, there wasn't even a minimum salary. It was suggested that the minimum hourly wage should be $1.50, which would amount to $60 a week for a 40-hour week. I am convinced that at the present time, considering the cost of living, taxes, and all that is offered for purchase to the public, everyone agrees that a minimum hourly wage of $1.50 should be our aim in the immediate future.
Mr. Speaker, there is a question I should like to ask the Minister of Labour. Having read, at the beginning, to whom this bill applies, I should like the minister, if he has an opportunity to reply, to tell us whether the bill will also apply to people employed in winter works projects in the various municipalities. Such projects concern the federal government, inasmuch as it pays 50 per cent and, in many cases, 60 per cent of the salaries involved. Moreover, those projects are not meant for the benefit of one or two provinces alone but of Canada as a whole, since they are carried out all across the country.
Will such minimum wages and minimum 40 hours also apply to workers employed under the winter works program? The fact is that in many municipalities we have seen workers in such projects earning but a dollar or $1.05 an hour and who often were not working 40 hours.
Another point which I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, is that a number of regulations quite often come under such legislation. This legislation must be enacted, but it would also be advisable, while taking care that it is strictly enforced, to see that a new bureaucratic system is not laid on employers throughout the country. It seems to me that it would be possible to have this legislation fully enforced without increasing the administrative costs of employers, such as reports or forms to be completed, inspections, etc.
Consequently, the legislation should be enforced without increasing government red tape which already bears heavily on the employer. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there is another point which is not mentioned in this bill and which I would like to discuss this evening, because lately we have witnessed several glaring infringements upon labour union freedom.
The purpose of Bill C-126 is to help workers engaged in certain fields, especially those directly connected with federal industries or related federal industries.
Labour Conditions
In my opinion it would be most important to include in the act a provision under which the government would see to it that crown companies or industries doing business with the government do not act in collusion to curtail the freedom of labour unions.
Take, for instance, the Canadian National Railways. There is in that company an international union which interferes with labour union freedom of a large number of its members. Members of the C.N.R. employees union are under the yoke of the regulations of their own union. When certain members of the union want to leave to join another labour union-as in the case of Montreal stevedores who wanted to quit the international stevedores union to join, as a group, the national labour federation-then the international union, in view of the contract entered into with the crown company-a company, therefore, coming under the government- has the right to suspend its employees. It is not the employer but the union that is doing it. Although labour unions put up a long fight to preserve labour union freedom stating that the workers had the right to join the union of their choice, today the unions themselves are imposing on their own members the very thing against which they have fought. It is not common to every labour union, but only to some of them, especially those directly connected with federal government industries, that is labour unions to which Bill C-126 applies.
This interference by labour union leaders with labour union freedom or with the freedom of an important group of workers does not occur in other industries at the present time but only in labour unions of crown companies, such as the C.N.R. in the province of Quebec.
I have already pointed out to the house and to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines that the great majority of members of the international union of railway workers were anxious to leave that union in order to join the federation of national trade unions. But when the leaders of the international union realize that workers try to change their membership, even within the same union, then with the approval of the employers, that is, the crown company and the government, they have the right to suspend those union members who are no longer allowed to work for such and such crown company or government agency.
It is surprising that this only happens in government controlled companies or com-

Labour Conditions
panies which deal directly with crown companies or the government, such as the C.N.R.
In my opinion the incidents which occurred recently in Montreal and those which repeat themselves every year at the C.N.R. should incite the Minister of Labour to include in Bill No. C-126 a provision concerning the freedom of an employee to select the union of his choice, whether he works for the federal government or a crown corporation such as the C.N.R.
It has been suggested that Bill No. C-126 should apply to longshoremen and employees of steamship lines, railways, canals, telegraph or any other transportation companies.
In the province of Quebec longshoremen are faced with a problem at present. Nearly all of them would like to change their union affiliation, but they would risk losing their jobs if they did so. This is taking place within companies which transact business directly with the federal government.
I believe that questions respecting this matter were asked of the minister in this house. He must have received a submission or a request for the protection of labourers or employees working for the government or for crown corporations.
It would be appropriate to include in Bill No. C-126 a section whereby union protection for government employees and workers, would be guaranteed, while leaving everyone free to choose his own union or organization. This is the basic claim of workers and labour unions and organizations in Canada and throughout the world. Today, if unions or union leaders working for the government or for the crown corporations act in this manner, with the blessing of the government we may foresee the day, not far distant, when those leaders of international unions will do the same in private enterprise. Then we will see the renewal of the same labour struggles that have occurred in the past. Labour had won its freedom to unionize with great difficulty. I think that before all else within federal undertakings we ought to leave to these workers the things they fought for during so many years, namely: the right to join the union of their choice and to enjoy union freedom.
I am talking more especially about the dockers and the Canadian National Railways employees in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it would be rather easy for the minister to include a new clause concerning this matter.
It is all very well to deal with hours of work, minimum wages and what have you,

but no mention is made of the protection of the worker employed by the government and of the freedom he ought to enjoy concerning labour union matters. This should be considered at the same time to eliminate what is happening now, and I refer to encroachments upon the rights of workers.
I should also like to refer to another point which might be of interest. We are dealing with nothing more than an embryo of a labour code in this Bill No. C-126 and, whether we like it or not, this is not a complete or comprehensive labour code as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out a while ago. It is but an embryo, the mere consolidation of certain points of the labour code, when what we should have is more complete labour legislation.
Another point could be included also in this embryo of a labour code. It would be the protection of crown corporations or government employees against decisions taken by some high officials.
It seems to me that the government worker, or the one employed by a crown corporation or an organization that deals with the government, who is not satisfied with a decision taken by certain high officials, should have the right of appeal to some organization, independent from the crown corporation or the department that employs him.
In this connection I would like to give an example. There are several such cases, at least within crown corporations or departments mentioned in Bill No. C-126.
I would like to quote the case of an individual who worked for the C.N.R. for a long time, some 30 years. Eleven years before his retirement he was appointed foreman, but three months before drawing his pension he was demoted and his pension reduced accordingly. Then, as he was not satisfied, he could only appeal to the officials of his company. That is precisely what happened in the case of a C.N.R. employee, a man from Jonquiere who held a position of foreman or something like that for 11 years; three months before he reached the age of 65 at which time he was to retire, he was demoted to a less important position. Naturally his pension was reduced accordingly even though he had held a higher position for 11 years.
Such an employee can only appeal to his superiors, the very people who ruled against him in the first place. He cannot appeal to some independent body outside the crown corporation for which he works. In a case like

that, the officials who took the original decision are not very likely to reconsider their ruling. The higher echelon of the administration is not interested in matters pertaining to lower employees and they let intermediate officials rule on the case. Consequently, the hapless C.N.R. employee can only appeal to those who have already decided against him. His rights are infringed upon and he does not even have the consolation of saying that his case has been judged by an independent or impartial body.
Under the circumstances, would the minister consider the possibility of including in his draft labour code a provision setting up a body which would be independent of all government departments and crown corporations and to which an employee could appeal if he is not satisfied with a decision taken by his employer? In addition, he could appeal to that organization without incurring substantial or excessive costs which, in many cases, prevent him from lodging such an appeal.
Therefore, it seems to me that a provision designed to set up an independent organization could be added to Bill No. C-126, so as to improve it while providing a further guarantee to federal civil servants and crown corporation employees. This would not entail any exceptional expenditures, but would contribute to provide workers and employees coming under Bill No. C-126 with an additional guarantee in this draft labour code.
There is another point I should like to deal with for a few minutes. Those mainly concerned are people employed by the federal government, crown corporations and agencies dealing with the federal government. This means that in those fields, at least in the majority of those fields-because there are some who are not in the three classes I have mentioned-the great majority of the employees affected by this bill are labourers or employees working directly or indirectly for the government since they work for a crown corporation. Then it is the federal government itself which has direct or indirect authority over those employees. This is what one may call the civil service. The state or the government might give some protection to this official; the protection to use the language of his own choice.
We often see this abnormal situation in some places like my riding of Lapointe, Jonquiere, for instance, where there is a C.N.R. warehouse or a maintenance plant-now it does not happen so often as before, one must admit that there is an improvement, at least in Jonquiere, and the labourers of Jonquiere
Labour Conditions
and the C.N.R. employees in that centre told me that there was much inprovement -but in other cities of the province of Quebec, and even also in several other places, there is not enough respect for the language of the labourer, so that if he wants to write to a high official to make certain recommendations or apply for a job which is vacant an employee of a higher grade left or retired, he has to do it on an English form and must write in English to his superior. Inevitably, this employee, working in an almost exclusively French Canadian environment, quite often in a repair factory, did not have the opportunity or the advantage of learning to speak English to the extent he would have wished. Therefore, it is all the more difficult for him to apply for a superior position where the knowledge of a language other than his own is necessary. For him, this is a considerable handicap.
My third suggestion to the minister-and it would not be difficult to include it in the bill-is that a clause should be added to this labour code to the effect that any government employee or any employee of a crown corporation could use the language he knows best in his relations with his superiors. I would like the minister to listen to this suggestion, because in my opinion he would find it important.
It seems, Mr. Speaker, that all too often when one makes suggestions to the minister during the discussion on the motion for second reading, other members sit beside him and attempt to speak to him or engage in a conversation with him. I do not know whether it is to claim benefits for their own constituencies, but, in any event, they are perhaps disturbing the minister, and it would do him a service to ask others to cease representations to the minister for political favours, so that he may listen to the suggestions we have to make to him.
The minister admitted a moment ago that it was difficult to combine the 40-hour week with the $1.25 minimum wage; maybe so, but in my opinion it would be timely to add a clause at the beginning of the labour code, in which it would be mentioned that an employee of a crown corporation or of the federal government, in his relations with his supervisors, would be entitled to speak to him in the language that is best known to him.
It seems to me that it would then be rendering them justice; it would be substituting or replacing something which exists at

Labour Conditions
the present time and which is outdated, and should not exist, by something concrete.
All officials require that employees write to them in English rather than in the language with which the employee is more familiar. To let civil servants or crown corporation employees use one or the other of the official languages would be a protection and a guarantee of their rights and privileges, that is to be able to express themselves in the language which they know best.
I commend the minister for introducing this bill today. I am sending him a dozen roses and a bouquet of flowers, and I will send him another dozen roses and another bouquet of flowers if he wants to take into consideration the remarks we have just made in this connection, that is to try and protect the freedom of labour unions in crown corporations and in the various government departments and to set up an agency entirely free from crown corporations, or any department, to which a federal civil servant could appeal if he is not satisfied with a decision taken by a crown corporation or a department official. Employees will then be assured of impartiality and be protected against any linguistic discrimination which may exist.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-126 will require improvements and the same as Rome, which was not built in one day, the labour code will not be perfect in the space of one week.
If the Minister of Labour shows as much good will as he displayed in introducing Bill No. C-126, there is every reason to believe and to hope that before long Canada will have better labour legislation.


Mr. G. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to compliment the Minister of Labour and the government for introducing this legislation. I, like many of my colleagues on this side of the house, regard it as one of the principal features of the labour program that was drafted and put forward to the Canadian people by the Liberal party prior to the 1962-63 campaigns. So, to that degree when I see a government proposal coming before the house, a proposal on all fours with the principal features of its labour platform in two elections, it cannot help but afford considerable satisfaction.
I could not help but note that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was speaking he referred to a time as far back as 1919 when dealing with various aspects of this measure. I hope the hon. member will forgive me when I ask him to realize
[Mr. Gregoire.l
that I am not so preoccupied with the past, but am more vitally concerned to see the proposals we advanced prior to the last two election campaigns being implemented in legislation. I am thoroughly satisfied that this is being done. In fact I was almost overcome by that hon. member's complimentary remarks, in many spots throughout his speech, in reference to this government. I noticed how mellow he was with respect to certain features of the bill; I am unaccustomed to hear him speak in this fashion. In fact I hope next time he comes down to Hamilton East he will talk in the same vein there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member would read the whole of my speech in Hamilton East.


John Carr Munro: As has been stated, this bill packages into one, five main elements that have been talked about for a long time. It provides for a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour, for a 40 hour week, for a limit of eight hours per day, for annual vacations of two weeks with pay and for seven statutory holidays. The annual vacation of two weeks is to be after one year's employment, and it also provides for overtime of eight hours on a 40-hour week. In fact it includes much of the suggested legislation put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others, and certainly embodies completely the points that were proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he spoke in Hamilton just prior to the 1963 election.
One of the fine things we can hope for from this legislation is that it will cause pressure to be exerted on provincial legislatures to adopt similar legislation which will in effect cover the whole labour force. One of the things which contributed to the interest taken by so many members of all parties in minimum wage legislation and other minimum standards was the well known scandal in the Toronto area, which occurred in the construction trades. After the investigation which was held with respect to it, everyone was convinced that many thousands of employees were being exploited to a most considerable degree. One of the principal recommendations of the inquiring commission was that a minimum labour standard of minimum wage be adopted by the provincial government, and if this present legislation contributes to introducing this type of measure across the board we shall see the end of that kind of exploitation.

In my own city of Hamilton it is not uncommon to find construction workers, in many cases working for non-union contractors, making far less than $1.25 an hour. This legislation will help all such areas where wages are less than $1.25 an hour. We sometimes forget there are many people in urban areas who do not get $1.25 an hour, and I hope this legislation will provide a stimulus to provincial legislatures to adopt similar measures.


Erik Nielsen: Filibuster.


John Carr Munro: It is interesting to hear the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) call "filibuster". I have never heard an hon. member take up more time of the house on trivialities than he. One thing which has not been emphasized is the fact that this legislation provides minimum standards. Nobody on this side of the house pretends these standards should be the set standards, and that people should not get better standards. These are minimum standards and should be regarded as such.
Recently the United States has talked much about the question of poverty, and it seems to me that the discussion of poverty is just getting under way in Canada. One principal speech was made on it by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) some months ago.


Erik Nielsen: You have talked it out.


John Carr Munro: May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I inquire from the acting house leader what the business will be for the balance of the week?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the second reading stage of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. When that is completed we will take the committee stage, and if the house is agreeable, third reading. Then we will proceed with the balance of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, then the balance of the estimates of the Minister of Industry, namely the remainder of the Department of Defence Production and the votes for atomic energy and the national research council. Then we will take the balance of the estimates of the Department of Labour and start a new department, the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.



NATIONAL PARKS-BANFF-MEETING WITH COUNCIL RESPECTING MOTEL CONSTRUCTION

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I intend to make tonight on the late show are in relation to a question which I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with reference to our national parks, as recorded at page 8872 of Hansard for Thursday last, as follows:
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning Banff. I will put my question in two parts. Is the minister prepared now to meet the elected council of Banff; and second, is he not well aware that one of our land developers of Alberta, namely Mayor Hawrelak, is the man behind the syndicate building this particular motel in that area which is zoned against this kind of development?
I have only seven minutes to deal with this question and that makes it difficult, but first I would like to refer to page 8021 of Hansard for Tuesday, September 15, where the minister was recorded as answering a question by the former minister of northern affairs, in reference to this very matter. He said this:
Mr. Speaker, I will first of all disappoint the hon. member by telling him that I have no intention of resigning.
The Banff council, which is a democratic organization, elected by the people of Banff, have asked for the resignation of the minister on the grounds, first of all that he will not answer their letters, and second that he will not listen to any of the decisions they make. I would like to hear from the minister in that regard. He may have another side of the picture now, but this is exactly what his answer was:
This is an advisory body. In the past we have thought that in these unorganized areas within our parks such bodies were good things.
Then he said:
After the decision taken last evening-
Of course, that was asking for his resignation:
-I am going to be more cautious about the advice-
And I do not blame him:
-I accept from that particular body.
Two of the reasons given for the action were that we were running contrary to the Oberlander report, and were running contrary to recommends-
9018	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tions of the land use code. On checking into the matter I find that in the allocation of this particular property for a motel we are following the Oberlander report completely, and in addition we are following the advice of the body involved in respect of the zoning plans. So I cannot understand how they can be so ill-informed, that I shall be very careful about taking any advice from them in the future.
As I understand the minister's position, he has now agreed to meet this democratic organization; but he does not want to meet those people who made that suggestion-he will only meet part of the body. This is a ridiculous position to be in. I say to the minister that if he is going to meet this elected body, whether he likes them or not he should meet with them because they are an elected body in Banff. What is the problem? I mentioned the point about our great land developer and the syndicate. I refer to Mayor Hawrelak, mayor of Edmonton. There is no doubt about it, that because of relatives of his who are behind this particular man, he is behind the promotion in question.
What are they doing? They are agreeing, contrary to the recommendations of the interim development board and contrary to the advisory council, to build a motel in one of the best residential sections of Banff. I say this is contrary to the spirit of the National Parks Act, which is really to preserve the parks in their natural and national beauty. I put this to the minister first of all; I ask him to check tonight-and I am most serious about this-order in council No. 1,149 of 1956. I see the minister making a note of this. He will find this order in council most interesting. It zoned this area for residential purposes, or as a dual residential area, and is against the building of a motel or hotel in this area. This is one of the most beautiful spots in Banff national park; second, it is in the best residential area of those people who are serving the tourists. I say that the development in question is against the law and I would ask the minister to check into this question very carefully.


Erik Nielsen: Wasn't Hawrelak going to be a cabinet minister?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He was, but Mr. Justice Porter, who has great vision and is one of the better members of the judiciary, unseated him in another capacity. But I do not want to be sidetracked. The minister, in approving this development, is in breach of the spirit of the National Parks Act and the Oberlander report. I ask the minister to look at pages 48 to 52 of the Oberlander report. He says that in fact this is not against the


Oberlander report. First of all I would point out that it is against an order in council, and if there is a zoning bylaw contained in an order in council passed by the former Liberal government, I do not know how the minister can usurp that law.
I say that although there is a chart showing this area as a parking area and possibly a motel area, it is because there is a motel behind the area and it is not really zoned for motels. Page 48 of the Oberlander report recommends that this area be kept in its present state, in its beautiful residential state, but particularly in its beautiful state. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say there is something behind this plan. I would not make this charge against the minister because I am not that kind of fellow, but the advisory council did suggest there is something bad in this connection, that something smells in the state of Denmark, or there is some patronage. I am not saying this to the minister, but I am saying that there is so much area in the townsite of Banff and so much area in the whole of the national park, which is as big as the province of Prince Edward Island, that they could build this motel in a place other than that approved by the minister, which is contrary to the recommendations of the interim development board. On the board are two of the top officials, Mr. Strong and Mr. Dempster. When you have had a submission from a democratic organization and from the people of Banff which is contrary to the law then there is something wrong.
I am not going to discuss tonight the elected body in Banff. They are a body which demanded your resignation, sir, because they said this was patronage and that there was a pay-off. I do not know about that but I do say, let us be reasonable. They are tearing down an old building in that particular spot now. Let us leave it in its natural state. There are lots of other areas in the townsite of Banff. Why can there not be a trade or a compromise where even this great land developer of ours can build? The last time he made half a million dollars out of a similar project.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the question addressed to me by the hon. member is divided into two parts. The first is: Am I now prepared to meet the advisory committee? Under date October 9 I wrote them and I do not think I could do

better than read at this time a portion of this letter:
In my opinion the improvement to the Bow View Lodge site was entirely necessary to add to the range of accommodation available in the Banff townsite.
Until this episode I have valued the advice of the Banff advisory council and my good relationship with its members. In national park development the advice of those whose income is derived from the parks is naturally to be valued. It is also necessary to take the advice of those who seek the enjoyment of the national parks as visitors and as part of the Canadian public. The balancing of these interests is never an easy task and it is made more difficult where conclusion drawing appears to be based on suspicion and supposition.
It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that statements have been attributed to certain members of the council charging me or my officials with decisions motivated for reasons of patronage, or I believe the word used was "pay off". Such statements are absolutely untrue and beneath contempt. If the members of council have any doubt then I invite them to take the necessary legal proceedings to have the matter determined. In the alternative I request council to repudiate such allegations and any members of council responsible for them.
I have always been willing to speak to or meet with the Banff advisory council or any of the members when meetings could reasonably be arranged. On Monday, October 5, you were approached by an official of my department in Banff with the advice that I would be prepared to meet the Banff advisory council during the afternoon of Saturday, October 24, in Calgary, at which day I would be visiting that city. I am advised that in reply you stated that the council would not be in a position to decide until October 19 whether it would meet with me. If this attitude of yourself is not correctly reported, then I would be obliged to have your statement.
I am still prepared to see the members of the Banff advisory council in Calgary on the afternoon of October 24 but so far as I am concerned it will be the last meeting which I hold with the present or any future Banff advisory council until I have received their decision on my request from council concerning its collective responsibility for the statements alleging political patronage and "pay off" which I have mentioned.
I trust that my position is now clear and I look forward to having your response in due course.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would you answer the question, please?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Laing: Let me deal with the second question. The hon. member has suggested that Mayor Hawrelak of Edmonton is a participant in this project. I have no knowledge whether he is or is not. I would suggest to the hon. member that were he inquisitive enough he would probably have had a better opportunity than I to know. This lease was purchased in the days when he was supporting a government which sat on the treasury benches over here.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Has it not been assigned since? Let us be fair about it.


Arthur Laing: I know nothing of an assignment at all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then do not make statements like that if you do not know.


Arthur Laing: In respect of Mayor Hawrelak I would say this.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He will be in the cabinet soon, I know.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I should like a little extra time in view of the interruptions.
I want to tell my hon. friend this. If an application were made to us for a building in Banff the determination would not be made by us depending on whether Mr. Hawrelak were an applicant or not. I was approached by Mr. Hawrelak last year, in association with a number of other gentlemen, in connection with a project in Banff which we turned down, and that is all I know about him in Banff. Whether he is associated with this project or not I do not know. I am not interested in the general attempt of my hon. friend to use the tar brush around the edges. Projects put before us will be dealt with on their merits and will have no relationship to the individuals who make application.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister's time has expired.



TRANSPORTATION-QUEBEC-PROPOSED REDUCTION IN C.P.R. TRAIN SERVICE

Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for keeping you late tonight, but I believe that this matter is worthwhile.
On Friday last I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but, in his absence, I shall put it to the acting minister.
Could the minister ask the board of transport commissioners to intervene without delay with the C.P.R. and have the company reconsider its decision to cut to three trains per week its service between Montreal and Mont Laurier and to operate fewer trains between Ottawa and Montreal, on the north shore of the Ottawa river, that is on the Quebec side?
Such a change will be highly prejudicial to workers, students and business people in general.
Second, could the minister not convince the government that it would be better to give a grant to the C.P.R., if necessary, so as not to imperil any further the economy of my riding which is already considered as a designated area?
9020	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker asked that this question be put on the order paper.
Without criticizing the Speaker's decision, I must point out that if any question ever was urgent, this one is. Indeed, the C.P.R. intends to put its new service into effect within a fortnight.
If topics such as these do not seem as dramatic as international matters, the fact remains that we, members of parliament, were elected in a given riding, by certain electors and that we are the only political voice in parliament when such problems are raised which are of deep concern to the people.
There is no need of a one hour discussion to make the house aware of the facts.
In the case of the Ottawa-Montreal line, the C.P.R. had two round trips on the Quebec shore.
Hundreds of workers used to take those trains to their work and back. Hundreds of students used that transportation to travel either to the capital city or to the metropolis. Hundreds of businessmen and travellers also used those facilities.
I might add that the area which is most affected, the one extending from Buckingham to Lachute, is an area where, because of the magnificent lakes and forests, the tourist industry is highly developed.
But it so happens that the C.P.R. has just cut the number of its trains by half. Why? For reasons of economy, of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The situation is even worse in Mont Laurier where the C.P.R. has cut down its trains from Montreal to three a week.
Mont Laurier, Mr. Chairman, is a tourist's paradise.
What kind of a policy is this which allows a private company, enjoying privileges almost equal to those of a crown corporation, to operate a system as long as it is a good paying proposition and to discontinue its services the moment it cannot make enough profits?
After all, the C.P.R. operates a public service, and the board of transport commissioners must immediately try to prevent a hopeless situation.
As I pointed out last Friday, half of my constituency is a designated area.
It is useless to speak about an economic recovery when the government knowingly allows the economy to deteriorate.
I have received letters, telegrams, telephone calls and resolutions from municipal councils. I know that my colleagues from Terrebonne (Mr. Cadieux) and from Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) have also received


some. I know that the Minister of Transport is aware of those things. Then, what is the government waiting for to act quickly before it is too late?
I am calling for immediate action on behalf of my constituents and those of neighbouring ridings.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company notified the board of transport commissioners on September 21, 1964, of their intention to discontinue certain passenger train services effective October 25, 1964. Notices to this effect were posted in all railway stations served by the trains affected. The changes involve a reduction in the existing service between Ottawa and Montreal via the north shore and between Montreal and Mont Laurier. The changes do not involve the complete abandonment of passenger train service on either of the runs and consequently the railway company is under no obligation to secure the approval of the board of transport commissioners before making adjustments.
Because of the volume and substance of objections filed with the board with respect to the Ottawa-Montreal service, the railway company was directed by the board on October 9 to continue the existing service, pending a hearing to determine whether the operation of such trains should be continued or be allowed to be discontinued.
Up to the present time only one complaint has reached the board with respect to the Montreal-Mont Laurier service. The C.P.R. is being requested to file a submission by way of answer to this complaint and in the meantime no action has been taken to interfere with the proposed reduction of passenger train service on this latter run.
I might add that the representations made by the hon. member who has just spoken have also been drawn to the board's attention. Following investigation of complaints arising from the changes, the board has authority to ask the railway company concerned to continue the service or, if the service has been discontinued, to restore the service if such action is considered necessary in the public interest.



NATURAL RESOURCES-MAGAZINE ARTICLE ALLEGING PLUNDERING BY U.S. SPORTSMEN

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the Minister

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
of Northern Affairs and National Resources taking to protect our valuable fish resources the following question:	in the north?
Would the minister inform the house what action he has taken to deal with this latest and graphic example of the plundering of Canadian natural resources by our United States neighbours?
My question was based on an article that appeared in Maclean's magazine of October 17, which was brought to my attention by two or three people who are very interested in this subject, and as a person who has been a practising conservationist for over 50 years I said I would bring the matter to the attention of the minister. This article is rather disturbing. It is entitled: "How Wealthy Sportsmen Are Plundering Our Last Frontier". It goes on to say:
Right now, Tree river is the hottest spot in North America for the spare no expense angler. It's also the most fiercely abused. As such, it's a shameful symbol of what we're allowing to happen to our fastest growing Arctic industry.
The article is very interesting indeed and I wish to quote a paragraph or two which particularly concerned the people who brought this matter to my attention. On page 40 of the magazine I read the following:
Last June, Donald Snowden, then chief of northern affairs' industrial division, tried to rescue sport fishing in the territories from its own success. He called meetings in Edmonton, among camp operators, bush pilots and fisheries experts, to discuss conservation.
The article also contains these words:
How soon will time run out for the char in the Tree river? The fisheries research board said last spring that, the way things were going up till then, there would be no more char in the Tree by the end of next summer. And an anonymous northern affairs official reported to his superiors that unless some order and some restraint were introduced to sport fishing throughout the territories, "We can expect a peak of frantic, competitive development passing from area to area and from lake to lake and from river to river with little left in its wake except abandoned buildings and campsites."
There are other paragraphs in this article in a similar vein. In any event, after reading it through very carefully, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that this is a question that should receive the serious consideration of the minister. I ask him these two particular questions: I presume that as a result of my questions on Friday he has read the article and made some inquiries. My questions are, first, is this article substantially correct in its outline of the situation to which I have referred? If so, what action is the minister


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the article here. As my hon. friend has said, it starts on page 19 and goes over to page 38. I want to remind him that this is a fish story. As is the case with most fish stories, a certain amount of exaggeration is traditional and even permissible. Since we are endeavouring to develop the tourist business in the Northwest Territories, I am not too sad about it. The article relates to one small area, the Tree river which is a river flowing into the Great Bear lake, an area of about 11,000 square miles. Due to the means of transport by which fishermen can go in, the fishing camps are concentrated. One of the camps sustains 55 anglers at a time, so there is a tendency to fish out that particular area.
Dealing with the Tree area, I want to assure the hon. member that this was brought to my attention last January when I was in the United States. I picked up a very beautiful piece of literature showing a number of United States citizens holding up large fish they had obtained from Great Slave lake. Across the bottom of it was written, "We guarantee you 300 pounds of fish a day." I took this matter up with my officers at once. I am assured by them that most of the things that are written here are now past tense, because the operators themselves are fully conscious of what this would mean to them in the end. They have gotten together. In addition, the R.C.M.P. have decided to reduce the take of char out of the Tree river down to two tons for their dogs. They have been taking more than this. I can assure the hon. member, therefore, we are aware of the situation.
The control of the fishery is in the hands of the fisheries department. The R.C.M.P. and our wardens, in these very remote areas are in control of the management of the resources. The article relates to one or two very localized areas. We think and hope there are many fishing areas on Great Bear lake and we look toward a tremendous increase in tourism in that area. I can assure my hon. friend that the article is a little bit overdone, but from our point of view probably designed to attract a large number of visitors next year. A number of Canadians of course are going in. This is expensive fishing. I believe it costs $760 or $900 round trip from Edmonton, with seven days of fishing. We are try-
9022	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ing to develop this. The operators themselves of course realize that if this is going to be a permanent industry, the fish must be sustained. I can assure him our officers, the R.C.M.P. and the operators themselves are

all conscious of the situation, and very largely the matters related in the article are in the past tense and are under control.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Wednesday, October 14, 1964